   #copyright

Shroud of Turin

2007 Schools Wikipedia Selection. Related subjects: Religious disputes

   The first photo of the Shroud of Turin, taken in 1898, had the
   surprising feature that the image on the negative was clearer than the
   positive image.
   Enlarge
   The first photo of the Shroud of Turin, taken in 1898, had the
   surprising feature that the image on the negative was clearer than the
   positive image.

   The Shroud of Turin (or Turin Shroud) is an ancient linen cloth bearing
   the image of a man who appears to have been physically traumatized in a
   manner consistent with crucifixion. It is presently kept in the royal
   chapel of the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, Italy. Some
   believe it is the cloth that covered Jesus of Nazareth when he was
   placed in his tomb and that his image was somehow recorded on its
   fibers as a photographic negative at or near the time of his proclaimed
   resurrection. Skeptics contend the shroud is a medieval hoax or forgery
   — or even a devotional work of artistic verisimilitude. It is the
   subject of intense debate among some scientists, believers, historians
   and writers, regarding where, when and how the shroud and its images
   were created.

   Arguments and evidence cited against a miraculous origin of the shroud
   images include a letter from a medieval bishop to the Avignon pope
   claiming personal knowledge that the image was cleverly painted to gain
   money from pilgrims; radiocarbon tests in 1988 that yielded a medieval
   timeframe for the cloth's fabrication; and analysis of the image by
   microscopist Walter McCrone, who concluded ordinary pigments were used.

   Arguments and evidence cited for the shroud's being something other
   than a medieval forgery include textile and material analysis pointing
   to a 1st-century origin; the unusual properties of the image itself
   which some claim could not have been produced by any image forming
   technique known before the 19th century; objective indications that the
   1988 radiocarbon dating was invalid due to erroneous sampling; and
   repeated peer-reviewed analyses of the image mode which strongly
   contradict McCrone's assertions.

   Both skeptics and proponents tend to have entrenched positions on the
   cause of image formation on the shroud, which has made dialogue very
   difficult. This may prevent the issue from ever being fully settled to
   the satisfaction of all sides.

General observations

   Secondo Pia's negative of the image on the Shroud of Turin has an
   appearance suggesting a positive image. Many Christians believe this
   image to be the face of Jesus, and thus the face of God.
   Enlarge
   Secondo Pia's negative of the image on the Shroud of Turin has an
   appearance suggesting a positive image. Many Christians believe this
   image to be the face of Jesus, and thus the face of God.

   The shroud is rectangular, measuring approximately 4.4 × 1.1 m (14.3 ×
   3.7 ft). The cloth is woven in a herringbone twill and is composed of
   flax fibrils entwined with cotton fibrils. It bears the image of a
   front and dorsal view of a naked man with his hands folded across his
   groin. The two views are aligned along the midplane of the body and
   pointing in opposite directions. The front and back views of the head
   nearly meet at the middle of the cloth. The views are consistent with
   an orthographic projection of a human body, but see Analysis of
   artistic style

   The "Man of the Shroud" has a beard, moustache, and shoulder-length
   hair parted in the middle. He is well-proportioned and muscular, and
   quite tall (1.75 m or roughly 5 ft 9 in) for a man of the first century
   (the time of Jesus' death) or for the Middle Ages (the time of the
   first uncontested report of the shroud's existence, and the proposed
   time of possible forgery). Dark red stains, either blood or a substance
   meant to be perceived as blood, are found on the cloth, showing various
   wounds:
     * at least one wrist bears a large, round wound, apparently from
       piercing (The second wrist is hidden by the folding of the hands)
     * in the side, again apparently from piercing
     * small wounds around the forehead
     * scores of linear wounds on the torso and legs, apparently from
       scourging.

   On May 28, 1898, amateur Italian photographer Secondo Pia took the
   first photograph of the shroud and was startled by the negative in his
   darkroom. The negative gave the appearance of a positive image, which
   implies that the shroud image is itself effectively a negative of some
   kind, as a negative of a negative is a positive. (Strictly speaking,
   the image on the shroud is a relief negative, in which areas of the
   body touching the cloth are darker, not a photographic negative, in
   which areas of the body with lighter pigmentation would appear darker
   on the cloth. An example of this distinction can be seen in the beard,
   which appears darkest on the shroud at the tip of the chin, where it
   would touch the cloth.) Observers often feel that the detail and heft
   of the man on the shroud is greatly enhanced in the photographic
   negative. Pia's results intensified interest in the shroud and sparked
   renewed efforts to determine its origin.

History

Possible history before the 14th century: The Image of Edessa

   This 10th-century image shows Abgarus of Edessa displaying the Image of
   Edessa. The oblong cloth shown here is unusual for depictions of the
   image, leading some to suggest that the artist was influenced by seeing
   the Shroud.
   This 10th-century image shows Abgarus of Edessa displaying the Image of
   Edessa. The oblong cloth shown here is unusual for depictions of the
   image, leading some to suggest that the artist was influenced by seeing
   the Shroud.

   According to the Gospel of John (20:5-7), the Apostles John and Peter
   entered the sepulchre of Jesus, shortly after his resurrection — of
   which they were still unaware — and found the "linen clothes" that had
   wrapped his body and "the napkin, that was about his head".

   There are numerous reports of Jesus' burial shroud, or an image of his
   head, of unknown origin, being venerated in various locations before
   the fourteenth century (See Humbert, 1978). However, none of these
   reports has been connected with certainty to the current cloth held in
   the Turin cathedral. Except for the Image of Edessa, none of the
   reports of these (up to 43) different "true shrouds" was known to
   mention an image of a body.

   The Image of Edessa was reported to contain the image of the face of
   Christ (Jesus), and its existence is reported reliably since the sixth
   century. Some have suggested a connection between the Shroud of Turin
   and the Image of Edessa. No legend connected with that image suggests
   that it contained the image of a beaten and bloody Jesus, but rather it
   was said to be an image transferred by Jesus to the cloth in life. This
   image is generally described as depicting only the face of Jesus, not
   the entire body. Proponents of the theory that the Edessa image was
   actually the shroud, led by Ian Wilson, theorize that it was always
   folded in such a way as to show only the face.

   Three principal pieces of evidence are cited in favour of the
   identification with the shroud. John Damascene mentions the image in
   his anti- iconoclastic work On Holy Images , describing the Edessa
   image as being a "strip", or oblong cloth, rather than a square, as
   other accounts of the Edessa cloth hold.
   This image from a Hungarian manuscript dates from 1192 to 1195. Shroud
   proponents cite it as evidence for the shroud's existence before the
   fourteenth century, citing an L-shaped patch near the hands, which
   would correspond to four burn holes in the relic. Also, the weave of
   the cloth in the lower panel suggests to them the unusual weave of the
   shroud.
   Enlarge
   This image from a Hungarian manuscript dates from 1192 to 1195. Shroud
   proponents cite it as evidence for the shroud's existence before the
   fourteenth century, citing an L-shaped patch near the hands, which
   would correspond to four burn holes in the relic. Also, the weave of
   the cloth in the lower panel suggests to them the unusual weave of the
   shroud.

