Shroud of Turin

Last edited October 18, 2009
More by Glossary of selected Judgement and Decision-making, Belief-related, and other Psychology terms »

Shroud of Turin (also known as The Shroud of Lirey-Chambéry-Turin)

One of several woven linen cloths said to be the burial shroud of Jesus Christ – among the others, the Sudarium of Oviedo in Spain. It has on it what seems to be the front and back images of an adult male with long hair, moustache and beard, lying down† with hands crossed, the features of which are characteristic of Gothic art. Also appearing on the shroud are what some take to be vivid red bloodstains, corresponding to ‘accepted’ accounts of the wounds of Jesus.

A notable feature of the shroud was exposed in 1898 when the first photograph was taken. In modern times the image on the shroud has a rather faint and ‘fading’ quality, which may well have been much more crisp and sharp at the time the cloth first surfaced, but with the first photographic negative of the shroud was uncovered a much more striking luster to the image which lends itself well to those inclined to see some sort of ‘miraculous’ origin to the image.

Put bluntly the central claims of Shroud proponents are that the cloth is not a forgery, that the cloth was used to wrap Christ’s (dead) body and his blood stains the cloth, that the image formed on the shroud as an incidental result when Christ was resurrected, and that this image could not have formed by any non-supernatural means.

The relic’s first-known appearance was at Lirey, France in 1355 and became the focus of adoration attracting pilgrims (and their tourist’ coin) from throughout Europe – it had allegedly been discovered in Turkey during one of the Crusades.

The shroud’s then-owner French knight, Geoffrey de Charney, first exhibited it in a specially-built chapel in 1357. The veneration of such reputed Christian relics was a commonplace at the time all over the continent, with the noble and wealthy providing a ready market for the prized pieces. An old joke has it that if all of the (supposed) remnants of the True Cross were in fact really from Christ’s crucifixion cross that there would be enough construction material to build Noah’s Ark.

The shroud changed hands a number of times during the period 1357-1578 and eventually ended up at the cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Turin, Italy.

Nineteen-seventy-nine marked the beginning of modern scientific inspection of the artefact. A catholic organization called The Holy Shroud Guild which considers itself to promote the study and devotion of the Shroud of Turin commissioned a group of scientists to examine the shroud using contemporary equipment and techniques. This study group came to be known as the The Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP).

Scientific investigation and testing carried out on the shroud, amongst other things, has shown that:

1.

the cloth does not date from the first-century – carbon 14-testing gave a date converging somewhere between 1260 and 1390 – nor is the weave of the cloth consistent with its asserted time and place of origin and use;

2.

the characteristics of the cloth – its size and shape – and the way in which the shroud ostensibly wrapped the alleged body which can be inferred from the images on the cloth does not correspond with known ritual and practice for the claimed period (for example, Jewish custom of the time demanded a separate piece of cloth cover the face), and conflicts with descriptions of events given in the Bible;

3.

the presentation of the face on the shroud is consistent with the ‘accepted’ appearance of Christ which gained widespread currency during the medieval period, particularly through twelfth to fifteenth centuries;

4.

the supposed ‘red bloodstains’ are not bloodstains at all – red ochre and vermillion tempera paint in use by artisans in France during the mid-thirteen hundreds being the likely source – it is also noted that first-century Jewish custom required that the body be washed prior to burial;

5.

in 1389 Bishop d’Arcis (the bishop having authority for the diocese of Lirey) was recorded as making direct statements that he had identified the artist he said concocted the pious fraud and notified the then Pope Clement VII of his findings. He went on to state that the artist had offered his confession of the faking to his predecessor. This report by the bishop can be found in a fully-authenticated document which survives in the Vatican’s archives.

The impression given by the figure represented on the shroud, rather than being the result of any direct correspondence with a (living or once-living) human form, is more reminiscent of a work-of-art produced without a well-developed (modern) knowledge and understanding of human physiology.

Not unexpectedly, proponents of the shroud as the genuine burial cloth of Jesus – ‘sindonolgists’ – continue to argue for the shroud’s authenticity and to vigourously dispute the most likely solution to what the media is wont to call a ‘mystery’, that is, that the shroud is the product of an enterprising fourteenth-century artist.

It should be noted that a number of modern researchers have made a good fist of recreating similar shroud images using artistic techniques which were in use during the fourteenth-century, and known as early as 1100s.

Recently some in the news media have eagerly trumpeted ‘doubts’ about the 1989 carbon-dating conducted on pieces of the shroud. Shroud-believers argue that the dates elicited from the carbon-14 procedure should not be considered reliable due to contamination of the cloth by the conditions in which the shroud has been housed over the centuries, as well as the effects of the chapel fire at Chambéry in 1502 where the shroud was then kept. It has separately been contended that the area of the cloth sampled for dating was from a patch which some followers claim was added when the shroud was repaired during the medieval period.

The overwhelming scientific consensus is that the Shroud of Turin is almost certainly a fourteenth-century pious fraud.

On the proviso that further testing is conducted by a team of able, relevant experts not deeply-committed to the shroud as a miraculous relic, critical thinkers and sceptics have no basis for unease from competent and well-conducted research, shroud proponents – as well as sensationalist journalists – however, should brace themselves for disappointment (again).

A curious aspect of the shroud saga from 1979 concerns the observation that very many advocates of the Shroud already strongly believe that it is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ but, not unlike those fixated upon ’proving’ biblical creation (and very definitely discrediting Darwinian evolution), seem almost desperate to adduce evidence demonstrating the shroud’s authenticity – a slightly curious preoccupation for those whose religious experience is supposed to turn on faith? Unfortunately for such folk who also wish to adorn themselves with a ‘scientific mantle’ many of them appear to have no enthusiasm for negative evidence.

†

there is substantial doubt about this reclining posture and that the appearance of the legs and feet pictured is actually consistent with a standing position.

Back to: Glossary A-Z

Glossary of selected Judgement & Decision-making, Belief-related, and other Psychology terms A-Z »

» Return to belief, judgement, and clear thinking »

Labels: Shroud of Turin, The Shroud of Turin, The Shroud of Lirey-Chambéry-Turin, Shroud of Lirey-Chambéry-Turin, ‘Christ’s shroud’, ‘Jesus’ shroud’, ‘Jesus Christ’s shroud’, one of several woven linen cloths said to be the burial shroud of Jesus Christ, Sudarium of Oviedo, what is the Shroud of Turin?, A brief history of the Shroud of Turin, The Shroud of Turin Research Project, STURP, The Holy Shroud Guild, the cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Turin - Italy, then-shroud owner French knight Geoffrey de Charney, Pious fraud, medieval fake, the product of an enterprising fourteenth-century artist