Tristan Casabianca

The Shroud of Turin is a controversial linen cloth thought by some to be a medieval artifact and by others to be the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth. To better explain the reasons why reaching a consensus among experts seems highly unlikely, this paper focuses on the possible relationship between the Shroud of Turin and the Pray Codex, the first illuminated manuscript in Hungarian (c. 1192 – c. 1195). An analysis of the recent literature, including a qualitative survey, highlights not only the variety but also the weakness of the reasoning processes of the scholars, from less complete and intuitive to extremely detailed and systematic approaches. A new methodological approach excludes the position according to which it is certain that the Turin shroud has no direct or indirect link with the Pray Codex. A better understanding of the historiographical criteria and of the Bayesian framework might constitute a precious basis for solving similar interdisciplinary disputes.

In 1988, three laboratories performed a radiocarbon analysis of the Turin Shroud. The results, which were centralized by the British Museum and published in Nature in 1989, provided ‘conclusive evidence’ of the medieval origin of the artefact. However, the raw data were never released by the institutions. In 2017, in response to a legal request, all raw data kept by the British Museum were made accessible. A statistical analysis of the Nature article and the raw data strongly suggests that homogeneity is lacking in the data and that the procedure should be reconsidered.

Le résultat de l’analyse des données brutes confirme et renforce le discrédit de la datation de 1988. Indéniablement, cette découverte fournit une bonne raison (peut-être la seule que pouvait accepter la communauté académique « mainstream ») pour une nouvelle datation, qui doit nécessairement avoir lieu dans un cadre interdisciplinaire. Les résultats de 1988, sans homogénéité ni fiabilité, bâtis sur des données dont la représentativité n’est pas garantie, ne permettent pas de conclure que le lin du Suaire de Turin a été fabriqué entre 1260 et 1390 après Jésus-Christ. Cette datation est discréditée mais révélatrice, car elle constitue un cas pratique de la crise de la reproductibilité que traverse actuellement la science, une crise qui va jusqu’à impacter nos vies quotidiennes. Mais cette crise, si elle explique en grande partie pourquoi tant de controverses scientifiques autour du Linceul perdurent, nous interroge aussi sur notre connaissance du tissu : à quelles études académiques pouvons-nous nous fier ? Plus largement, comment formons-nous nos croyances et nos convictions ? Plus que jamais, le Linceul de Turin, « défi à notre intelligence », est une porte d’entrée pour mieux nous comprendre dans notre époque.

The Shroud of Turin is one of the most studied and controversial artifacts. To better understand the reasons for this impossible consensus, we focus on a specific point in the ongoing historical debate: the alleged relationship between the Shroud of Turin and the Pray Codex, the first illuminated manuscript in Hungarian named after the eighteenth-century Jesuit György Pray (1723–1801). Scholars have often compared the characteristics of a miniature in the Pray Codex, commonly dated circa 1192–1195, with the features of the Turin Shroud. The comparison of the Pray Codex with the Shroud of Turin makes the position that the Turin Shroud has absolutely no direct or indirect link with the Pray Codex untenable. It can be said with confidence that the miniaturist of the Pray Codex probably had a direct or indirect link with the Shroud of Turin.

In a topic as controversial as the shroud of Turin, it is always surprising to notice that there still exists a large area of consensus among scholars holding opposite opinions on the topic. According to the consensus view, neither science nor history can ever prove that the Turin Shroud shows signs of the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. However, the reasons given for such an important claim are not convincing, especially in regard of recent developments in historiography and analytic philosophy.

In a topic as controversial as the Turin Shroud, it is always surprising to note that there remains a large area of consensus among scholars who hold opposite opinions on the origin of this piece of fabric. According to the consensus view, neither science nor history can prove that the Turin Shroud shows signs of the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. However, the reasons provided for this important claim are not convincing, especially in light of recent developments in historiography and analytic philosophy.

En 2015, plus d'un million de personnes s'est pressé pour se recueillir, pour prier ou pour simplement passer devant un ancien drap de lin : le linceul (ou suaire) de Turin. La raison de son pouvoir d'attraction est simple : il est réputé avoir enveloppé le cadavre de Jésus de Nazareth après sa crucifixion à Jérusalem. Et pourtant, à première vue, peu de choses se décèlent sur ce grand rectangle de plusieurs mètres de long : simplement l'image, de face et de dos, d'un homme grièvement blessé. La réputation du linceul de Turin est ancienne : elle avait au moins déjà cours dans la seconde moitié du XIVème siècle, à Lirey, en Champagne. Depuis la fin du XIXème siècle et la première photographie du linceul, la controverse est devenue extrêmement forte. Le spectre des spécialistes qui se penchent, hier comme aujourd'hui, sur cet objet est très large : des théologiens aux physiciens nucléaires, des historiens de l'antiquité aux chimistes en passant par les médecins légistes. Ce livre présente avec rigueur un état consolidé et à jour de nos connaissances sur le linceul de Turin. Il évalue ensuite méthodiquement les différentes hypothèses de formation de l'image.

Criteria of historical assessment are applied to the Turin Shroud to determine which hypothesis relating to the image formation process is the most likely. To implement this, a ‘Minimal Facts’ approach is followed that takes into account only physicochemical and historical data receiving the widest consensus among contemporary scientists. The result indicates that the probability of the Shroud of Turin being the real shroud of Jesus of Nazareth is very high; historians and natural theologians should therefore pay it increased attention

L’exhortation apostolique Amoris laetitia contient de nombreuses ambiguïtés, notamment concernant l’accès à la communion des divorcés civilement remariés, dont elle refuse de trancher explicitement la question à la lumière de la doctrine de l’Eglise Catholique. Ce manque de clarté est préjudiciable. Il est susceptible d’être utilisé à l’encontre du Magistère. Il est également révélateur d’une approche philosophique occidentale marquée par l’individualisme et le relativisme. Or cette approche est de plus en plus contestée par l’actuelle « révolution conservatrice ». The apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia contains many ambiguities, especially regarding the access to communion for divorced and civilly remarried persons. Amoris laetitia refuses to clarify this issue in the light of the Doctrine of the Catholic Church. This lack of clarity is harmful and may be used against the Magisterium. This lack of clarity also reveals a Western philosophical approach emphasizing individualism and relativism. Yet this approach has been increasingly contested by the “conservative revolution”.