   On the occasion of the transfer of the cloth to Constantinople in 944,
   Gregory Referendarius, archdeacon of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople,
   preached a sermon about the artifact. This sermon had been lost, but
   was rediscovered in the Vatican Archives and translated by Mark Guscin
   in 2004. This sermon says that this Edessa Cloth contained not only the
   face, but a full-length image, which was believed to be of Jesus. The
   sermon also mentions bloodstains from a wound in the side. Other
   documents have since been found in the Vatican library and the
   University of Leiden, Netherlands, confirming this impression. "Non
   tantum faciei figuram sed totius corporis figuram cernere poteris" (You
   can see not only the figure of a face, but [also] the figure of the
   whole body). ( In Italian) (Cf. Codex Vossianus Latinus Q69 and Vatican
   Library Codex 5696, p. 35.)

   In 1203, a Crusader Knight named Robert de Clari claims to have seen
   the cloth in Constantinople: "Where there was the Shroud in which our
   Lord had been wrapped, which every Friday raised itself upright so one
   could see the figure of our Lord on it." After the Fourth Crusade, in
   1205, the following letter was sent by Theodore Angelos, a nephew of
   one of three Byzantine Emperors who were deposed during the Fourth
   Crusade, to Pope Innocent III protesting the attack on the capital.
   From the document, dated 1 August 1205: "The Venetians partitioned the
   treasures of gold, silver, and ivory while the French did the same with
   the relics of the saints and the most sacred of all, the linen in which
   our Lord Jesus Christ was wrapped after his death and before the
   resurrection. We know that the sacred objects are preserved by their
   predators in Venice, in France, and in other places, the sacred linen
   in Athens." (Codex Chartularium Culisanense, fol. CXXVI (copia),
   National Library Palermo)

   Unless it is the Shroud of Turin, then the location of the Image of
   Edessa since the 13th century is unknown.

   Some historians speculate that the shroud may have been found in
   Constantinople by the Knights Templar during the 12th or 13th century
   and subsequentially taken to France. This could have been a major part
   of the famed 'Templar treasure' that treasure hunters still seek today.

14th century

   The known provenance of the cloth now stored in Turin dates to 1357,
   when the widow of the French knight Geoffroi de Charny had it displayed
   in a church at Lirey, France (diocese of Troyes). In the Museum Cluny
   in Paris, the coats of arms of this knight and his widow can be seen on
   a pilgrim medallion, which also shows an image of the Shroud of Turin.
   This has led two Masonic historians, Christopher Knight and Robert
   Lomas, to write a book suggesting that the negative image is that of
   Knights Templar leader Jacques de Molay.

   During the fourteenth century, the shroud was often publicly exposed,
   though not continuously, since the bishop of Troyes, Henri de Poitiers,
   had prohibited veneration of the image. Thirty-two years after this
   pronouncement, the image was displayed again, and King Charles VI of
   France ordered its removal to Troyes, citing the impropriety of the
   image. The sheriffs were unable to carry out the order.

   In 1389 the image was denounced as a fraud by Bishop Pierre D'Arcis in
   a letter to the Avignon pope, mentioning that the image had previously
   been denounced by his predecessor Henri de Poitiers, who had been
   concerned that no such image was mentioned in scripture. Bishop D'Arcis
   continued, "Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he
   discovered how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth
   being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a
   work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed." (In
   German: .) The artist is not named in the letter.

   The letter of Bishop D'Arcis also mentions Bishop Henri's attempt to
   suppress veneration, but notes that the cloth was quickly hidden "for
   35 years or so", thus agreeing with the historical details already
   established above. The letter provides an accurate description of the
   cloth: "upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold
   image of one man, that is to say, the back and the front, he falsely
   declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our
   Saviour Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb, and upon which the whole
   likeness of the Saviour had remained thus impressed together with the
   wounds which He bore."

   If the claims of this testimony are correct, it would be consistent
   with the radiocarbon dating of the shroud (see below). From the point
   of view of many skeptics, it is one of the strongest pieces of evidence
   that the shroud is a forgery.

   Despite the pronouncement of Bishop D'Arcis, Antipope Clement VII
   (first antipope of the Western Schism) prescribed indulgences for
   pilgrimages to the shroud, so that veneration continued, though the
   shroud was not permitted to be styled the "True Shroud".

15th century

   In 1418, Humbert of Villersexel, Count de la Roche, Lord of
   Saint-Hippolyte-sur-Doubs, moved the shroud to his castle at Montfort,
   France, to provide protection against criminal bands, after he married
   Charny's granddaughter Margaret. It was later moved to
   Saint-Hippolyte-sur-Doubs. After Humbert's death, canons of Lirey
   fought through the courts to force the widow to return the cloth, but
   the parliament of Dole and the Court of Besançon left it to the widow,
   who travelled with the shroud to various expositions, notably in Liège
   and Geneva.

   The widow sold the image in exchange for a castle in Varambon, France
   in 1453. Louis of Savoy, the new owner, stored it in his capital at
   Chambery in the newly built Saint-Chapelle, which Pope Paul II shortly
   thereafter raised to the dignity of a collegiate church. In 1464, the
   duke agreed to pay an annual fee to the Lirey canons in exchange for
   their dropping claims of ownership of the cloth. Beginning in 1471, the
   shroud was moved between many cities of Europe, being housed briefly in
   Vercelli, Turin, Ivrea, Susa, Chambery, Avigliano, Rivoli and Pinerolo.
   A description of the cloth by two sacristans of the Sainte-Chapelle
   from around this time noted that it was stored in a reliquary:
   "enveloped in a red silk drape, and kept in a case covered with crimson
   velours, decorated with silver-gilt nails, and locked with a golden
   key".

16th century to present

   This poster advertises the 1898 exhibition of the shroud.
   Enlarge
   This poster advertises the 1898 exhibition of the shroud.

   In 1532 the shroud suffered damage from a fire in the chapel where it
   was stored. A drop of molten silver from the reliquary produced a
   symmetrically placed mark through the layers of the folded cloth. Poor
   Clare Nuns attempted to repair this damage with patches. Some have
   suggested that there was also water damage from the extinguishing of
   the fire. In 1578 the shroud arrived again at its current location in
   Turin. It was the property of the House of Savoy until 1983, when it
   was given to the Holy See.

