Myra
Adams in an article in National Review in which she relates a new study which
provides further evidence on the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin and the
Sudarium of Oviedo. The Shroud I am
familiar with. The Sudarium less so.
The
Shroud is what many believe is the burial cloth which wrapped
Jesus’ body after his crucifixion.
The
Sudarium likewise is believed to be the piece of linen cloth, 34 by 21 inches,
thought to have been used to cover the head of Jesus immediately after the
crucifixion (John 20:7). The Shroud is
seen as revealing a negative image of Christ’s figure. The Sudarium does display such an
image. Instead, it contains male blood
of type AB which matches the blood on the Shroud. The patterns of blood flow on the Sudarium, it
is said, are consistent with those of a crucified man.
Adams defends St. Thomas’ need to actually see and touch
the risen Christ and by extension interest/belief in the genuineness of the Shroud
and the Sudarium. Like St. Thomas, she
holds that many people need some sort of physical evidence to believe in
Christianity—that Jesus actually rose from the dead. She does mention Christ’s promise: “Because you have seen me, you have believed;
blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20: 29) But curiously, she seems to believe that “blessed
are those who have not seen and yet have believed” doesn’t necessary cover all
those who haven’t seen the actual physical risen Christ. Thus necessity of relics.
If you like, you can read Adams summation of the new
evidence for the Shroud and the Sudarium. (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434153/shroud-turin-jesus-christ-blood-relic-sudarium-oviedo) It is interesting in its way; but hardly
definitive. Whatever the proof is that
the cloths actually date from the first century, the mysterious nature of how
the image was “imprinted” on the Shroud, and the anatomically correct marks on man
who had been tortured, beaten, and crucified, it is a “leap of faith” to assert
that the man in question was the actual Christ. As it has been pointed out, the “chain of
evidence” isn’t there. These particular
cloths may be what many of the faithful believe they are. But
there is no “documentation” of where they originated, where they were, and into
whose hands they were passed before 1390.
In truth, I have only a passing interest in either
cloths. They are only things I am aware
of only because they pop up now and then in the mass media—sort of like the Kardashians. Somebody cares about them. Me? If
I never hear about them again, I wouldn’t miss them.
Are they real? Are
really the burial wrappings of the crucified God? Largely, I don’t think it matters. I guess that is the Lutheran in me. Contrary to Ms. Adams, these cloths, like all
relics, do not proclaim the Gospel. Faith
comes in hearing the Word: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard, comes by the preaching of Christ." (Romans 10:17)
The grace Jesus extended to Thomas to touch Him and dispel
his doubt was also a reproach. The lack
in Thomas was not that he didn’t have physical proof. It was his unbelief in Jesus own words
about the crucifixion to come. Truly, “blessed
are those who have not seen and yet have believed”.
