|The Turin Cathedral, and the Royal Chapel, located in the back of the cathedral. The Chapel was damaged by fire in 1997 and it is still being restored. We can see the reconstruction of the dome of the chapel in progress. The Shroud of Turin is normally kept in the Chapel but has been moved in the cathedral during its restoration.|
The linen cloth is a fine rare weave: a 3-1 herringbone. Its average thickness is less than half a millimeter, around 0.25 mm. It is shown only on rare occasions, most recently in 1998 (celebrating the 100 years anniversary of the first photography of the Shroud), 2000 (the new millennium), and in the Spring of 2010. The next exposition of the Shroud is going to be from April 19 to June 24, 2015.
The history of the Shroud is complex and we will only make a cursory exposition of it.
Note: The whereabouts of the Shroud before 1357 is not known with very strong certainty. Some would say that the Shroud did not exist before the 14th century, which, of course, would imply that the actual Turin Shroud is not authentic. But multiple evidences support that the Shroud existed before 1357. Some of the following statements about the history of the Shroud, prior to 1357, are considered controversial. The most obscure periods are the first three centuries and the years 1204 to 1356.
For several centuries, the Shroud appears to have been kept in the city of Edessa, now known as Şanliurfa in Turkey, near the Syrian boarder. The Shroud would have been the Image of Edessa. This theory was first proposed by Ian Wilson.
It is most likely that only the reliquary containing the Image of Edessa was displayed to the public and artistic copies of the face only was shown to the public. Confusion about the image of Edessa might have been caused by such copies.
Byzantine Emperors likely used the Shroud in many of their ceremonies and as a true representation of Christ for their icons, coins, paintings, and other artistic renditions.
In 944, the Image of Edessa was transferred to Constantinople, Turkey (known as Istanbul since 1930).
It was last seen, in the Eastern world, in Constantinople in 1203, before its reappearance in Lirey, France around 1357. In 1203, Robert de Clari, a Knight of the Fourth Crusade, reported a public display, in Constantinople, of a shroud similar to the Turin Shroud, with an image on it which he interpreted as being Jesus-Christ. It is possible that the Shroud was kept in Constantinople for many years after the city was sack by the crusaders.
Historians have proposed several scenarios for the transfer of the Shroud from Constantinople to France, its next well documented location. I present a few scenarios here (this is not a comprehensive list):
The Templars would have owned the Shroud for over a century until the order was disbanded in 1312. This scenario is based on the description by some templars of a "Baphomet", a bearded head, used in the initiation ritual. But almost all of these descriptions were obtained by the Inquisition under torture. The "Baphomet" would have been the Shroud. For some unclear reason, the Knights Templar would have given the Shroud to Geoffroy I de Charny. Ian Wilson has proposed this scenario in his book The Shroud of Turin.
This scenario has several major weaknesses, two of which are: 1) the "Baphomet" was always described as a tridimensional object made of only a head; 2) how would the Shroud passed from the Templars to Geoffroy de Charny is totally unknown.
On April 6, 2009, the Vatican's newspaper L'Osservatore Romano reports that Barbara Frale, an historian and an expert on the Knights Templar, has uncovered evidence from the Vatican Secret Archives that the Shroud of Turin was in the hands of the Templars between the time it disappeared from Constantinople in 1204 and its appearance in Lirey, France, in 1357. The document relates the account of a young Frenchman, Arnaut Sabbatier, in 1287: "I was shown a long piece of linen on which was impressed the figure of a man and told to worship it, kissing the feet three times". This finding has been critized by several historians and scholars as an incorrect interpretation of an already known text.
Geoffroy I de Charny, the first owner of the Shroud in France, would have acquired it as a gift from Humbert II after he participated at the battle of Smyrna (1345-1346) (croisade du Dauphin), then bring it back to Lirey, France.
There are several weaknesses to this scenario, two of which are: the Shroud was never reported to be in Smyrna, it is not clear that Geoffroy I de Charny participated at the battle of Smyrna.
Othon de la Roche would have owned the Shroud while in Athens, Greece.
This possibility appears very unlikely because it is based on many erroneous statements made in the 1714 dissertation on the Shroud of Besançon in the manuscript 826 of the Archives of the Bibliothèque de Besançon.
In any case, several subscenarios are based on the assumption that Othon de la Roche once owned the Shroud. The following mentions two such subscenarios.
Yet, this theory has several major weaknesses, one of which is that we have no report of any public exposition of the Shroud in Besançon before the 16th century. (Note: it is well established that the later shroud in Besançon, that is, from the 16th century to 1792, was a painting.)