   In 1988 the Holy See agreed to a radiocarbon dating of the relic, for
   which a small piece from a corner of the shroud was removed, divided,
   and sent to laboratories. (More on the testing is seen below.) Another
   fire, possibly caused by arson, threatened the shroud in 1997, but a
   fireman was able to remove it from its display case and prevent further
   damage. In 2002 the Holy See had the shroud restored. The cloth backing
   and thirty patches were removed. This made it possible to photograph
   and scan the reverse side of the cloth, which had been hidden from
   view. Using sophisticated mathematical and optical techniques, a
   ghostly part-image of the body was found on the back of the shroud in
   2004. Italian scientists had exposed the faint imprint of the face and
   hands of the figure. The most recent public exhibition of the Shroud
   was in 2000 for the Great Jubilee. The next scheduled exhibition is in
   2025.

The controversy

   The origin of the relic is hotly disputed. Those who believe it to have
   been used in Christ's burial have coined the term sindonology to
   describe its study (from Greek σινδων — sindon, the word used in the
   Gospel of Mark to describe the cloth that Joseph of Arimathea bought to
   use as Jesus' burial cloth). The term is generally not used by skeptics
   of the mystical origins of the relic.

   It may be impossible to ever fully resolve the controversy over the
   cloth because some believers are willing to accept supernatural
   explanations for the creation of the image, which lack falsifiability,
   while most skeptics do not consider any supernatural explanations to be
   acceptable. Three independent radiocarbon datings of the shroud (all
   working from the same controversial sample) date it between 1260 and
   1390. Some have suggested that the shroud being caught in the fire
   could have effectively increased the level of Carbon 14 in the cloth
   leading to a date in history later than the burial of Jesus.

Theories of image formation

   The image on the cloth is entirely superficial, not penetrating into
   the cloth fibers under the surface, so that the flax and cotton fibers
   are not colored. Thus the cloth is not simply dyed, though many other
   explanations, natural and otherwise, have been suggested for the image
   formation.

Miraculous formation

   Many believers consider the image to be a side effect of the
   Resurrection of Jesus, sometimes proposing semi-natural effects that
   might have been part of the process. These theories are not verifiable,
   and skeptics reject them out of hand. Some have suggested that the
   shroud collapsed through the glorified body of Jesus. Supporters of
   this theory point to certain X-ray-like impressions of the teeth and
   the finger bones. Others suggest that radiation caused by the
   miraculous event may have burned the image into the cloth. Another
   point against the veracity of the shroud is the Jewish custom to
   separately wrap the head. Other Catholic and extra-biblical accounts
   mention a hood that covered Jesus' head. If the later account is
   accurate then it suggests the falsehood of the shroud. A relic that is
   believed to be the cloth placed on the head has an image that is
   different from the image of the Shroud of Turin.

Carbohydrate layer

   A scientific theory that does not rule out the association of the
   shroud with Jesus involves the gases that escape from a dead body in
   the early phases of decomposition. The cellulose fibers making up the
   shroud's cloth are coated with a thin carbohydrate layer of starch
   fractions, various sugars and other impurities. This layer is very thin
   (180 – 600 nm) and was discovered by applying phase contrast
   microscopy. It is thinnest where the image is and appears to carry the
   color, while the underlying cloth is uncolored. This carbohydrate layer
   would itself be essentially colorless but in some places has undergone
   a chemical change producing a straw yellow colour. The reaction
   involved is similar to that which takes place when sugar is heated to
   produce caramel.

   In a paper entitled "The Shroud of Turin: an amino-carbonyl reaction
   may explain the image formation",^ R. N. Rogers and A. Arnoldi propose
   a natural explanation. Amines from a human body will have Maillard
   reactions with the carbohydrate layer within a reasonable time, before
   liquid decomposition products stain or damage the cloth. The gases
   produced by a dead body are extremely reactive chemically and within a
   few hours, in an environment such as a tomb, a body starts to produce
   heavier amines in its tissues such as putrescine and cadaverine. These
   will produce the colour seen in the carbohydrate layer. But it raises
   questions about why the images (both ventral and dorsal views) are so
   photorealistic and why they were not destroyed by later decomposition
   products (a question obviated if the Resurrection occurred, or if a
   body was removed from the cloth within the required timeframe).

Auto-oxidation

   Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas (1997) claim that the image on the
   shroud is that of Jacques de Molay, the last Grand Master of the Order
   of the Knights Templar, arrested for heresy at the Paris Temple by
   Philip IV of France on October 13, 1307. De Molay suffered torture
   under the auspices of the Chief Inquisitor of France, William Imbert.
   His arms and legs were nailed, possibly to a large wooden door.
   According to Knight and Lomas, after the torture de Molay was laid on a
   piece of cloth on a soft bed; the excess section of the cloth was
   lifted over his head to cover his front and he was left, perhaps in a
   coma, for perhaps 30 hours. They claim that the use of a shroud is
   explained by the Paris Temple keeping shrouds for ceremonial purposes.

   De Molay survived the torture but was burned at the stake on March 19,
   1314 together with Geoffroy de Charney, Templar preceptor of Normandy.
   de Charney's grandson was Jean de Charney who died at the battle of
   Poitiers. After his death, his widow, Jeanne de Vergy, purportedly
   found the shroud in his possession and had it displayed at a church in
   Lirey.

   Knight and Lomas base their argument partly on the 1988 radiocarbon
   dating and Mills 1995 research about a chemical reaction called
   auto-oxidation, and they claim that their theory accords with the
   factors known about the creation of the shroud and the carbon dating
   results.

Photographic image production

   Some viewers see a strong resemblance between this alleged
   self-portrait of Leonardo da Vinci and the Man of the Shroud.
   Enlarge
   Some viewers see a strong resemblance between this alleged
   self-portrait of Leonardo da Vinci and the Man of the Shroud.

   Skeptics have proposed many means for producing the image in the Middle
   Ages. Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince (1994) proposed that the shroud is
   perhaps the first ever example of photography, showing the portrait of
   its alleged maker, Leonardo da Vinci. According to this theory, the
   image was made with the aid of a magic lantern, a simple projecting
   device, or by means of a camera obscura and light-sensitive silver
   compounds applied to the cloth.

   However, Leonardo was born a century after the first documented
   appearance of the cloth. Supporters of this theory thus propose that
   the original cloth was a poor fake, for which Leonardo created a
   superior hoax and substituted it, although no contemporaneous reports
   indicate a sudden change in the quality of the image. There exists in
   the Turin Library an image of an old man, thought to be a self portrait
   of Leonardo, and because this image depicts a man with prominent brow
   and cheekbones and a beard, some have seen in it a likeness to the
   image on the Shroud and suggested that as part of a complex hoax, (and
   to thumb his nose at the Church) Leonardo may have placed his own
   portrait on the Shroud as the face of Christ.

