...it is Browne’s ideas on the Shroud of Turin (the reputed burial cloth of Jesus) that interest me most. She shows some admirable skepticism, concluding: “I believe that the Shroud is a representation and not a true relic—but I don’t think that should put a dent in our Christian belief” (199). Citing a fourteenth-century bishop’s report that the image was painted, Browne writes (196):
If the Shroud were in fact painted, it would explain some image flaws that have always raised questions. For example, the hair hangs as for a standing rather than a reclining figure; the physique is unnaturally elongated (like figures in Gothic art); and the “blood” flows are unrealistically neat (instead of matting the hair, for instance, they run in rivulets on the outside of the locks). You see, real blood soaks into cloth and spreads in all directions rather than leaving picturelike images.
I found that passage intriguing since I had written (in the July/August 1998 Skeptical Inquirer, p. 21):
That the Shroud is indeed the work of a medieval artist would explain numerous image flaws. For example, the physique is unnaturally elongated (like figures in Gothic art!). Also, the hair hangs as for a standing rather than recumbent figure. . . . Everywhere the “blood” flows are unrealistically neat. Instead of matting the hair, for instance, they run in rivulets on the outside of the locks. . . . In addition, real blood soaks into cloth and spreads in all directions, rather than leaving picturelike images.
Now, the shared phrasing between Browne’s passage and mine may give new meaning to the term ghost-written.