Another scenario does not include Besançon but assumes that the Shroud was passed down from Othon de la Roche to Jeanne de Vergy, the second wife of Geoffroy de Charny. This scenario would contradict the statement by Marguerite de Charny, the grand-daughter of Geoffroy de Charny, who stated that the Shroud was from his grand-father and not his grand-mother.
The Mandylion, that is, the image of Edessa, is assumed to be the Shroud of Turin. The Mandylion would have reached the Sainte-Chapelle in Paris when Louis IX acquired several relics from the emperor Baudoin II in Constantinople. The Mandylion would be described as a "toile" (cloth), inserted in a box (the reliquary), in the list of relics.
The Mandylion would have been kept in a reliquary until the French Revolution, but the Mandylion would have been removed from the reliquary before 1535 because the inventories of the relics of the Sainte-Chapelle of that period, and all the following inventories, do not mention a "toile" (cloth) but only a description of the reliquary with the image of the face of Jesus Christ in it (named as a Veronica).
It is assumed that the the kings of France, from Louis IX to Philippe VI de Valois or Jean II le Bon, as well as the clerics responsible for the safeguard of the relics, would not have known that an image existed on the "toile". They would have confused the painted face of Jesus Christ (named by the clerics as a Veronica) in the reliquary as the main relic. Meanwhile the cloth, which would have been folded in the reliquary, remained unidentified by the clerics for over a century.
This confusion is possible, because it is well documented that the "toile" was considered a secondary relic among all the relics received from Baudoin II. It was never listed in the first articles in the list of relics (more important relics, such as the Crown of Thorns were listed first) and no mention about its relation to the Mandylion was ever done by the Latin owners when they took power in Constantinople. In other words, the Mandylion and its image was unknown by the Latin. In the West, the Veronica was well known, and this is the term used by the clerics to describe the face they saw at the bottom of the reliquary where the Mandylion was kept.
Philippe VI or Jean le Bon would have given the Mandylion to Geoffroy de Charny, founder of the collegiate church at Lirey, for his services to the kings of France. But the king would not have known the real value of the relic.
The Shroud of Turin makes its entry in the Western world in France. We have strong historical records of its existence around 1357 at Lirey, France, a small village about 200 km southeast of Paris. For example, a medallion reproducing the Shroud was found in 1855 in the Seine river (see A Souvenir From Lirey). The medallion clearly depicts the Turin Shroud and it holds the ecussons of de Charny family and de Vergy family (14th century), his second spouse. This is corroborated with a report from the same period that a shroud of Christ was on display at Lirey around 1357 at the collegiate church founded by Geoffroy I de Charny.
|The small Lirey village on Google map.|
In 1453, Marguerite de Charny, daughter of Geoffroy II de Charny, gives the Shroud to the DukeLouis de Savoie, in Chambéry, France. Marguerite de Charny dies not long after, in 1460.
The Duke had a chapel built to house the Shroud in Chambéry. It was also shown in many small cities in France until it was brought to Turin in 1578 by the Duke of Savoy, where it is still located today.
In 1983, the Shroud was given to the head of the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope.
The Shroud was never in America nor in the far Eastern World.
A lengthy introduction to the Shroud of Turin can be found at Wikipedia, Shroud of Turin. You can even study the series of editing that took place between believers and non-believers of the authenticity of the Shroud.
While photography has the advantage of fixing an image in time and of concentrating it so that whichever angle you look at it from it remains the same, with the Shroud itself that is not the case.
Moving around that table from a certain angle I saw this image so faded as if to practically disappear, while from others it seemed as if the figure were almost outside the sheet; it was, I repeat, an incredible emotion. At that moment I knew that this image was unique.
Let me tell you more.
I asked permission to photograph some details of the face. As I said previously, I thought I knew it well.. I approached the face placing my camera at a distance of about 20 - 30 cm, aimed the camera at the face and saw ... nothing in the viewfinder; "and yet" I said " I know it by heart." I had to beg my friend to point to the position of the eye, because from a distance of 30 cm I could not see it. I could only see it as I moved away from it. So it is a barely perceptible image, one which escapes you, which leaves you perplexed.
I am convinced that if people could see it from close up they would not only feel great emotion, but would also realize the real consistency of this image, which would dispel the many doubts surrounding the authenticity of this sheet which unquestionably enshrouded a corpse, and of this there is absolutely no doubt.