Review of the Holy Shroud Exhibition in Seville

imageclip_image001Blogger Sam B. Farkas reviews the exhibition (revised URL): 

Each room added a little bit more; the entire time, the suspense built and built. Soon enough, I was ready to scream into my audio guide, "Just tell me if it’s real!"

Then, the rising action right before the climax: the tests.

  • The shroud is impervious to water.
  • The shroud is impervious to temperatures, both hot and cold.
  • The shroud is impervious to light. The image hasn’t faded.

After thousands of years, the shroud has not deteriorated at all, something absolutely unheard of in the archaeological world. Which makes one wonder if it really is a miracle…

By this point I’m bouncing on the balls of my feet with anticipation, wishing the audio guide would go faster (there were no cards next to the displays, so unfortunately I couldn’t just read my way through). I needed to know. Then, finally, it told me to proceed into the next room.

Tell me it isn’t so. They aren’t really saying the shroud is impervious to water, heat and light, right? Something maybe lost in translation, right? Lost in blogging?

10 thoughts on “Review of the Holy Shroud Exhibition in Seville”

  1. Lord save You (and me) from your friends.

    One of the peersistent aspects of the Shroud controversy since the time of Pia has been over-reaching which is totally unnecessary. Speculation that strays from the known facts is fodder for those who reject the Shroud.

    There is miracle enough in the facts. There is no need to extemporize and go off the page.

  2. She was in the wrong exhibit – she must have walked into the one with Superman’s cape.

    1. They deteriorated at a pace which is expected for a medieval patch. Too bad the sample is wrong and the protocol impaired :)))

  3. She is only guilty of overstating established facts. The word “impervious” is not appropriate but the water stain over the knees showed us the image is not water soluble–an important clue since many artistic substances are water soluble. The image does not seem to be effected by heat…other than the burns or charred areas, the image does not seem to be effected by the heat of the 1532 fire. Medieval descriptions such as, “barely able to make out an outline” would also suggest the image was faint and hard to discern over 500 years ago. So perhaps these things are over stated but they are also based on observations made by the STURP team and historical references.

  4. Even old fogies should rejoice in the presence of youthful enthusiasm, even it is ooffee-fueled. Can you no longer remember? Incdentally, looks like the page has now been taken down.

      1. Yes, I read her entire blog entry on the Shroud. I am not saying the information is exact and precise. The ending is interesting by itself as she describes that she was disappointed by the whole exposition. That shows that many misunderstanding can occur when describing the Shroud to the general public.

        She could have misunderstood the descriptions in the exposition or the descriptions were indeed not precise enough. That I do not know. But, it sends a message to anyone organizing such an exposition.

        I think it also points out at the difficulty of precisely describing the Shroud for the general public and doing so in a honest manner.

        As an anecdotal note:

        When the subject of the Shroud comes up casually with friends and people I know or meet for the first time, the majority think that the Shroud has *only* a face image impressed on it. The majority. This is anecdotal and certainly not a well established statistical analysis. And, I do not remember one that knew that a dorsal image existed on it.

Comments are closed.