The Challenge of the Shroud
History, Science and the Shroud of Turin
by
Book Cover & Preview Text
It was not until the advent of photography that scientific examination of the Shroud could begin. Before Secondo Pia took his ground-breaking photographs in 1898, the Shroud was seen purely as a religious artifact. One could either believe or not believe that it was the genuine shroud of Jesus Christ; it was all a matter of faith. The image on it was clearly of miraculous origin. How the miracle had occurred was not a question that any of the faithful asked.
Pia’s photographs showed for the first time that science had something to say about the Shroud. By revealing the negativity of the image they clearly demonstrated that scientific procedures – in this case photography – could discover more information about the Shroud. Once this realization had been made the door was open to scientific study and debate.
The first scientists to study the Shroud were medical doctors. The nature of the image and the injuries to the man on the Shroud excited the interest, among others, of a French professor of anatomy, Yves Delage. Delage was an agnostic with a wide range of scientific and other interests who clearly felt that the positive image revealed in the photographs deserved more detailed examination. In 1900 he discussed the photographs with another scientist, a young man called Paul Vignon. Vignon had a knowledge of both biology and art, which enabled him to eventually reach, among other findings, the conclusion that the image could not have been formed by painting.
Vignon and Delage, assisted by three other scientists, carried out their investigation from 1900 until 1902. Their major disadvantage was that they did not have access to the Shroud itself and had to work from Pia’s photographs. Despite this, their work was a credit to the limited resources and limited technology of the time. On 21 April 1902 Professor Delage gave a detailed report on the investigation to the French Academy of Science in Paris, one of the world’s leading scientific bodies. This was the same venue where Louis Pasteur had announced his discovery of a vaccine for rabies.
Delage announced the findings of his and Vignon’s research to the Academy. It was their conclusion that the image on the Shroud was that of a dead human male. They found that the image could not have been painted but was the result of direct contact between the cloth and the body it had enfolded. However, they went further. They identified the body as being that of Jesus Christ and declared that the Shroud was indeed that used in his burial. Delage’s final recommendation was that the Italian authorities should be approached to allow more detailed examination of the Shroud.
Delage’s conclusions were highly controversial in the prevailing intellectual atmosphere of free thought and rationalism in France at that time. The majority of members of the Academy were religious sceptics to whom the suggestion that the Shroud could be that of Christ was totally unacceptable. The permanent secretary of the Academy, Pierre Berthelot, was a leading sceptic who attempted to prevent Delage from presenting his report to the Academy in the first place. Although over-ruled, he ensured that much of Delage’s report was excluded from the journal of the Academy. He was in the forefront of criticism of Delage, who was accused of being a traitor to science and to his own agnosticism. Delage’s response to his critics remains an outstanding defence of scientific integrity:
“I recognize Christ as a historical personage, and I see no reason why anyone should be scandalized by the fact that there still exists material traces of his earthly life…. If our proofs have not been received by certain persons as they deserve to be, it is only because a religious question has been needlessly injected into a problem which in itself is purely scientific, with the result that feelings run high and reason has been led astray. If, instead of Christ, there were questions of some person like a Sargon or Achilles, or one of the Pharaohs, no one would have thought of making any objection…. I have been faithful to the true spirit of Science in treating this question, intent only on the truth, not concerned in the least whether the truth would affect the interests of any religious party. There are those, however, who have let themselves be swayed by this consideration and have betrayed the scientific method.”1
Formats
Book Details
About the Book
The book addresses the many challenges posed by the Shroud. If, for example, it really was the work of a 14th century forger, how did such a person, with the limited scientific knowledge of his time, produce an artifact that can still not be replicated or even explained by 21st century sceince? If the Shroud is evidence of an event that could be called supernatural - the resurrection of a dead man - what does this imply for scientists studying it|? If the Shroud is evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, what are the implications of this for those who do not believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God or that he was anything but a rural Jewish teacher? What are the challenges facing researchers and theologians today both in preserving the Shroud and in carrying out further scientific research?
The book is in three main parts - a complete review of the history of the Shroud - both known and speculated; a study of crucifixion as a method of execution and its relationship to the image and markings on the Shroud; and a review of the scientific studies carried out on the Shroud over the past century, together with the various hypotheses that have been advanced as to how the image was formed. The book concludes with some suggestions as to how conflicting demands for preservation of the Shroud and for further scientific studies can be reconciled and carried forward.
About the Author
Mark Oxley is a Zimbabwean businessman who has spent over three years carrying out detailed research on the history of the Shroud of Turin and on the scientific studies that have been carried out on it. A scientist by training with an avid interest in both classical and mediaeval history, he has used both disciplines to carry out an in-depth review of the current state of knowledge about the Shroud.