Shroud

SHROUD. - A burial cloth that wrapped the Body of Jesus Christ. Several cloths, preserved in various places, have aspired to this honor (Compiègne, Besançon, Cadouin, Bitonto, etc.); a careful analysis has shown that the only Shroud with 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

The first historical documents concerning the Shroud are obviously the Gospels; later there are mentions of the burial cloths of Christ's sepulchre in the 7th century; clearer is the mention made of it by Robert of Clari in 1204; he attests to the presence of the Shroud in the imperial chapel of St. Mary of Blachernae, in Constantinople, and says that the Shroud was displayed, as of right, every Friday, so that the figure of Christ could clearly be seen on it. From 1204 to 1350 the documents are silent. It should be noted that even for many other distinguished relics there is no continuous sequence of documents; the case of the Shroud is therefore not isolated. There are, however, historical notices that allow one, by induction, to reconstruct with serious probability the history of the Shroud during this period as well.

When the Latins conquered Constantinople (1205), the bishop of Troyes, Garnier de Trainel, was present there, and he was in fact entrusted with guarding the relics of the imperial chapel. He died in Constantinople. Present at his death was one of his two familiars, William of Champlitte, who later married into the family of the counts of Charny, the very family in which, around 1350, the Shroud appears. Geoffrey I of Charny built a collegiate church at Lirey and there, with the authorization of the papal legate Cardinal Peter of St. Susanna, exposed the sacred linen to public veneration. It is natural to think that the papal legate must have received from Geoffrey of Charny such information as to be able to consider the Shroud an authentic relic; however, there are no written documents concerning such information. What has survived, instead, is the draft of a letter subsequently sent by the bishop of Troyes, Peter d'Arcy, to Pope Clement VII in Avignon. The tone of the letter is highly polemical; the bishop attests that his predecessor, Henry of Poitiers, had examined the question and had even found the painter who had painted the Shroud; furthermore he affirms that the cloth was displayed non ad finem devocionis, sed questus, with false miracles also being fabricated. Clement VII decided the question prudentially, permitting the display of the Shroud, but enjoining the Canons of Lirey not to affirm officially the authenticity of the relic, and at the same time granting an indulgence to the faithful (1390). In substance « the Shroud of Lirey emerged intact from the discussions of 1389-90; the action of the bishop of Troyes to accuse the Canons of Lirey of falsification, greed, and profit was quickly hushed up » (Cognasso). Recently Msgr. Pietro Savio, of the Vatican Secret Archive, presented to the International Congress of Sindonological Studies (Rome 1950) documents from which the figures of Geoffrey of Charny and of the Canons of Lirey appear in a morally very favorable light.

From Lirey, after various wanderings because of wars, 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 today on the Shroud); in 1535 the Shroud journeyed 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 transported it to Turin so that St. Charles Borromeo could venerate it there; in Turin the Shroud is still kept in the monumental Chapel designed by Guarini. During World War II the Shroud was transported, for a short time, to the sanctuary of Montevergine, where it could be observed by Gedda.

II. THE SHROUD AND SCIENCE

Around the Shroud of Turin a lively controversy flared up, particularly between 1898 and 1902. On the advice of Nogueir de Malijai, a learned Salesian priest, King Umberto I had Pia take a photograph of the Shroud; an unexpected fact immediately struck the photographer during the development of the plate: on it he did not see the usual negative, but instead a marvelous positive, most beautiful, shaded, such as no artist could ever produce. It must even be said that certain painters, among them Reffo, tried to work back from the photograph to the construction of a negative, but with the most unfortunate result.

Nogueir and Vignon, in Paris, carried out research and studies, with the aid of chemical experiments, to try to explain the process by which the wondrous imprint could have been produced. Vignon then put forward a theory called "vaporographic": the urea of the sweat would have been transformed into ammonia, and this would have oxidized and darkened a solution of aloe that would have been present on the cloth. Almost simultaneously Canon Chevalier published the draft of the letter of Pietro d'Arcy, to which mention has been made, maintaining that the Shroud is a work of mystification and imposture (as, moreover, Leclercq, Suire, in DACL, XV, coll. 1718-24, also maintains quite recently). It may be said, in general terms and apart from a certain number of exceptions, that in favor of the authenticity of the Shroud have ranged themselves particularly scholars of the experimental sciences (chemists, physicians, technicians), while against it are more commonly historians and some exegetes.

