For believers, it is tangible proof of the crucifixion and miraculous resurrection of Jesus Christ.
For skeptics, it is a clever centuries-old hoax that continues to win over the gullible despite being repeatedly debunked.
No religious relic has inspired more debate than the Shroud of Turin, an ancient linen cloth bearing the faint image of a man whose injuries resemble those attributed to Jesus.
According to Shroud.com, an online compilation of Shroud research, it is generally undisputed that the cloth dates at least as far back as 1349.
That said, a “significant amount of evidence,” mostly unproven, supports the notion that the Shroud predates the 1300s, the site reports.
Ian Wilson, a foremost authority on the Shroud, has authored some of the most definitive books on the subject.
In his latest, 2010’s The Shroud : the 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved, Wilson purports to present historical evidence that the cloth indeed dates back to the time of Christ.
Not only is the cloth old enough to have wrapped the body of Jesus, Wilson says, the facts strongly point to its authenticity.
In 2011, Italy’s National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Development published an interesting report on the Shroud.
The Independent summed up the report by saying the scientists claimed to have evidence that a “supernatural event” is responsible for the cloth’s mysterious image.
“The results show that a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin,” they were quoted as saying.
Of course the type of technology needed to produce such a radiation burst, the researchers pointed out, would not have been available to fraudsters centuries ago.
For many, the report confirmed what they already believed: at the moment of his resurrection, Jesus’ body gave off a “flash” that imprinted his image onto the Shroud.
Doubters
Not so fast, say doubters. They point to radiocarbon dating performed in 1988 that showed, with 95 per cent certainty, that the Shroud is made from material dated between 1260 and 1390 AD.
While some scientists have expressed doubt over the accuracy of those tests, they would appear to be in the minority; the expert consensus remains that the Shroud is not real.
So if a supernatural event did not generate the Shroud’s image, what did? Skeptics subscribe to a wide range of theories.
Some believe the Shroud is the work of an expert artist, while others see it as a primitive photograph. Others accept that the Shroud is a burial cloth, but surmise its image came from a mixture of body oils and sweat from the body it enveloped.
In many ways, the Shroud is a reflection of religion itself in that it can be neither wholly discredited nor wholly supported by science.
Is the Shroud of Turin genuine? Perhaps both believers and skeptics hold positions based at least partially on faith.
