The “Shroud of Turin” is one of the most studied and yet still one of the most mysterious artifacts. There are numerous papers published on the subject.
Many books that attempt to collate that material. Some focus on a particular aspect—for example, medical or archeological. Others take a broader approach by covering multiple disciplines.
I have not read every single publication, of course, but of the ones I have read, one of the better books that attempt to provide a broader picture is The Shroud: Fresh Light on the 2000-year-old Mystery by Ian Wilson. First published in 2010, the author intended this as a “complete update” of his 1978 book The Turin Shroud (also published under the title The Shroud of Turin in the US). I have not read the 1978 publication so this review is purely of this book.
The main text spans about 380 pages organized into 20 chapters. The end matter spans about 90 pages including a ~15-page timeline that covers 30 AD to 2010 AD, ~30 pages of notes and references, ~20-page bibliography with the remaining a picture and figure index as well as a keyword and subject index.
Structurally, the book adopts the perspective of the modern era—that is, we know such an artifact exists, it has been publicly displayed a number of times, but it was not until 1898 that it was photographed revealing the life-like “negative” image.
From there, it delves into some aspect of the Shroud discussing details that were subsequently revealed by further studies. In a way, each of the earlier chapters is almost its own topic. As such, these chapters do not always follow from the previous but it is still best to read it in order anyway.
Much of the book, mostly from Chapter 8 onwards, is an attempt to retrace the history. The record of the Shroud in the first one thousand years is somewhat scant compared to the latter one thousand years. The author considers that the Shroud may be the Image of Edessa. It should be noted that according to Tradition, said image is not the Shroud.
Regardless of whether the Image of Edessa is the Shroud, what the author presents has merit and is still intriguing. Some of the history may actually be of the Shroud and some not, but we at least know of one possible path for at least one of the few images of Our Lord.
On balance, the author’s style is plain and easily accessible. Also helpful is the generous number of figures, diagrams and photos. There are 32 “plates”, most of which are comprised of multiple images, and 38 figures.
The book in absolute terms is not short but it is not long relative to the amount of material available. There are many specifics not discussed but, on balance, there are enough to make it a satisfying read. It is recommended to read the primary sources as they are even more intriguing if, for example, one wants to know more about the blood chemistry, the images’s 3D properties, the partial imprint of Pilate’s coin over the eye, or any other detail.
Also, although the index is extensive, there can be more keywords to facilitate easier searching.
Those who follow the subject will probably be aware of most of the material covered. Given its recent publication, however, there may be a few new details.
Below are some key points, not intended to be a summary.
● The Shroud is a piece of linen cloth approximately 14’6” long by 3’9” wide.
● Two of the corners have been cut, one partly for 1988 carbon-dating.
● There are scorch marks and holes attributed to a fire in 1532. There are smaller holes of unknown cause that pre-date 1516. There are also water stains.
● On the cloth is a faint double image: front-of-the-body and back-of-the-body arranged head-to-head with a blank area extending beyond the latter. If this is a forgery, then one arguably expects the over-generous half for front-of-the-body.
● The image can be described as an imprint as if lightly scorched although the method is unknown.
● The linen is of a tight 3-to-1 herringbone weave. The spin is of “Z” twist. This rules out ancient Egyptian origin which is of “S” twist.
● Although samples of linen with the same weave from that region and era are difficult to find, there is at least one sample dated 72–73 AD found at Masada. There are, however, samples of other materials with the same weave.
● The size of the cloth suggests it is not a production of the Middle Ages as they are typically smaller.
● The Shroud was first photographed in 1898 by 43-year-old lawyer and amateur photographer Secondo Pia. The black-and-white negatives revealed the life-like graduations and detail. News travelled fast but it was dismissed as fake. Pia was even accused of touching up the photographs.
● In 1931, professional photographer Giuseppe Enrie photographed the Shroud again, vindicating Pia’s work.
● In 1902, anatomist and professor at Sorbonne University Yves Delage, who was also an agnostic, studied the Shroud and concluded that the images are anatomically accurate. He also pointed out that the images needed to be formed in a narrow timeframe; that is, before the body decomposed which would also ruin the image and the cloth. As his work was attacked, he dropped any further studies.
● Dr Pierre Barbet, chief surgeon at the Hospital of St Joseph in Paris, studied the image in the 1930s. He authored the book A Doctor at Calvary. Other doctors have since also studied the image and it is generally concluded that the image is anatomically accurate.
● Amongst other details, wounds indicate that the subject was crucified, scourged over most of the body, a cap of thorns was placed on the head as well as bruising on the face, a large chest wound at around the fifth and sixth rib on the right side, and chafing on the shoulders.
● Whilst crucifixion, scourging and spearing were consistent with Roman protocol, the so-called crown of thorns was not. This is, as far as we know, unique to Jesus Christ.