   It is also a theory that he was commissioned by the royal family of
   Turin, with whom he was friends, to have done this to bring back to
   Turin what was lost from them so many years prior to this. It should be
   noted that Picknett and Prince's theories, appealing as they are to the
   imagination, are not taken seriously by most academic scholars. They
   are based upon many suppositions. It is not at all certain that the
   figure represented in the Turin Library's drawing is actually Leonardo.
   The notion proposed by them that Leonardo was a non-Christian heretic
   or pagan is similarly rejected by historians.

Painting

   In 1977, a team of scientists selected by the Holy Shroud Guild
   developed a program of tests to conduct on the Shroud, designated the
   Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP). Cardinal Ballestrero, the
   archbishop of Turin, granted permission, despite disagreement within
   the Church. The STURP scientists conducted their testing over five days
   in 1978. Walter McCrone, a member of the team, upon analyzing the
   samples he had, concluded in 1979 that the image is actually made up of
   billions of submicron pigment particles. The only fibrils that had been
   made available for testing of the stains were those that remained
   affixed to custom-designed adhesive-backed tape applied to thirty-two
   different sections of the image. (This was done in order to avoid
   damaging the cloth.) According to McCrone, the pigments used were a
   combination of red ochre and vermilion tempera paint. The Electron
   Optics Group of McCrone Associates published the results of these
   studies in five articles in peer-reviewed journals: Microscope 1980,
   28, 105, 115; 1981, 29, 19; Wiener Berichte uber Naturwissenschaft in
   der Kunst 1987/1988, 4/5, 50 and Acc. Chem. Res. 1990, 23, 77-83.
   STURP, upon learning of his findings, confiscated McCrone's samples and
   brought in other scientists to replace him. In McCrone's words, he was
   "drummed out" of STURP, and continued to defend the analysis he had
   performed, becoming a prominent proponent of the position that the
   Shroud is a forgery. As of 2004, no other scientists have confirmed
   McCrone's results with independent experiments.

   Other microscopic analysis of the fibers seems to indicate that the
   image is strictly limited to the carbohydrate layer, with no additional
   layer of pigment visible. Proponents of the position that the Shroud is
   authentic say that no known technique for hand-application of paint
   could apply a pigment with the necessary degree of control on such a
   nano-scale fibrillar surface plane.

   In the television program "Decoding The Past: The Shroud of Turin", The
   History Channel reported the official finding of STURP that no pigments
   were found in the shroud image, and multiple scientists asserted this
   conclusion on camera. No hint of controversy over this claim was
   suggested. The program stated that a NASA scientist organized STURP in
   1976 (after being surprised to find depth-dimensional information
   encoded within the shroud image); no mention of the Holy Shroud Guild
   was made.

Solar masking, or "shadow theory"

   In March 2005 Nathan Wilson, an instructor at New Saint Andrews College
   and amateur sindonologist, announced in an informal article in Books
   and Culture magazine that he had made a near-duplicate of the shroud
   image by exposing dark linen to the sun for ten days under a sheet of
   glass on which a positive mask had been painted. His method, though
   admittedly crude and preliminary, has nonetheless attracted the
   attention of several sindonologists, notably the late Dr. Raymond
   Rogers of the original STURP team, and Dr. Antonio Lombatti, founder of
   the skeptical shroud journal Approfondimento Sindone. Wilson's method
   is notable because it does not require any conjectures about unknown
   medieval technologies, and is compatible with claims that there is no
   pigment on the cloth. However, the experiment has not been repeated and
   the images have yet to face microscopic and chemical analyses. In
   addition, concerns have been raised about the availability or
   affordability of medieval glass large enough to produce the image, and
   the method's compatibility with Fanti's claim that the original image
   is doubly superficial.

Using a Bas-Relief

   Another theory suggests that the Shroud may have been formed using a
   bas-relief sculpture. Researcher Jacques di Costanzo, noting that the
   Shroud image seems to have a three-dimensional quality, suggested that
   perhaps the image was formed using an actual three-dimensional object,
   like a sculpture. While wrapping a cloth around full life-sized statue
   would result in a distorted image, placing a cloth over a bas-relief
   would result in an image like the one seen on the shroud. To
   demonstrate the plausibility of his theory, Constanzo constructed a
   bas-relief of a Jesus-like face and draped a wet linen over the
   bas-relief. After the linen dried, he dabbed it with ferric oxide and
   gelatine mixture. The result was an image similar to that of the
   Shroud. Similar results have been obtained by author Joe Nickell.
   Instead of painting, the bas-relief could also be heated and used to
   burn an image into the cloth.

Second Image on back of cloth

   During restoration in 2002, the back of the cloth was photographed and
   scanned for the first time. The journal of the Institute of Physics in
   London published a peer-reviewed article on this subject on April 14,
   2004. Giulio Fanti and Roberto Maggiolo of the University of Padua,
   Italy, are the authors. They describe an image on the reverse side,
   much fainter than that on the other side, consisting primarily of the
   face and hands. Like the front image, it is entirely superficial, with
   coloration limited to the carbohydrate layer. The images correspond to,
   and are in registration with, those on the other side of the cloth. No
   image is detectable in the dorsal view section of the shroud.

   Supporters of the Maillard reaction theory point out that the gases
   would have been less likely to penetrate the entire cloth on the dorsal
   side, since the body would have been laid on a stone shelf. At the same
   time, the second image makes the photographic theory somewhat less
   probable.

Analyses of the Shroud

Radiocarbon dating

   In 1988, the Holy See permitted three research centers to independently
   perform radiocarbon dating on portions of a swatch taken from a corner
   of the shroud. All three, Oxford University, the University of Arizona,
   and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology agreed with a dating in
   the 13th to 14th centuries (1260-1390), although recently published
   chemical analysis (see below) indicates that the sample used was
   invalid (people think that the material used may have come from one of
   the patches used to repair it from fire in 1532 - all the patches were
   removed during a restoration in June 2002). The scientific community
   had asked the Holy See to authorize more samples, including from the
   image-bearing part of the shroud, but this request was refused. One
   possible account for the reluctance is that if the image is genuine,
   the destruction of parts of it for purposes of dating could be
   considered sacrilege. Another possible explanation is a reluctance to
   have the shroud definitively dated.

   Radiocarbon dating under typical conditions is a highly accurate
   science, and for materials up to 2000 years old can often produce
   dating to within one year of the correct age. Nonetheless, there are
   many possibilities for error as well. It was developed primarily for
   use on objects recently unearthed or otherwise shielded from human
   contact until shortly before the test is conducted, unlike the shroud.
   Dr. Willi Wolfli, director of the Swiss laboratory that tested the
   shroud, stated, "The C-14 method is not immune to grossly inaccurate
   dating when non-apparent problems exist in samples from the field. The
   existence of significant indeterminate errors occurs frequently."

