On the Day June 11 1502

The Shroud of Turin is Revealed

Khen Lim




Image source: thelapine.ca

The controversy of the Shroud of Turin began when the Antipope Clement VII attempted to snuffle accusations of scam only to succumb to a decision to sign and confess that it was, after all, nothing more than a fraud.

Apparently some artist who claimed to have created the shroud said it was a fake and then there were people who were hired to attest to its curative powers, which gave it the reputation necessary for the forgers to profit from it. But there was just too much contentiousness over it that even Bishop Pierre D’Arcis’ excommunication threat in 1389 failed to stop those who continued to make money off it.

“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,” D’Arcis declared. The artist remained unnamed.

With the Dukes of Savoy responsible for safeguarding the shroud in 1453, one of them, Anne of Cyprus, Duchess of Savoy, sought papal consent to build a chapel around the ‘holy relic,’ resulting in the Saint-Chapelle of the Holy Shroud in Chambéry, officially completed on June 11 1502. With much celebration, the chapel was opened to the adoring public with the shroud being the irresistible centrepiece. Even Pope Julius II declared a feast and mass to add to the fanfare.

Despite being clouded in shady claims, the shroud was said to hold amazing powers of protection but even so, when the chapel caught fire on December 4 1532, nothing could be done to save itself from being damaged. By the time some braved the ravaging fire to save it, the silver from the reliquary had melted and dropped on to the shroud thus marking through layers of the folded fabric. 

The Shroud of Turin showing the ventral and dorsal images side by side as they appear in a reverse-positive photographic reproduction (Image source: shoebat.com)

Moreover the shroud itself was scorched enough to have holes burnt through it. The Poor Clare Nuns desperately tried to repair the cloth using thirty patches (that were eventually removed by the Holy See in 2002), which could have worsened the damage. There was also water damage that added watermarks arising from condensation from the bottom of a burial jar in which the shroud was kept.

When the House of Savoy moved to Turin in 1578, the shroud went along too, which eventually earned it the moniker, Shroud of Turin. There, they build a new black marbled chapel called the Turin Cathedral to house the shroud.

Successfully photographed by Secondo Pia for the first time on May 28 1898 in the chapel itself, he was taken aback by what he saw in the negative photographic glass plate – an authentic life-like image that was apparently made by the radiance of Christ at His resurrection. Subsequent endorsement came in 1931 when a pro photographer Giuseppe Enrie made the same discovery. 

Still, up till today, despite advances in science and technology, no clear word is out on the authenticity of the shroud. By no means is it unanimous in either direction. However, some things cannot escape scrutiny no matter what.

Painted in tempera (meaning using a permanent, fast-drying paint medium comprising coloured pigments blended with water-soluble binder eg egg yolk), it shouldn’t be surprising that bits of paint were actually found on the fabric itself. That would arouse suspicion already. 

In fact the tempera method has been used by some contemporary artists to re-create a similar negative imagery to that of the shroud and they did this using materials identical to those available to the forgers back then.

Supporters of the shroud alluded to the pollens discovered on the fabric that they say were only found in the Mid-East region but experts dismissed the claims, countering that the optical resolution of the microscopes used then was not powerful enough to make such distinctions.

Furthermore, the blood specks look red but in reality, genuine blood should turn brown or dark enough to look black. Ardent followers of the Forensic Files episodes available on YouTube aren’t rocket scientists but they could have told any of us the same thing. 

More clues, however, were possibly in the radiocarbon-dating tests conducted by a few independent labs that the Holy See agreed to in 1988. From these, the church was able to point to the shroud’s origins at 1000 AD at the earliest but more likely to be around 1260 to 1390. The latter would be consistent with the historical period in which the shroud itself had begun its controversial life.

Whatever that is said and done, the controversy doesn’t look like it will go away any time soon. Still, we cannot ignore Bishop D’Arcis’ warning or Clement’s confession; that ultimately we are dealing with a hoax. Modern forensic technologies appear to vindicate them and yet supporters of the Shroud continue to argue.

Measuring 4.37 by 1.13 metres, the Shroud of Turin probably met its sternest critique in 1543 when John Calvin, in his Treatise on Relics, wrote, “How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christ’s death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet?” 

According to the Apostle John, there was one sheet that covered Jesus’ body (Jn 19:40) and a separate one for His head (20:5-7). 

So the smoking gun question is how the Shroud of Turin could show the entire body including the head if what John says is true.

“Either St John is a liar,” said Calvin or that anyone who sees fit to perpetuate this centuries-old forgery should be “convicted of falsehood and deceit.”