SINDONE

SHROUD. – A funeral cloth that wrapped the Body of Jesus Christ. Several pieces of cloth, preserved in various locations, have aspired to this honor (Compiègne, Besançon, Cadouin, Bitonto, etc.); a careful analysis has shown that the only Shroud which has a serious probability of being authentic is the one currently preserved in the cathedral of Turin and which comes from Lirey and Chambéry.

I. HISTORY

When the Latins conquered Constantinople (1205), the bishop of Troyes, Garnier de Trainel, was present there and was entrusted with the custody of the relics of the imperial chapel. He died in Constantinople. One of his two attendants, Guillaume de Champley, was present at his death and later married into the family of the counts of Charny, in whose family the Shroud appears around 1350. Geoffrey I of Charny built a collegiate church at Lirey and there, with the authorization of the papal legate Cardinal Pietro of S. Susanna, exposed the sacred linen for public veneration. It is reasonable to think that the papal legate would have received from Geoffrey of Charny such information as to consider the Shroud an authentic relic; however, there are no written documents regarding such information. Instead, the draft of a letter sent later by the bishop of Troyes, Pierre d’Arcis, to Pope Clement VII in Avignon has survived. The tone of the letter is very polemical; the bishop attests that his predecessor, Henri de Poitiers, had examined the matter and had even found the painter who had painted the Shroud; moreover, he claims that the cloth was displayed not for devotion, but for profit, even faking miracles. Clement VII prudently decided the matter, allowing the display of the Shroud, but ordering the canons of Lirey not to affirm officially the authenticity of the relic, while granting an indulgence to the faithful (1390). In substance, the Shroud of Lirey emerged unscathed from the discussions of 1389–90; the action of the bishop of Troyes to accuse the canons of Lirey of forgery, greed, and profit was quickly silenced (Cognasso). Recently, Msgr. Pietro Savio of the Vatican Secret Archives presented to the International Congress of Sindonological Studies (Rome 1950) documents from which the figures of Geoffrey of Charny and the canons of Lirey appear in a morally very favorable light.

From Lirey, after various peregrinations due to war, the Shroud passed to Chambéry and became the property of the dukes of Savoy (1453); here it suffered a fire in 1532 and had to be repaired by the Poor Clares of Chambéry (the white patches sewn on at that time are still clearly visible on the Shroud today); in 1535 the Shroud traveled to Turin, Vercelli, and Nice (during the war between Charles V and Francis I); then it returned to Chambéry for a short time; in 1578 Emmanuel Philibert transferred it to Turin so that St. Charles Borromeo could venerate it in his own city; in Turin the Shroud is still kept in the monumental chapel designed by Guarino Guarini. During the World War, the Shroud was transferred for a short time to the sanctuary of Montevergine, where it could be observed by the Gedda.

II. THE SHROUD AND SCIENCE

Noguier and Vignon in Paris conducted research and studies, with the aid of chemical experiments, to try to explain the process by which the remarkable imprint could have been produced. Vignon then proposed a theory called “vaporography”: the area of sweat would have turned into ammonia, which would have oxidized and darkened a solution of aloe that would have been on the cloth. Almost simultaneously, Canon Chevalier published the draft of the letter by Pierre d’Arcis, mentioned above, arguing that the Shroud was a work of mystification and deceit (as, moreover, Leclercq has recently argued, *Suaire*, in DACL, XV, cols. 1718–24). It can be said, in general terms and with some exceptions, that in favor of the authenticity of the Shroud particularly scholars of experimental sciences (chemists, doctors, technicians) have lined up, while against it more commonly stand historians and some exegetes.

In a delicate problem like this, it is first of all necessary to affirm that here Faith is not properly at issue; the Church has officially defined nothing; each person is free to form his own conviction based on his own and others’ research. It seems, however, that in a problem of archaeology the “external documents” (especially when they are clearly polemical, as in our case) must be supplemented by the “internal examination” of the object. And, since it is a very particular object, it is reasonable to resort to competent technical persons. A cloth like that of the Shroud cannot be studied only with dictionaries and criteria of linguistic philology.