Bacterial residue

   Several phenomena have been cited that might account for possibly
   erroneous dating. Those supporting image formation by miraculous means
   point out that a singular resurrection event could have skewed the
   proportion of Carbon-14 in the cloth in singular ways. Naturalistic
   explanations for the discrepancy include smoke particles from the fire
   of 1532 and bacterial residue that would not have been removed by the
   testing teams' methods.

   The argument involving bacterial residue is perhaps the strongest,
   since there are many examples of ancient textiles that have been
   grossly misdated, especially in the earliest days of radiocarbon
   testing. Most notable of these is mummy 1770 of the British Museum,
   whose bones were dated some 800 – 1000 years earlier than its cloth
   wrappings. Pictorial evidence dating from c. 1690 and 1842 indicates
   that the corner used for the dating and similarly several evenly-spaced
   areas along one edge of the cloth were handled each time the cloth was
   displayed, the traditional method being for it to be held suspended by
   a row of five bishops. These small areas of the cloth had increased
   likelihood of contamination by bacteria and bacterial residue. Bacteria
   and associated residue (bacteria by-products and dead bacteria) carry
   additional carbon and would skew the radiocarbon date toward the
   present.

   The nuclear physicist Harry E. Gove of the University of Rochester, who
   designed the particular radiocarbon test used, stated, "There is a
   bioplastic coating on some threads, maybe most." According to Gove, if
   this coating is thick enough, it "would make the fabric sample seem
   younger than it should be." Skeptics, including Rodger Sparks, a
   radiocarbon expert from New Zealand, have countered that an error of
   thirteen centuries stemming from bacterial contamination in the Middle
   Ages would have required a layer approximately doubling the sample
   weight. Because such material could be easily detected, fibers from the
   Shroud were examined at the National Science Foundation Mass
   Spectrometry Centre of Excellence at the University of Nebraska.
   Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry examination failed to detect any form of
   bioplastic polymer on fibers from either non-image or image areas of
   the shroud. Additionally, laser-microprobe Raman analysis at
   Instruments SA, Inc. in Metuchen, NJ, also failed to detect any
   bioplastic polymer on shroud fibers.

Chemical properties of the sample site

   Another argument against the results of the radiocarbon tests was made
   in a study by Anna Arnoldi of the University of Milan and Raymond
   Rogers, retired Fellow of the University of California Los Alamos
   National Laboratory. By ultraviolet photography and spectral analysis
   they determined that the area of the shroud chosen for the test samples
   differs chemically from the rest of the cloth. They cite the presence
   of Madder root dye and aluminium oxide mordant (a dye-fixing agent)
   specifically in that corner of the shroud and conclude that this part
   of the cloth was mended at some point in its history. Plainly, repairs
   would have utilized materials produced at or slightly before the time
   of repair, carrying a higher concentration of carbon than the original
   artifact.

   A 2000 study by Joseph Marino and Sue Benford, based on x-ray analysis
   of the sample sites, shows a probable seam from a repair attempt
   running diagonally through the area from which the sample was taken.
   These researchers conclude that the samples tested by the three labs
   were more or less contaminated by this repair attempt. They further
   note that the results of the three labs show an angular skewing
   corresponding to the diagonal seam: the first sample in Arizona dated
   to 1238, the second to 1430, with the Oxford and Swiss results falling
   in between. They add that the variance of the C-14 results of the three
   labs falls outside the bounds of the Pearson's chi-square test, so that
   some additional explanation should be sought for the discrepancy.

   Microchemical tests also find traces of vanillin in the same area,
   unlike the rest of the cloth. Vanillin is produced by the thermal
   decomposition of lignin, a complex polymer and constituent of flax.
   This chemical is routinely found in medieval materials but not in older
   cloths, as it diminishes with time. The wrappings of the Dead Sea
   scrolls, for instance, do not test positive for vanillin.

   Raymond Rogers' January 20, 2005 paper^ in the peer-reviewed scientific
   journal Thermochimica Acta provides apparently conclusive chemical
   evidence that the sample cut from the Shroud in 1988 was not valid.
   Also in the paper, his determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss
   suggests the shroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old.

   This aspect of the controversy can likely only be settled by more
   radiocarbon tests, which, as noted, the Holy See does not presently
   allow, citing sacrilegious damage to the relic. In his 2005 paper,
   Rogers suggests that elemental carbon in pieces of charred material
   removed during the restoration in 2002 could be used to date the shroud
   if cleansed using concentrated nitric acid.

Material historical analysis

   Much recent research has centered on the burn holes and water marks.
   The largest burns certainly date from the 1532 fire (another series of
   small round burns in an "L" shape seems to date from an undetermined
   earlier time), and it was assumed that the water marks were also from
   this event. However, in 2002, Aldo Guerreschi and Michele Salcito
   presented a paper at the IV Symposium Scientifique International in
   Paris stating that many of these marks stem from a much earlier time
   because the symmetries correspond more to the folding that would have
   been necessary to store the cloth in a clay jar (like cloth samples at
   Qumran) than to that necessary to store it in the reliquary that housed
   it in 1532.

   According to master textile restorer Mechthild Flury-Lemberg of
   Hamburg, a seam in the cloth corresponds to a fabric found only at the
   fortress of Masada near the Dead Sea, which dated to the first century.
   The weaving pattern, a 3:1 twill, is consistent with first-century
   Syrian design, according to the appraisal of Gilbert Raes of the Ghent
   Institute of Textile Technology in Belgium. Flury-Lemberg stated, "The
   linen cloth of the Shroud of Turin does not display any weaving or
   sewing techniques which would speak against its origin as a
   high-quality product of the textile workers of the first century."
   However, Joe Nickell notes that no examples of herringbone weave are
   known from the time of Jesus. The few samples of burial cloths that are
   known from the era are made using plain weave. ^.

Biological and medical forensics

Details of crucifixion technique

   The piercing of the wrists rather than the palms goes against
   traditional Christian iconography, especially in the Middle Ages, but
   many modern scholars suggest that crucifixion victims were generally
   nailed through the wrists, and a skeleton discovered in the Holy Land
   shows that at least some were nailed between the radius and ulna; this
   was not common knowledge in the Middle Ages. Proponents of the shroud's
   authenticity contend that a medieval forger would have been unlikely to
   know this operational detail of an execution method almost completely
   discontinued centuries earlier.

Blood stains

   There are several reddish stains on the shroud suggesting blood.
   Chemist Walter McCrone (see above) identified these as simple pigment
   materials and reported that no forensic tests of the samples he used
   indicated the presence of blood. Other researchers, including Alan
   Adler, a chemist specializing in analysis of porphyrins, identified the
   reddish stains as type AB blood.

