Page 1

           The Shroud of Turin is a piece of linen cloth with the images of a man, who had apparently been laid on half of it with the other half draped over him. The faithful believe Jesus was wrapped in such a shroud, like this, when he was taken from the Cross. There has always been debate about the Shroud and there always will be. In the article, Shroud of Turin Goes on Public Display this Weekend, Thaddeus J. Trenn, a professor at the University of Toronto is quoted: "The Shroud of Turin may be viewed as a parable for modern times... Through out his earthly life, Jesus spoke in parables, which ... may be translated as riddles. How appropriate, then, that he should have left such a magnificent conundrum for posterity" (qtd. in 417).

           The debate about the Shroud of Turin is nothing new. It has gone on for centuries. However, interest in the Shroud certainly was renewed in 1898 when photographs were taken by Secondo Pia. The first photographs of the Shroud showed the images to look like photographic negatives. Pia believed no artist could have created this realistic effect revealed by the photographs. Local authorities, including Baron Manno, came to Pia's house to see the original negatives. In the book, The Shroud of Turin, John Walsh wrote, "Baron Manno was soon satisfied that the photograph had been the result of a process. He and others agreed with Pia that the negative-positive aspect of the discovery proved the relic's authenticity." (38). The original negative was placed on display.

           The man in the images appears to have been crucified and include his face. The images are faint in photographs. Ian Wilson has seen the Shroud in person. In his book, The Shroud of Turin: Burial Cloth of Jesus?, he wrote, "The astonishing aspect of seeing the shroud itself rather than a photograph is discovering how pale and subtle the image appears" (9). From this it would be safe to conclude the images are at least as faint on the Shroud itself. The images appear unrealistic because they are a reversal of how things naturally look. However, when looking at the photographic negative one sees the man as in real life. Therefore, much more detail can be observed in the photographic negative.

           One of the greatest knights of the crusades, Geoffroy de Charny, is believed to have received the Shroud as spoils of war at the fall of Constantinople in the last crusade. Robert de Clari, chronicler of the fourth crusade, described what took place when crusaders triumphantly stormed Constantinople (Walsh 45). He wrote, "There was a monastery known as Lady St. Mary of the Blachernes, in which was kept the shroud in which Our Lord was wrapped; on every Friday this was held out so well that it was possible to see the face of Our Lord" (qtd. in Walsh 45).

           Pia's photographs renewed interest in the Holy Shroud and someone immediately sprang up determined to discredit it. Cyr Ulysse Chevalier, a French priest who specialized in medieval lore, in 1899 and 1900 claimed to have proof the relic was a forgery painted by an artist (Walsh 49).

           Chevalier offered nothing new. He reiterated the claim of Bishop Pierri d'Arcis who in 1389 wrote to Pope Clement VII, claming that, "An earlier Bishop of Troyes ... had conducted an investigation around 1355, and the 'artist who had cleverly painted it' had come forth and confessed." (Scavone 14) However, historians have never turned up any record of an investigation. The only hard evidence is the letter itself which amounts to hear say.