A scholar who certainly knew well historical criticism and all the requirements of philology, but who at the same time knew how to understand the needs of experimental scientific studies, His Holiness Pius XI, in a conversation with Cardinal Fossati, archbishop of Turin, uttered very serious and thoughtful words: “We have personally followed the studies on the Holy Shroud and we are convinced of its authenticity. There have been objections, but they do not hold.”

The study of the Shroud, especially after 1931, after a new photograph, technically perfect and taken in the presence of prelates and scientists by Enrico, entered a new phase, particularly through the work of chemists (Scotti, Hynek, Judica-Cordiglia, Roma, and Timossi). The Shroud thus appears as a document like many others, of a medico-legal nature, a document from which one can start to reconstruct the crime, which in this case was the Passion. The patient examination of the cloth has revealed such physiological and pathological phenomena as no one could have imagined. It must be added that, for other alleged shrouds, analytical examinations have led to negative conclusions; a typical case is that of the cloth of Cadouin, which proved to be a fake fabric.

As to the process by which the imprints on the Shroud were formed, it is less easy to pronounce definitively. Vignon’s theory was criticized by Dezani and the present writer (1931–33); Romanese and Judica, with elegant experiments, obtained partial reproductions from cadavers using various chemical substances, through a kind of contact. The difficulty encountered by these scholars in these partial reproductions of imprints, however, led them to declare that in the formation of the Shroud’s imprints, undoubtedly providential circumstances must have intervened. The essential circumstance was certainly the Resurrection of Christ; if Christ had not risen, the Shroud would obviously have altered, as always happens with the cloths that wrap inumated bodies.

In the scientific-experimental field, recently only two authors have brought forward elements against authenticity: Fr. Braun, indirectly, by citing experiments by a Parisian painter, and Dr. Eskenazi of Istanbul; both authors affirm that the Shroud must have been formed by a rubbing technique on a model created by a medieval artist. Thus, from painting (invoked by Pierre d’Arcy) we move to sculpture. But it is well known that no sculptor could have created, in 1350, such a figure; the artistic standards of the time were infinitely distant from figures like those of the Shroud.

The only scientific hypothesis that can be formulated to explain the Shroud is this: that an unknown person in the Middle Ages killed a man in a very specific way, namely in a manner unlike the common iconographic tradition, with the aim of creating a unique relic. It should be noted that the imprints on the Shroud exclude the case of an ordinary corpse; in fact, it is possible to discern on the cloth different imprints of both fresh blood and post-mortem blood (Caselli).

The internal examination of the Shroud thus proves, objectively, to be favorable to its authenticity.

III. THE SHROUD AND HOLY SCRIPTURE

On each of these points, the most careful examination of terms and circumstances, in the judgment of the present writer, allows the following to be affirmed with certainty.

a) There can be no doubt that Joseph and Nicodemus followed Jewish customs as far as the circumstances of time and place permitted. However, the words of the Evangelist (Jn 19:40), translated in the Vulgate as *“sicut mos est Iudaeis sepelire”*, given the constant meaning of the Greek verb *ἐνταφιάζειν* (“to prepare for burial, to embalm”) and the structure of the sentence, refer only to the use of spices in the treatment of the corpse. Before applying spices, it was customary to wash the corpse, but the Gospels never mention such a washing with regard to Jesus; it is unlikely that it took place, given the lack of water on Calvary and the time required for such an operation, especially considering the particular condition of Jesus’ body, lacerated by wounds and encrusted with clots of blood, while the need to act quickly and complete the burial before sunset was urgent on account of the approaching Sabbath rest. The same must be said of the cutting or shaving of hair, which was omitted under such abnormal conditions. Despite these omissions in the preparatory rites, the burial itself, or interment, could well have been—and in the intention of those performing it, was—complete and definitive.

b) For the anointing of the sacred remains of the Crucified, John specifies the particular spices used, myrrh and aloe (aloe), which Nicodemus actually employed; Luke speaks generally of oily unguents (myra) and spices (déodata), purchased by the pious women, but rendered useless by the sudden resurrection. The two terminologies complement each other; myrrh was used to make a liquid gum like oil (déodav); aloe, whether a resin, like common medicinal aloe, or a wood, like aquilaria agalloca (which seems to be the sense of biblical aloe), provided a solid perfume (déodata) in powder form; their mixture (déodata, according to the common reading in Jn 19:39) formed an ointment suitable for spreading on the skin and not without effect on the wrappings of the corpse.