   The particular shade of red of the supposed blood stains is also
   problematic. Normally, whole blood stains discolor relatively rapidly,
   turning to a black-brown color, while these stains in fact range from a
   true red to the more normal brown colour. However, the stains could
   have been not from bleeding wounds, but from the liquid exuded by blood
   clots. In the case of severe trauma, as evidenced by the Man of the
   Shroud, this liquid would include a mixture of bilirubin and oxidized
   hemoglobin, which could remain red indefinitely. Adler and John Heller
   detected bilirubin and the protein albumin in the stains. However, it
   is uncertain whether the blood stains were produced at the same time as
   the image, which Adler and Heller attributed to premature aging of the
   linen.^

Pollen grains

   Researchers of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem reported the presence
   of pollen grains in the cloth samples, showing species appropriate to
   the spring in Israel. However, these researchers, Avinoam Danin and Uri
   Baruch were working with samples provided by Max Frei, a Swiss police
   criminologist who had previously been censured for faking evidence.
   Independent review of the strands showed that one strand out of the 26
   provided contained significantly more pollen than the others, perhaps
   pointing to deliberate contamination.

   Another item of note is that the olive trees surrounding Jerusalem
   would have been in full bloom at the time, meaning that there should
   have been a significant amount of olive tree pollen on the Shroud.
   However, there does not seem to be any at all.

   The Israeli researchers also detected the outlines of various flowering
   plants on the cloth, which they say would point to March or April and
   the environs of Jerusalem, based on the species identified. In the
   forehead area, corresponding to the crown of thorns if the image is
   genuine, they found traces of Gundelia tournefortii, which is limited
   to this period of the year in the Jerusalem area. This analysis depends
   on interpretation of various patterns on the shroud as representing
   particular plants. However, skeptics point out that the available
   images cannot be seen as unequivocal support of any particular plant
   species due to the amount of indistinctness.

   Again, these pollen grains could have been lost when the Shroud was
   'restored' in June/July 2002, following an exhibition in 2000.

   Another problem is that the Catholic veneration of the Shroud (as of
   other alleged relics) by the faithful probably involved touching it
   with flowers and other objects for transferring the purported mystical
   properties of the Shroud to them, so the public display of the Shroud
   in the past may have contributed to its contamination.

Sudarium of Oviedo

   In the northern Spanish city of Oviedo, there is a small bloodstained
   piece of linen that is also revered as one of the burial cloths of
   Jesus mentioned in John 20:7 as being found in the 'empty' tomb. John
   refers to a "sudarium" (σουδαριον) that covered the head and the "linen
   cloth" or "bandages" (οθονιον — othonion) that covered the body. The
   sudarium of Oviedo is traditionally held to be this cloth that covered
   the head of Jesus.

   The sudarium's existence and presence in Oviedo is well attested since
   the eighth century and in Spain since the seventh century. Before these
   dates the location of the sudarium is less certain, but some scholars
   trace it to Jerusalem in the first century.

   Forensic analysis of the bloodstains on the shroud and the sudarium
   suggest that both cloths may have covered the same head at nearly the
   same time. Based on the bloodstain patterns, the Sudarium would have
   been placed on the man's head while he was in a vertical position,
   presumably while still hanging on the cross. This cloth was then
   presumably removed before the shroud was applied.

   A 1999 study by Mark Guscin, member of the multidisciplinary
   investigation team of the Spanish Centre for Sindonology, investigated
   the relationship between the two cloths. Based on history, forensic
   pathology, blood chemistry (the Sudarium also is reported to have type
   AB blood stains), and stain patterns, he concluded that the two cloths
   covered the same head at two distinct, but close moments of time.
   Avinoam Danin (see above) concurred with this analysis, adding that the
   pollen grains in the sudarium match those of the shroud.

   Skeptics say that this argument is spurious. Since they deny the blood
   stains on the shroud, the blood stains on this cloth are irrelevant.
   Further, the argument about the pollen types is greatly weakened by the
   debunking of Danin's work on the shroud due to the possibly
   tampered-with sample he worked from. Pollen from Jerusalem could have
   followed any number of paths to find its way to the sudarium, and only
   indicates location, not the dating of the cloth.

Digital image processing

   Using techniques of digital image processing, several additional
   details have been reported by scholars.

   NASA researchers Jackson, Jumper and Stephenson report detecting the
   impressions of coins placed on both eyes after a digital study in 1978.
   The coin on the right eye was claimed to correspond to a Roman copper
   coin produced in AD 29 and 30 in Jerusalem, while that on the left was
   claimed to resemble a lituus coin from the reign of Tiberius.

   Piero Ugolotti reported (1979) Greek and Latin letters written near the
   face. These were further studied by André Marion, professor at the
   École supérieure d'optique, and his student Anne Laure Courage,
   engineer of the École supérieure d'optique, in the Institut d'optique
   théorique et appliquée in Orsay (1997). On the right side they cite the
   letters ΨΣ ΚΙΑ. They interpret this as ΟΨ — ops "face" + ΣΚΙΑ — skia
   "shadow", though the initial letter is missing. This interpretation has
   the problem that it is grammatically incorrect in Greek, as "face"
   would have to appear in the genitive case. On the left side they report
   the Latin letters IN NECE, which they suggest is the beginning of IN
   NECEM IBIS, "you will go to death", and ΝΝΑΖΑΡΕΝΝΟΣ — NNAZARENNOS (a
   grossly misspelled "the Nazarene" in Greek). Several other
   "inscriptions" were detected by the scientists, but Mark Guscin
   (himself a shroud proponent) reports that only one is at all probable
   in Greek or Latin: ΗΣΟΥ This is the genitive of "Jesus", but missing
   the first letter.

   These claims are rejected by skeptics, because there is no recorded
   Jewish tradition of placing coins over the eyes of the dead, and
   because of the spelling errors in the reported text. (Cf. Antonio
   Lombatti ) Guscin concurs with the skeptics who hold that these details
   are based on highly subjective impressions, much like the results of a
   Rorschach test.

Textual criticism

   This image of the deposition from the cross, by Giulio Clovio, shows
   Jesus wrapped in a shroud like the Shroud of Turin.
   Enlarge
   This image of the deposition from the cross, by Giulio Clovio, shows
   Jesus wrapped in a shroud like the Shroud of Turin.

   The Gospel of John is sometimes cited as evidence that the shroud is a
   hoax since English translations typically use the plural word "cloths"
   or "clothes" for the covering of the body: "Then cometh Simon Peter
   following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes
   [othonia] lie, and the napkin [sudarium], that was about his head, not
   lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by
   itself" (Jn 20:6-7, KJV). Shroud proponents hold that the "linen
   clothes" refers to the Shroud of Turin, while the "napkin" refers to
   the Sudarium of Oviedo.

