Dick McGrath, Professor of Theology at Thomas More College and founding member of A.R.T. spoke March 8 on the durably problematic Shroud of Turin. The shroud is an ancient religious relic kept in the Royal Chapel, a Roman Catholic cathedral in Turin, Italy. It is believed by some to be the burial shroud of Jesus. Skeptics are inclined to believe that the shroud is a medieval hoax. Dick's approach, firmly skeptical of both these positions, immediately won him the undivided attention of his audience. In his opinion the authenticity of the shroud has been neither proved nor disproved. Those who believe it is the burial shroud of Jesus have only their faith to support their claim, while those who insist that it is a medieval hoax are confronted with inconvenient shreds of evidence they have been unable to sweep away.
A major proponent of the devout view of the shroud is Rodney Hoare, who wrote The Turin Shroud Is Genuine: The Irrefutable Evidence (1994) a book dedicated to proving the authenticity of the shroud, if not to an impartial assessment of the evidence regarding the shroud. Skeptic Joe Nickell has written a book representing the major skeptical position on the shroud, that it was a medieval fake. His book is The Inquest on the Shroud of Turin, published in 1983.
Dick began his guided tour with a description of the shroud, a strip of ivory linen 14 feet long, three feet seven inches wide, and obviously a burial shroud. Imprinted on the shroud is a faint image, easier to see in a photograph than when viewing the shroud itself, of the front and back of a naked, bearded, and apparently crucified body. The image is formed as though the shroud were laid under the entire length of the body, up over the head, and from the head down to the toes. It was not wrapped around the body in a spiral. The image is a reverse image, like the negative of a photograph. The linen is good linen, a little heavier than shirt cloth, and well-woven. But the fiber content and manner of weaving are of no use in dating the cloth, since linen has been spun and woven in this way for millennia, and is known to endure for thousands of years.
The image is a very pale sepia. There are also marks that are obviously the result of fire damage incurred when the buildings where it was stored burned. There are also water stains, likely from water used to put out fire, and blood stains. The image includes evidence of scourging, a crown of thorns and a wound in the side, as mentioned in biblical accounts of Jesus's death. Although crucifixion was a common means of execution in Jesus's time, the use of a crown of thorns, wounding the side, and scourging may have been less common.
There is documentary evidence that the shroud passed through many hands before it reached its current home in Turin. But establishing the falsity or authenticity of the shroud is hampered by gaps in the historical record of its whereabouts. The biblical accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus mention a folded linen associated with his burial, but there is no mention of a linen marked with an image. There are scattered reports of a shroud bearing an image by pilgrims visiting biblical lands in the centuries before the crusades. The Knights Templar captured the shroud during their siege of Constantinople in 1100, took it to France, and placed it in the care of Jeffrey DeCharny. For some years before 1532, it was kept by an order of nuns, the Poor Clares, at St. Chapelle in Paris. When St. Chapelle burned in that year, nuns trimmed away burned portions and patched the fabric. There is also documentary evidence for several other locations in France and Italy. The shroud has been at Turin since 1578.
There is documentary evidence the shroud now at Turin was owned by the House of Savoy in 1460. Before 1460, it was owned by Margaret DeCharny, who inherited it from her father. Margaret DeCharny is thought not to have forged the shroud because she refused to exhibit it, an action from which she could have profited. The Duke of Savoy also is thought not to have forged the shroud for the same reason.
The earliest known investigation of the shroud was undertaken when the shroud was displayed in public at Troyes during the middle ages. In 1389 Bishop Pierre D'Arcis of Troyes wrote to the Pope accusing a cleric in his diocese of presenting a cunningly painted phony shroud to the public for money. This letter is a mainstay of the skeptical argument that the shroud is a painted hoax, but the letter is not the whole story. D'Arcis was angry because the priest had not consulted him before displaying the shroud. He was also irritated because the shroud was not displayed at his cathedral, which could have used the income his entrepreneurial subordinate earned by turning the shroud into a tourist attraction.
All modern researchers conclude that the image on the shroud is not paint, as D'Arcis claimed. Nevertheless, D'Arcis's claim is the basis of Joe Nickell's position that the shroud is a medieval fake. Evidence that the image is not a painting includes chemical analyses and the fact that the image at a range close enough to paint it is too faint to see. In addition, the anatomy of the body in the image is that of an actual body, unlike the body images usually used by medieval artists, who knew little about anatomy. In addition, the image does not include two medieval cliches associated with images of Jesus, a loin cloth and a halo. Modern research can find no indication that brush strokes were used, which also suggests that it is not a painting as D'Arcis claimed.
A variety of theories attempt to explain how the image was put on the linen if it was not painted. Some involve natural chemical processes that could have occurred between the linen, the body that it wrapped, and material in the tomb. Experiments indicate that if conditions were right, the image could have appeared because of reactions between the warm corpse, the linen and other materials. Another theory suggests that the corpse was stained with red ocher, which rubbed off on the linen. This theory has been tanked along with the other "painted image" theories. Another theory, a favorite among the religiously motivated, suggests that the image consists of linen fibers singed by a flash of bright light caused by the resurrection of the body. Unfortunately for backers of this theory, investigation suggests that if such a light were bright enough to burn the image into the cloth, it would have been hot enough to incinerate the entire shroud.
Dick's conclusion is that the jury is still out on the question of how the image was formed. None of the evidence is persuasive, in part because the shroud has rarely been examined, due to the reluctance of religious authorities to permit tampering with an object of great religious significance. Methodological problems have also complicated the problem. Even recent research has not been properly controlled. Carbon 14 dating of the shroud has been carried out, placing the date of the linen itself at 1260-1390 but possible contamination of the samples, possible confusion of the original linen fibers with fungus and bacteria accumulated over the centuries, and possible bias caused by telling researchers what date was expected have marred the results. Better methodology better controlled is needed.
Dick's conclusion pleases neither the religionists nor the skeptics. His evaluation of the evidence is that the believers' theory that this linen cloth is the shroud of Jesus is not supported, but neither is the skeptical notion that it is a medieval hoax. There is no satisfactory explanation for the image at present. A careful scientifically controlled study in which every effort is made to avoid experimental bias followed by complete publication of all the evidence discovered might be able to answer some of the questions raised by earlier work. The Roman Catholic Church, Dick added, has no official position on the status of the shroud.
Copyright 1992-2005, The Association for Rational Thought