In a delicate problem such as this, it is fitting first of all to affirm that here the Faith is not properly at issue; the Church has officially defined nothing; each person is free to form his own conviction on the basis of his own and others' research. It seems, however, that in a problem of archaeology the "external documents" (all the more so if they are evidently polemical, as in our case) ought to be completed by the "internal examination" of the object. And, since it is a very particular object, it is reasonable to have recourse to technically competent persons. A cloth such as that of the Shroud cannot be studied only with dictionaries and with criteria of linguistic philology.

A scholar who certainly knew historical criticism well and all the requirements of philology, but who at the same time knew how to understand the requirements of scientific-experimental studies, His Holiness Pius XI, in a conversation with Cardinal Fossati, Archbishop of Turin, uttered words that were very weighty and full of deliberation: "We have personally followed the studies on the Holy Shroud and we have become persuaded of its authenticity. Objections have been made, but they do not hold."

The study of the Shroud, especially after 1931, that is, after a new photograph, with technical perfection, in the presence of prelates and scientists, was taken by Enrie, entered a new phase, particularly through the work of chemists (Scotti), of physicians and surgeons (Barbet, Hynek, Judica, Romanese, Masera, Caselli), of textile technicians (Timossi). The Shroud thus appears as a document like many others, of a medico-legal character, a document from which, that is, one can start in order to reconstruct the crime, which in this case was deicide. The patient examination of the cloth has revealed such anatomical, physiological, and pathological refinements as no one could ever have imagined. It must be added that, for other supposed shrouds, analytical examinations have led to negative conclusions; typical is the case of the cloth of Cadouin, which proved to be a Fatimid fabric.

As for 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 by the present writer (1931-33); Romanese and Judica, with elegant experiments, obtained partial reproductions from a corpse by various procedures, by a kind of contact, using various chemical substances. The difficulty encountered by these scholars in these partial reproductions of imprints, however, drives them to declare that in the formation of the imprints of the Shroud there must undoubtedly have concurred providential circumstances. The essential circumstance was certainly the Resurrection of Christ; if Christ had not risen, obviously the Shroud would have been altered, as always happens with cloths that wrap buried bodies.

In the scientific-experimental field, recently only two authors have brought elements against authenticity: Father Braun, in an indirect way, that is, citing the experiments of a Parisian painter, and Dr. Eskenazi of Istanbul; both authors affirm that the Shroud must have been formed by transfer onto a model created by a medieval artist. Thus from painting (invoked by Pietro d'Arcy) we pass to sculpture. But it is well known that no sculptor could have created, in 1350, such a figure; the anatomy of the time was infinitely distant from figures such as 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 definite way, that is, in a manner unlike the common iconographic tradition, for the purpose of fabricating a unique relic. It must be noted that the imprints of the Shroud exclude the case of an ordinary corpse; it is in fact possible to discern on the cloth different imprints, of living blood and of postmortem blood (Caselli).

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

III. THE SHROUD AND HOLY SCRIPTURE

In the discussions concerning the authenticity of the Shroud, recourse was naturally had to the Gospels and, in general, to the biblical passages that might shed some light on the manner in which Christ was buried; but among exegetes one notices a scarcely edifying discord. The nerve points of the discussion essentially come down to four: a) the distinction between the preparation of the corpse and its entombment, on account of the true meaning of the verb ἐνταφιάζειν used by the Evangelists (Jn. 19:40; Mt. 26:12); b) the number and nature of the perfumes employed therein; c) the number and distinction of the linen cloths in which the body of Jesus was wrapped; d) how many and which of them were in immediate contact with the sacred body. On each of these points, here is what the most careful examination of the terms and circumstances, in the judgment of the present writer, permits one to affirm with certainty.

a) There can be no doubt that Joseph and Nicodemus followed Jewish customs, insofar as the circumstances of time and place allowed. However, the words of the evangelist (Jn. 19:40) translated in the Vulgate as "as is the custom of the Jews to bury," by the constant meaning of the Greek verb ἐνταφιάζειν ("to prepare for burial, to embalm") and by the structure of the sentence, must be referred only to the use of aromatics in the treatment of the corpse. Before applying the aromatics it was the general custom to wash the corpse, but of such washing the Gospels never make mention in the case of Jesus; it is not probable that it was practiced, both because of the lack of water on the hill of Calvary and because of the too great time that the special condition of Jesus' body would have required, lacerated by wounds and encrusted with clots of blood, while there was urgency to act quickly and complete the burial before sunset on account of the imminent Sabbath rest. The same must be said of the cutting or shaving of the hair, which was not omitted under normal conditions. Notwithstanding such omissions in the preliminaries, the burial properly so called, or entombment, could well have been, and in fact was, in the intention of those performing it, complete and definitive.