   The Gospel of John also states, "Nicodemus ... brought a mixture of
   myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight. They took the body of
   Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of
   the Jews is to bury" (Jn 19:39-40, KJV). No traces of spices have been
   found on the cloth. Frederick Zugibe, a medical examiner, reports that
   the body of the man wrapped in the shroud appears to have been washed
   before the wrapping. It would be odd for this to occur after the
   anointing, so some proponents have suggested that the shroud was a
   preliminary cloth that was then replaced before the anointing, because
   there was not enough time for the anointing due to the Sabbath.
   However, there is no empirical evidence to support these theories. Some
   supporters suggest that the plant bloom images detected by Danin may be
   from herbs that were simply strewn over the body due to the lack of
   preparation time mentioned in the New Testament, with the visit of the
   women on Sunday thus presumed to be for the purpose of completing the
   anointing of the body.

Analysis of the image as the work of an artist

   There are many similarities between traditional icons of Jesus and the
   image on the shroud. This image shows the mosaic "Christ Pantocrator"
   from the church of Daphne in Athens.
   Enlarge
   There are many similarities between traditional icons of Jesus and the
   image on the shroud. This image shows the mosaic " Christ Pantocrator"
   from the church of Daphne in Athens.

Painters of the 14th century

   One of the striking features of the image on the Shroud of Turin is its
   accuracy as a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional
   human form. It is the accuracy of the three-dimensional information
   present in the image that has suggested to experts that it has been
   created as a photographic projection, either deliberately or as part of
   a natural process.

   In the light of Dr Walter McCrone's conclusions that the image had been
   painted with "thin water-colour paint", the possible author of such a
   painting has been sought. If the whereabouts of the Shroud of Turin are
   considered as known from the mid-14th century, is there a known painter
   who could have created it prior to that time?

   In Christian art, the depiction of the naked male figure, in the form
   of either the crucified Christ or the body of Christ being prepared for
   burial is a common subject of both painting and sculpture. This was the
   case in the Medieval and early Renaissance periods. In early Medieval
   art, the naked figure was often highly stylised. In the 13th century
   this became less the case and by 1300 there was sometimes a great
   impression of realism in the depiction of the naked male figure in
   sculpture.

   By 1300, several painters who were firmly Medieval in most ways strove
   to depict in two-dimensions the suffering crucified Christ with realism
   and solidity of form. Foremost among these traditional painters was
   Duccio of Siena, whose small crucifixion scene which forms one of the
   back panels of the Maesta, shows three convincingly realistic, though
   anatomically imprecise, male figures. Giotto, of the next generation of
   painters, was born about 1267. He is regarded as being the artist most
   able in his day to capture an appearance of solidity and
   three-dimensionality in his painting. His fame was extensive. He had
   several commissions, including the Arena Chapel in Padua, that were the
   equal of Michelangelo's commission to paint the ceiling of the Sistine
   Chapel two hundred years later. But Giotto did not have the skill
   required to paint a face as three-dimensional, or a body as
   anatomically accurate as that of the Shroud of Turin. The leading
   painters in Italy whose lives span the period of 1350 are Altichiero
   and Giusto de Menabuoi, who like Giotto, were active in Padua, in
   Northern Italy. Giusto's faces are flat and simplified compared with
   those of Giotto. Likewise, the best of faces painted by Altichiero do
   not stand up to close examination of their three-dimesional qualities.
   Neither does his demonstrated understanding of anatomy. Throughout the
   rest of Europe, painted depictions of the crucifixion were stylised,
   with exaggerated anatomical features. This did not change until the
   effect of the Italian Renaissance upon Northern painters in the mid
   15th century. It is fairly clear that no known painter who was alive in
   the year 1350 could have created the image on the Shroud.

Correspondence with Christian iconography

   As a depiction of Jesus, the image on the shroud corresponds to that
   found throughout the history of Christian iconography. For instance,
   the Pantocrator mosaic at Daphne in Athens is strikingly similar.
   Skeptics attribute this to the icons being made while the Image of
   Edessa was available, with this appearance of Jesus being copied in
   later artwork, and in particular, on the Shroud. In opposition to this
   viewpoint, the locations of the piercing wounds in the wrists on the
   Shroud do not correspond to artistic representations of the crucifixion
   before close to the present time. In fact, the Shroud was widely
   dismissed as a forgery in the 14th century for the very reason that the
   Latin Vulgate Bible stated that the nails had been driven into Jesus'
   hands and Medieval art invariably depicts the wounds in Jesus' hands.
   Modern biblical translations recognize this as an error in translating
   the Greek text of the Gospels and the lack of a clear word, as in
   English, which defines the wrist as a separate anatomical entity from
   the hand which it supports. Additionally, modern medical science
   reveals that the metacarpal bones are incapable of supporting a
   crucified body, and that, contrary to the almost universally held
   belief in the 14th century, the nails had to have been driven through
   the victim's wrists, as depicted in the Shroud.

Analysis of proportion

   In contemporary humans the ratio of the distance between the eyes and
   the top of the head and the distance between the eyes and the tip of
   the jaw (as seen from a frontal perspective) is roughly 1:1 — the eyes
   are roughly in the middle of the face. The Shroud of Turin, however,
   has a top/bottom of face ratio of roughly 0.75. Four possible
   explanations have been offered for this:
    1. The imprinting process somehow skewed the perspective, such that
       the man's jaw, nose and mouth area seem larger and the forehead
       appears diminished.
    2. Interpretation and measurement of the proportions of the image on
       the shroud may be imprecise.
    3. The man had a cranial deformity considerably outside the norm of
       modern humans and the fossil record.
    4. The shroud of Turin is a fake created by someone with only cursory
       knowledge of human facial anatomy. It should be noted that
       enlarging the lower part of the face and diminishing the forehead
       is a common error of inexperienced artists, as well as a
       distinguishing feature of Medieval and early Renaissance art.

   This claim, though, is disputable: It is not clear that the top/bottom
   face ratio on the Shroud is roughly 0.75 since the end-points for the
   measurements are imprecise: the locations of the chin and the top of
   the head on the Shroud cannot be determined exactly. Which end-points
   were used to come up with the ratio 0.75? It can be shown, on a digital
   image of the Shroud, that some plausible measurements give a ratio of
   roughly 0.90. Using the online tool http://www.sindonology.org it is
   possible to report reproducible length measurements, unlike the
   previous unreproducible statements. The end-points (308,1248) and (308,
   1379), plausible end-points from the top of the head to the chin, give
   a head height of 25.1 cm; the end-points (308, 1248) and (308, 1309),
   from the top of the head to the center of the eyes, give a length of
   11.7 cm; which means that the length from the centre of the eyes to the
   chin, based on these two measurements, is 13.4 cm. That is a ratio of
   11.7/13.4=0.87. Moreover, the ratio 1:1 for human is also disputable.
   It is not always the same for every human face: a ratio of 0.90 is also
   acceptable for many human faces. For example, at the website "Example
   Face" ( http://www2.evansville.edu/drawinglab/face.html) it is claimed
   that an artist should use a ratio of 1:1; but the example presented on
   that page has a ratio of 0.86 — very similar to the Shroud.

