|
|
What are we to make of the d’Arcis Memorandum claiming that an artist painted
it? Knowing that this was a time notorious for its unscrupulous market in fake
relics, the bishop’s memorandum seems to have a whiff of truthfulness to it. But
the relic marketplace may also be the basis for doubting the veracity of the
memorandum.
Pilgrims were a source of revenue and people were flocking to Lirey to see the
Shroud rather than nearby Troyes and its collection of relics. Pierre,
interestingly, states that his intent was not competitive. Why? Did he realize
that others were voicing suspicions about his motives? Pierre claimed that his
predecessor, Bishop Henri de Poitiers of Troyes conducted an inquest in which a
painter had confessed to painting the Shroud. Pierre did not have first hand
knowledge of this artist; the artist is unnamed. There is no evidence of such an
inquest in contemporaneous documents. Pierre stated that Henri had the Shroud
removed from the church because it was a fake, yet other documents dispute this.
According to other documents, it was removed from the church for safekeeping
because of the war raging about the area. The memorandum must be understood and
assessed in the light of several documents of the same period and in the context
of the political situation in the region. At least eight documents challenge the
veracity of the d’Arcis Memorandum. There are other problems as well. All
existing copies of the memorandum are unsigned and undated drafts. The copy at
the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris includes a heading stating that it is a
letter that Pierre intends to write. It is definitely a draft with Latin
annotations in the margins. It is unlikely that it was ever sent to Clement as
no properly signed or sealed copies of the document can be found in the Vatican
or Avignon archives. No document of Clement refers to it, suggesting it was
never received. Numerous classicist and historians find the document
questionable.
|
The
scientific study of the Turin shroud is like a microcosm of the
scientific search for God: it does more to inflame any debate than
settle it.”
And yet, the shroud is a remarkable artefact, one of the few religious relics to have a justifiably mythical status. It is simply not known how the ghostly image of a serene, bearded man was made.”
Scientist-Journalist Philip Ball Nature, that most prestigious of scientific journals, that once had bragging rights to claim that the Shroud was fake, responding to new, peer-reviewed studies that discredit the carbon 14 dating and show that the Shroud could be authentic. WHAT WE KNOW IN 2005
|