● Blood streams indicate two different angles, consistent with the crucified dropping but then trying to raise oneself to breathe.
● Stains from the aforementioned chest wound indicate clear fluid as well as blood that spilled after death. The wound was inflicted when the body was in an upright position.
● Several have attempted to reproduce such an image. Setting aside the lack of the required knowledge and technology six to eight centuries ago, the images lack the detail and refinement of the Shroud images.
● Fr Peter Rinaldi liaised between the custodians of the Shroud and potential researchers which eventually led to the famous STURP team in 1978.
● Dr John Jackson and Dr Eric Jumper, using the VP-8 Image Analyzer, discovered that the Shroud’s image has 3D properties.
● X-ray revealed nothing on the image or the blood stains; that is, neither the image nor the blood stains contain sufficient atomic weight that interferes with the X-ray.
● UV scan did not reveal brushstrokes.
● There are particles of pigments and iron oxide on the cloth but their distribution is similar for image and non-image areas. This indicates the Shroud’s proximity to pigments in the past; for example, in an artist’s studio when an artist copied it.
● According to chemist Dr John Heller and blood chemist Dr Alan Adler, the image is not formed using pigments. The image is superficial (does not penetrate the entire thickness), does not have capillary or absorptive properties, is more brittle, does not reflect light, is not cemented together and is also not diffused. This rules out dyeing or staining.
● Adler also asserts that the blood is definitely blood. The blood had clotted before transfer to the cloth.
● Where there are blood stains, there is no image indicating the image was formed after the blood got onto the cloth.
● The blood’s thin and reddish color indicates that the subject suffered severe traumatic shock.
● Botanist Dr Max Frei discovered no less than 58 species of pollen on the Shroud. He died in 1983 and did not complete his research but pollen native to western Europe, the Mediterranean and Israel were found.
● Dirt was also found on the cloth, particularly at the feet. Particles included limestone (aragonite) with traces of iron and strontium, proportions mostly consistent with samples from first-century Jerusalem.
● The water stains and burn holes, ironically, reveal past folding patterns and possible storage methods. One possibility is in a large jar-like container used in first-century Israel.
● The 1988 radio-carbon dating was poorly managed. Only three labs (instead of the initial seven) were involved, all three using the AMS method. Only one sample from one corner of the Shroud was tested, the most handled corner. No chemical analysis of the sample was done.
● According to scientist P.J. Anderson and others, radio-carbon dating assumes the specimen did not undergo exchange of carbon between its own molecules and atmospheric dioxide. Microbiological action and soot or ash will significantly alter the results.
● Wilson discusses the possibility that the so-called Image of Edessa may be the Shroud given the history of the former. Eusebius and the manuscript referred to as the Doctrine of Addai do reference an image of Christ.
● The Image of Edessa was apparently lost or hidden in the first century. There are records of it being found during the sixth century.
● Up until this point, the artwork of Jesus Christ did not resemble the image seen on the Shroud; for example, He was depicted as beardless. However, from about 540, they do and this form has been passed on to today.
● There are records of an image going through “trial by fire” which may correspond to the burn holes whilst the Shroud was folded.
● Other descriptions indicate an image the size as much bigger than a portrait and yet about half the size of the Shroud. This could be the Shroud folded in half.
● There is even a record of someone creating a copy and switching it.
● In 943, an army sent by the Byzantine emperor Romanus arrived at Edessa. The Byzantine general offered a large sum, to release prisoners and to leave the city untouched in exchange for a Jesus-imprinted cloth. This was then taken to Constantinople.
● By the 12th century, multiple works of art depicted Jesus’s facial features as seen on the Shroud or His burial pose.
● The crusaders of the Western church sacked Constantinople in 1204. There is documented evidence suggesting the Templars had possession of the Shroud during this period.
● French king Philip the Fair and Pope Clement V shut down the Templars with mass arrests. Templar Masters Jacques de Molay and Geoffrey de Charny protested their innocence but were burned at the stake in 1314.
● Geoffrey I de Charny of the village Lirey, France, is the first documented European owner of the Shroud in the mid-1300s. Although not definite, he is probably related to the abovementioned Templar Knight.
● The Savoy family took possession of the Shroud in 1453 from Margaret de Charny. Her father had displayed it publicly for veneration. Pierre d’Arcis, Bishop of Troyes, objected to this but did not offer proof of his claims that the Shroud is fake. Eventually, Pope Clement VII ordered Bishop d’Arcis to remain silent on the matter and that the Shroud may be exhibited but only as a “likeness”.
● The Shroud was subsequently moved due to security concerns and eventually settled in Turin in 1578.
Be sure to subscribe to our mailing list so you get each new Opinyun that comes out!
Commentaires