The ongoing Turin shroud controversy

The Turin Shroud is once again going on show. What is the Turin Shroud? It is claimed that it is the piece of linen that enveloped the blood-soaked body of Christ when he was put into the tomb 2,000 years ago.

Millions of people are expected to flock to Turin to see it. You may also think of going but, before you do, does it not occur to you that the shroud may not be genuine after all?

Although I am a practising Roman Catholic, I am not so enthusiastic about the "cult of relics". My faith does not depend on the existence or the authenticity of relics, even if they have been shown to have produced miracle cures.

Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular can get on very well without these so-called "relics", which are the mumbo-jumbo side of Catholicism and some of which were, in the past, proved to be fake!

After a thorough investigation of the cloth, scientists were of the opinion that textiles of any kind are the least likely of human artifacts to last for long. They argued that, though they have tiny scraps of clothing from ancient Egypt dating back up to 4,000 years ago, they have nothing of the size of the shroud.

Historians say that they did not know of anything similar dating back to the days of the Roman empire. The chances are heavily against such a cover surviving the test of time for so long and the odds against it not only doing so but also preserving the impressions of Christ's crucified body are astronomical.

There again, they argue, if the shroud survived in this spectacular form, why is there no reference to it in any of the gospels or in any early Christian document? There are no references to it at all before mediaeval times and one of the earliest references to it, from the 14th century, is in a letter from a bishop insisting it is a fraud.

There are growing numbers of Christians who dismiss the crucifixion and resurrection as symbolic events. In the 1990s or thereabouts a publicity-seeking bishop by the name of Jenkins of Durham ridiculed the belief that Christ rose from the dead as a "conjuring" trick with bones.

If the shroud is authentic, then it forms a specific proof that the crucifixion of Christ was a historical event.

Teams of scientists in Oxford, Zurich and Tucson (Arizona) conducted tests on fragments of the shroud and came up with the same result: the cloth could not possibly date from the time of Christ.

Edward Hall, head of the Oxford Carbon-Dating Centre, confirmed the above in no uncertain terms. The arguments against the carbon-dating verdict were provided by Ian Wilson, who indicated that carbon dating could be faulty. Whereas carbon-dating gave it a date between 1260 and 1380, he demonstrated that documented references to the shroud well pre-dated 1260.

A second important point reinforced by scientific arguments is that radio carbon dating can be falsified by later accretions on the object examined, a provision that was overlooked by the teams who examined the shroud. However, these scientific arguments in relation to carbon dating were considered weak by most other scientists.

Controversy still rages and millions of people take a different view of things among whom is Mr Wilson who devoted years of his life studying the phenomenon and produced a book on the subject (The Blood And The Shroud).

One important aspect is that the so-called experts in mediaeval relic-faking have been unable to come up with any explanation as to how the shroud came into existence, let alone who did it. This aspect remains the greatest mystery of all.

Whether the shroud once covered the body of Christ and/or whether he was the son of God, Jesus Christ was the noblest man who ever lived and the story of how he was made man and died to redeem us in full humanity - and will return to judge us when our time will come - is indeed "the greatest story ever told".

The skeptical, the curious and fervent believers will still all head to Turin to view the shroud.