rcumstantial” and remains mostly unproven.” (Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia CD, 95.) In the words of Walsh “from the tomb to Turin is a tortuous journey. Upholders of the relic’s authenticity assert that it is the same burial cloth that was venerated by pilgrims in Jerusalem during the seventh century, and later taken to the Imperial Palace Chapel at Constantinople (now Turkey). When the Crusaders sacked that city in 1204, this Shroud along with other treasures disappeared. Around 1350, a French nobleman, Geoffroy de Charny donated a Shroud to a Church in the village of Lirey, near Troyes in north-eastern France. Where he obtain it is unknown, but believers insist it is the one that had been missing. A century later, one of Geoffroy’s offspring, Lady Marguerite, gave it to the House of Savoy. The family’s head, 71 years old ex King Umberto II, became the relic’s owner. It is a pedigree as full of holes, as fondly stuck together by tradition, as that of many formed relic.” (Walsh 1963, p: 75). The same hold’s true on the CD ROM reference, “the Shroud surfaced during the Crusades when Pilgrims to the Near East brought back religious souvenirs. A linen Shroud that had been taken to Constantinople from Jerusalem was reported missing when Constantinople was sacked by the Crusades in 1204. In the 1350’s a Frenchman, named Geoffroi de Charny began displaying a shroud that he said came from the East. The bishop of Troyes, condemned it as a painted fake. The Charny family gave the Shroud to the Counts of Savoy. It has remained with them ever since and is now housed under the strictest security in Turin Cathedral.” (Encarta Encyclopedia CD, 96.) The Shroud only surfaced in 1357. If it were genuine, where was it before that? If it had existed, it would have been the most prized relic in Christendom; how could it have remained anonymous and unmentioned for well over a...