Explanation of the proportions

   Facial proportions based on the visual formula and the projected linear
   formula. TTaylor 2006
   Enlarge
   Facial proportions based on the visual formula and the projected linear
   formula. TTaylor 2006

   When a live three-dimensional model is considered, rather than an
   artists formula, the conclusions drawn are different. The proportion
   used by artists is a purely visual proportion ie it is the way that
   things appear to the human eye. However, the proportion of the visible
   "face" as seen by the artist takes in much of the top of the head,
   which slopes backward from the face at a steep angle.

   The list of explanations above is erroneously based on false
   assumptions caused by utilising the traditional artist's formula to
   make an assessment where crucial information, that is — the sight-line
   of the artist towards the top of the head, is missing. Since the upward
   and backward sloping part of the head is not registered upon the
   Shroud, no such judgements can be made, regardless of whether the image
   was created by human hand, natural process or divine intervention.

   If a different formula is employed the results may not be so
   misleading. If linear projections are made of a human profile from the
   point of the nose to the end of the chin and from the point of the nose
   to the forehead, these exclude the whole top of the head. When the
   proportions of these projected lines are measured, then they equate
   with those on the Shroud of Turin.

Analysis of optical perspective

   One further objection to the shroud turns on what might be called the "
   Mercator projection" argument. The shroud in two dimensions presents a
   three-dimensional image projected onto a planar two-dimensional
   surface, just as in a photograph or painting. A true burial shroud,
   however, would have rested nearly cylindrically across the
   three-dimensional facial surface, if not more irregularly. The result
   would be an unnatural lateral distortion, a strong widening to the
   sides, in contrast to the kind of normal photographic image a beholder
   would expect, let alone the strongly vertically elongated image on the
   shroud fabric.

   But this argument is disputed by the paper presented at . Essentially,
   distortions can be minimal if the Shroud was not laying too tight
   against the body.

Variegated images

   Banding on the Shroud is background noise, which causes us to see the
   gaunt face, long nose, deep eyes, and straight hair. These features are
   caused by dark vertical and horizontal bands which go across the eyes.
   Using enhancement software (Fourier transform filters), the effect of
   these filters can be minimized. The result is a more detailed version
   of how the face really was.

The Shroud in the Catholic Church

   The Shroud was given to the Pope by the House of Savoy in 1983. As with
   all relics of this kind, the Roman Catholic Church has made no
   pronouncements claiming it is Christ's burial shroud, or that it is a
   forgery. The matter has been left to the personal decision of the
   Faithful. In the Church's view, whether the cloth is authentic or not
   has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of what Christ taught.

   The late Pope John Paul II stated in 1998, "Since we're not dealing
   with a matter of faith, the church can't pronounce itself on such
   questions. It entrusts to scientists the tasks of continuing to
   investigate, to reach adequate answers to the questions connected to
   this shroud." He showed himself to be deeply moved by the image of the
   shroud, and arranged for public showings in 1998 and 2000.

   As the image itself is a focus of meditation for many believers, even a
   definitive proof that the image does not date from the first century
   would likely not stem devotion to the object, which would then become
   something of an icon of the crucifixion. In any case, Catholics
   meditate on the events of the Passion, not on the object itself, "in
   immediate forgetfulness of the object", as St. John of the Cross put
   it. And in that sense any image of Christ's shroud has a universal
   meaning. Pope John Paul II called the Shroud of Turin "the icon of the
   suffering of the innocent of all times."

   Some have suggested that if the identity of the Shroud with the Image
   of Edessa were to be definitively proven, the Church would have no
   moral right to retain it, and would then be compelled to return it to
   the Ecumenical Patriarch or some other Eastern Orthodox body, since if
   this was the case, it would have been stolen from the Orthodox at some
   time during the Crusades. Some Russian Orthodox consider that with the
   fall of Constantinople, the title of "emperor" passed on to Russia, so
   that they would have pre-eminent rights to the shroud over all the
   other Orthodox. Yet many other Orthodox Christians feel this desire of
   some Russian Orthodox is just an expression of Nationalism.

   However, it should also be remembered that the Eastern Orthodox
   Churches do not owe any allegiance to the Pope. In any case the
   removal, from Edessa, by conquest of the Image of Edessa by the
   Byzantine Emperor Romanus I in 944 arguably marks the first break in
   the legitimate chain of title regardless.

   Because of the continuing dispute about its authenticity, some Catholic
   theologians have called the Shroud of Turin a sign of contradiction.

The "Restoration" of 2002

   In the summer of 2002, the Shroud was subjected to an aggressive
   "restoration" which shocked the worldwide community of Shroud
   researchers and was condemned by most. Authorized by the Archbishop of
   Turin as a beneficial conservation measure, this operation was based on
   the claim that the charred material around the burn holes was causing
   continuing oxidation which would eventually threaten the image. It has
   been labelled unnecessary surgery that destroyed scientific data,
   removed the repairs done in 1534 that were part of the Shroud's
   heritage, and squandered opportunities for sophisticated research.

   Detailed comments on this operation were published by various Shroud
   researchers on a special page at shroud.com . In 2003 the principal
   "restorer" Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, a textile expert from Switzerland,
   published a lavish trilingual coffee table book with the title Sindone
   2002: L'intervento conservativo — Preservation — Konservierung ( ISBN
   88-88441-08-5). She describes the operation and the reasons it was
   believed necessary. In 2005 William Meacham, an archaeologist who has
   studied the Shroud since 1981, published the book The Rape of the Turin
   Shroud ( ISBN 1-4116-5769-1) which is fiercely critical of the
   operation. He rejects the reasons provided by Flury-Lemberg and
   describes in detail what he calls "a disaster for the scientific study"
   of the relic.

Popular Culture

     * Artist Jeffrey Vallance has made artwork about the Shroud of Turin,
       most notably "The Shroud of Blinky" and "The Clowns of Turin".

   Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin"
   This reference article is mainly selected from the English Wikipedia
   with only minor checks and changes (see www.wikipedia.org for details
   of authors and sources) and is available under the GNU Free
   Documentation License. See also our Disclaimer.
