One aspect of "History's Greatest Mysteries" I like is that it offers a number of different theories concerning whatever topic they're exploring. A lot of documentaries about the Shroud of Turin either try to prove it is a miraculous artifact or a sophisticated fraud. I believe it is neither. Believers purport it is the burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth, aka Jesus Christ. But as we'll see even the Gospel accounts don't quite fit with that idea.
The Shroud of Turin is certainly an enigmatic artifact. The few undeniable facts:
It is a piece of shroud-like linen dating from before circa 1400.
It has a strange image of a man projected onto the cloth. This was not known until it was discovered towards the end of the 19th century when it was photographed for the first time. The image became apparent when the negative of the photograph was examined.
The short documentary first lays out a short history of its known existence which begins circa 1350. It then explores several possible theories of what it actually is above and beyond that it is a linen with an image:
A medieval hoax, perpetrated by its first owner Geoffroi de Charny in the mid-14th century
A gruesome episode during the persecution of the Knights Templar
An artifact from ancient times which proves the miraculous Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth because it is the shroud into which Jesus' body wrapped after his death by crucifixion.
Many Christians want to believe these sorts of artifacts prove the actual of Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth as an historical occurrence not just a Christian myth story compiled later by the Gospel writers. However there are problems with trying to make the Shroud into some kind of physical evidence of Jesus' Resurrection. The most significant that where was it for about 1300 years? There are other problems as well.
Two more significant problems not mentioned in the documentary do cause some doubt that it's the image of Jesus of Nazareth. The first concerns all the Gospels. Despite a lot of misconception even among the most avid of Christians, the Gospels never actually describe the Resurrection. The Resurrection is only alluded to but never detailed. In Mark the women go to anoint Jesus' body but he's already gone when they get there and at the end of the story the women tell no one! So there is no anointing in Mark. The Gospels also differ in how they refer to the resurrected Christ. Only the Ascension is described in Acts of the Apostles written by Luke as the first scene of the second "part" of his narrative.
One theory is that light of the magnitude of many lasers happened during the Resurrection and impressed on the Shroud. However, nowhere in the Gospels is "light" mentioned as part of the Resurrection because it's never described as I've already alluded to!
The other bigger problem is what happened to bodies after crucifixion in ancient times. Crucifixion, a terrible and excruciating form of execution (the latter adjective actually deriving from the word "crucifixion") had several phases: scourging, carrying the upright of the cross, affixing to the cross, and then death. Once dead, the victim's body was not allowed to be taken for anointing and burial, the last phase of the punishment. Part of the process was the indignity done to the body which was left to rot on the cross and be prone to the elements.
Christian historian John Dominic Crossan (an avid Roman Catholic btw) was once asked what happened to Jesus' body after the Crucifixion. He responded that it was probably eaten by dogs. A very unromantic image but that result has much higher probability than the idea that Joseph of Arimathea somehow asked Pontius Pilate for Jesus' body. (This would contradict just about everything understood about Pilate being a very unsentimental prefect.)
Still the documentary is a very interesting and relatively informative program about the different views of the Shroud. Is it really the shroud of Jesus of Nazareth? I would say about 1000 to 1 against.