c) As for these wrappings, the Synoptics use a single term, othónion, i.e. linen; St. John uses two terms, othónion (Vulg. linteamina, cloths) and sērikon, a Latin word adopted into Greek and Eastern languages. A third term is used by the same Evangelist (Jn 11:44), but in reference to the burial of Lazarus, sērigma, bandages or strips. Many modern authors have taken the term othónion precisely in the sense of bandages; others, however, identified it with the Synoptic sērikon or considered the three terms equivalent. Some finally argued for the equivalence of sudarium and sērikon. Into this confused whirlwind of different voices comes opportunely a clarifying word from a document dating to around the year 320, published only in 1952 in the Catalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyri of the John Rylands Library in Manchester (vol. IV). Greek papyrus 627 is a long list (anagrafē) of personal belongings of a Roman government agent in Egypt. Under the generic heading othónion (line 9), it records two kinds of phanasphurion (Latin fasciolae, synonym of sudarium), four othónia (lines 13-17), and an indeterminate quantity of bandages or strips (phanasphurion, line 41). Here we have all four Gospel terms, two with the same Greek word, two with the Latin equivalent; the first, othónion, denotes a genus, cloths, while the other three import three distinct species of that genus: shroud (sērikon), sudarium, and bandages. This is also the sense that must be given to these words in the Gospels; this, moreover, was already the interpretation given by the Fathers, e.g., St. Augustine (De consensu Evang., III, 23 end). In conclusion, the Gospel accounts specify two pieces of cloth used in the burial of Jesus: the shroud that enveloped the body and the sudarium that covered the head. The bandages or strips, not mentioned, must be assumed, both because of general usage and because of their mention in the case of Lazarus, and because of the need to make the shroud adhere to the body of the deceased.

d) It remains now to determine the exact position of the cloths on the corpse of Jesus. Two possibilities may be conceived: that the shroud covered the body from the feet to the neck only, and the head was wrapped only in the sudarium, or that the shroud enveloped the entire body, head included. The example of countless Egyptian mummies brought to light in recent times shows how the general, if not exclusive, practice was the latter. To keep the outer shroud adhering to the head, the Egyptians, who did not use the sudarium, passed a bandage or strip around the neck, as with others they bound the trunk and lower limbs. As for the custom in Judea, one may ask whether the sudarium was applied immediately on the head under the shroud, or whether it was placed outside, over the shroud, thus serving the office of the Egyptian bandage. The scene of the resurrection of Lazarus, who appeared to those present with his hands and feet bound with strips and his face wrapped in the sudarium (Jn 11:44), suggests that the sudarium must have been placed outside, visible to the onlookers.

e) For the question of the Turin Shroud, the voice of a Gospel arising on the periphery of the canonical Gospels must not be overlooked. St. Jerome indeed had in hand a Gospel written in Aramaic and set such store by it (he was not averse to believing it the original of St. Matthew) that he translated it himself into Greek and Latin. Both versions have been lost, but fragments of them have come down to us, some in the margins of Greek manuscripts of the canonical Gospel of Matthew, others in quotations by St. Jerome himself. In chapter 2 of his De viris illustribus (PL 23, col. 641, no. 831), the holy Doctor cites a passage where it is said that the risen Jesus appeared to James the Less “after giving the shroud to the servant of the priest.” The circumstances of time and person do not allow doubt that here reference must be made to the shroud with which Jesus himself was buried. Whatever historical authority one may wish to give or deny to that apocryphal Gospel and its account, it is certain in any case that in the 2nd century, the age in which that writing was already circulating, there were Christians who took an interest in the fate of the Saviour’s burial shroud and believed they knew where it was preserved. Thus the Christian antiquity is not entirely silent, as has so often been said and repeated, on the relic of the holy shroud. — See pl. XLII. Alberto Vaccari