One does not find irenic debate in the field of sindonology. Even though the main battle seems to be those who believe the Shroud to be authentic and those who believe the Shroud to be a clever fake, each side has its own battles within its own camp. The critics comprise many people who believe that their particular theory explains how the Shroud was forged: Leonardo da Vinci forged it, a primitive quasi-photographic technique was used, a body was pasted with a myrrh and aloe solution, a bas-relief sculpture was daubed using certain materials available in the Middle Ages, it was painted, etc. All of these cannot be correct, and the critics' mutually exclusive theories, much like the various theories proposed in the 18th and 19th centuries to try to explain the Resurrection, merely show the weaknesses of their positions and effectively cancel each other out.
In the pro-authenticity camp, many researchers cling to their personal theories of how the image was formed and often react negatively when other theories are proposed. When reading the literature authored by those who believe in the authenticity of the Shroud, one is struck by how unkind some people can be in discussing another pro-authenticity researcher and/or his/her theory. I (Marino) personally know of one prominent sindonologist who almost left the field because of in-fighting in the pro-authenticity camp, but was talked into staying by another researcher, who happens to be Jewish! The sindonologist likes to tell this Jewish person that he is among the most "Christian" of all the Shroud researchers.
It should not be surprising that such behavior occurs. Politics and egos got Jesus crucified, and politics and egos are prevalent in the study of the cloth in which Jesus was laid after he was crucified. One of the authors of this article presented a whole paper at a Shroud symposium showing how events in the life of Jesus, especially after his crucifixion, mirror events in the history of the Shroud up to our own time (Marino, 1996). At the recent international Shroud symposium held in Richmond, Virginia on June 18-20 1999, Italian sindonologist Emanuela Marinelli presented a paper that showed how difficult it is for various Shroud groups and individuals to further study the Shroud because of the machinations of the Turin-based Centro Internazionale Di Sindonologia, which tends to hinder or abrogate research other than their own.
The Shroud provides an excellent modern-day example of how we can get bogged down in the details of a sign while missing the significance behind it, and how we can misunderstand the teaching associated with the sign. The former aspect could be compared to a person who has a treasure map but never actually finds the treasure. The person knows the map inside out and reveres it, but does not experience its actualization because he or she does not actually find the treasure itself. Regarding the latter, is it possible that we have misunderstood the purpose behind why the Shroud, if authentic, was left behind?
Certainly, having the actual burial cloth of Jesus would be a reminder of God's love for humankind through the death and Resurrection of Jesus. However, is there something more? Most articles written about the Shroud deal with scientific investigation and try to explain, pro or con, how the image was put on the cloth. Very few articles deal exclusively with the "sign" beyond the image. Have we been so concerned with the "how" of the Shroud that we have seemingly lost sight of the "why" of it?
Historian Dr. Daniel Scavone has investigated the possibility that the famous Holy Grail, believed by many to be the cup from The Last Supper, may not be a physical object at all, but rather a symbol deriving from the Shroud, one denoting a powerful spiritual treasure (Scavone, 1996). Dr. Thaddeus Trenn, who teaches in the science and religion program at the University of Toronto, is one of the few Shroud authors who focused exclusively on the "why." (Trenn, 138) He observed
"The Shroud of Turin might be confronting man with a glimpse of a portentous, deeper realitya veiled hint of glory revealed through faith in ways one may appreciate, if not totally understand or comprehend. Christ clearly would manifest Himself only to those who believe. That was the implication of His somewhat cryptic response to his disciple Jude Thaddeus, who asked: "Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?" (John 14:22). Jesus answered him, "those who love me will keep my word" (John 14:23). Neither blind faith nor perfunctory belief can substitute for heart-felt faith, laced with love. Such utter faith traces the steps of one Blaise Pascal who wagered that the less-traveled road of patent openness was the wiser path to follow."
The reason that the disciples on the road to Emmaus were dejected was that they had not been really open to what Jesus had been trying to teach them before his crucifixion. They had their own ideas regarding the way things should have transpired. Only when Jesus, after his resurrection, made them see that they had misunderstood his message and person, were they able to experience the real truth. Could the seemingly fatal C-14 dating of 1988 (=crucifixion), which dated the Shroud to 1260 to 1390 CE, be the tool by which the real truth of the Shroud becomes known (=resurrection)? Just as reality changed for the Emmaus disciples when they accepted the truth of Jesus' message, might not reality change for us if we can decipher the truth of the Jesus' message and person through the Shroud?
