set aside for the moment the purchase of the shroud by the French royal family.
This is addressed later in this book). Because the cardinal faced a dilemma that
fell outside his authority, he chose a middle course by deciding that the shroud
would once again be reverently honored—but as a reminder of the suffering of
Christ (an icon), and not for veneration (as a relic). This ruling is maintained by
the Pope to this day: the shroud is an image of the suffering of Christ, not an
image as proof of his resurrection. In any case, with the legal disputes now behind
them, possession and title passed to de Charny’s widow and their son, Geoffroi II,
whose descendants transferred it to the House of Savoy.
Because the question of authenticity still was not resolved, the Shroud of Turin
Research Project (STURP) carried out an in-depth scientific examination of the
shroud in October 1978, using the most advanced instruments and equipment
available. Members of the research team were chosen solely for their expertise, not
for religious conviction or belief, and the aim of the study was to determine how
the image on the shroud was formed. The principal findings of the team, cited in
STURP’s 1981 final report, concluded that the image on the shroud is that of a real
tortured, crucified man in a state of rigor mortis, whose image encodes unique,
three-dimensional information over both the front and the back. The report added
that no physical, chemical, medical, or biological method could adequately explain
the formation of the image. Microchemical examination of the fibers of the
shroud’s linen found no evidence of pigments, paint, dyes, or stains that would
indicate the shroud was an artwork.
However, evidence from radiocarbon dating performed in 1988 dated the
shroud, with 95 percent confidence, to between 1260 and 1390 AD. The results
were broadcast with great fanfare around the world, and the shroud was labeled an
ingenious 14th-century forgery. This was despite STURP’s earlier conclusions and
the reasonable doubt as to whether the dating samples cut from the shroud
actually belonged to the original linen: they may instead have been contaminated
by repairs to the shroud in which other materials were used to reweave a damaged
area near the edge of the cloth. Such repairs are known to have been carried out,
especially after fire damage.
These issues lie at the heart of the controversy that continues to this day