b) For the anointing of the sacred body of the Crucified, John gives the specific names of the drugs employed therein, myrrh and aloes (aloe), in fact used by Nicodemus; Luke speaks generically of oily ointments (myra) and of aromatics (ἀρώματα), bought by the pious women, but rendered useless by the Resurrection that intervened. The two terminologies complete each other; with myrrh a liquid gum like oil was made (μύρον); aloe, whether a resin, like the common medicinal aloe, or a wood, like the agalloch eaglewood (this seems to be the meaning of the biblical aloe), furnished a solid perfume (ἄρωμα) in powder; their mixture (μίγμα according to the common reading in Jn. 19:39) formed an ointment suitable for being spread upon the skin and not without effect upon the tissues wrapping the body.

c) Of such tissues the Synoptics make a single name, σινδών, shroud or linen cloth; St. John has two terms, ὀθόνας (Vulg. linteamina, linen cloths) and σουδάριον, a Latin word that passed into Greek and into the Oriental languages. A third term is still used by the same Evangelist (Jn. 11:44), but with regard to the burial of Lazarus, χειρίαι, bands or swathes. Many authors in modern times have taken the term ὀθόνας precisely in the sense of bands; others instead identified it with the shroud of the Synoptics, or held the three terms to be equivalent. Some finally maintained the equivalence of sudarium and shroud. Into this confused whirlwind of differing voices there opportunely comes to bring a clarifying word a document of about A.D. 320, published only in 1952 in the Catalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyri of the J. Rylands Library in Manchester (vol. IV). Greek papyrus 627 is a long list (ἀναγραφή) of personal objects of an agent of the Roman government in Egypt. Under the generic heading ὀθόναλον (line 9) it registers two kinds of φαντάριον (Latin faciale, synonym of sudarium), four σινδόνια (lines 13-17) and an indeterminate quantity of bands or swathes (φασκίας, line 41). Here one has all four terms of the Gospels, two with the same Greek word, two with the Latin equivalent; the first, ὀθόνας, indicates a genus, the linen cloths, and the three others import three distinct species of that genus: shroud, sudarium and bands. Such is also the sense that must be given to those words in the Gospels; such, moreover, was already the interpretation given to them by the Fathers, for example, St. Augustine (De consensu Evang., III, 23, end). In conclusion, the Gospel narratives specify two pieces employed in the burial of Jesus: the shroud that wrapped the body and the sudarium that covered the head. The bands or swathes, not named, must be supposed, both because of the general custom and because of the mention of them in the case of Lazarus, and because of the need to make the shroud or linen cloth adhere to the body of the deceased.

d) It remains now to determine the exact position of the cloths upon the body of Jesus. It can be conceived in two ways: either that the shroud surrounded the body from the feet to the neck only, and the head was wrapped in the sudarium alone, or that the shroud wrapped the whole body, the head included. The example of innumerable Egyptian mummies brought to light in the present times shows that the general custom, if not indeed the exclusive one, was the second. To keep the outer shroud or linen cloth adhering to the head, the Egyptians, who did not use the sudarium, passed a band or swathe around the neck, as with others they bound the trunk and the lower limbs. As for Jewish usage, a question may be raised whether the sudarium was applied immediately upon the head under the shroud, or was placed on the outside, above the shroud, thus performing the office of the Egyptian band. The scene of the resurrection of Lazarus, who appeared to those present with his hands and feet bound with bands and his face wrapped in the sudarium (Jn. 11:44), suggests that the sudarium was customarily placed on the outside, visible to onlookers.

e) Nor should there be neglected, for the question of the Turin Shroud, the testimony of a Gospel that arose on the periphery of the canonical Gospels. St. Jerome indeed had in his hands a Gospel written in Aramaic and made so much of it (he was not averse to believing it the original of St. Matthew) that he himself translated it into Greek and into Latin. Both versions have been lost, but fragments of it have come down to us, partly in the margins of Greek manuscripts of the canonical Gospel of Matthew, partly in citations by the same St. Jerome. In chapter 2 of his book De viris illustribus (PL. 23, col. 641, no. 831) the holy Doctor cites a passage from it, where it is said that the risen Jesus appeared to James the Less "after he had given the shroud to the servant of the priest." The circumstances of time and of person do not permit any doubt that here one must understand the shroud with which Jesus himself was buried. Whatever historical authority one may wish to grant or deny to that apocryphal Gospel and to its narrative, it is certain in any case that in the 2nd century, the age in which that writing was already circulating, there were people among Christians who took an interest in the fate of the burial shroud of the Savior and believed they knew with whom it was preserved. Christian antiquity is therefore not entirely silent, as has so many times been said and repeated, concerning the relic of the holy shroud. - See plate XLII.

Alberto Vaccari