Author Replies to Shroud Letters
In the last issue, we printed many letters commenting on Father Robert A. Wild’s article on the Shroud of Turin, which appeared in our March/April issue (“The Shroud of Turin—Probably the Work of a 14th-Century Artist or Forger,” BAR 10:02). Father Wild’s reply to these letters did not arrive from Italy (where he was studying on sabbatical) until after we went to press, so we are printing his reply in this issue.—Ed.
Father Wild replies:
If nothing else, the sheer quantity of recent publications supporting the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin has tended to create in the public mind, and even in the minds of some Biblical experts, the impression that this object surely must be the genuine burial cloth of Jesus. In my article in BAR I sought to challenge any such easy acceptance of the Shroud and to make it clear that the burden of proof still rests with those who defend its first-century origins. To judge by the volume of response to my work, my case has certainly been heard—if not always agreed to!
I will reply here to certain points made in the various letters printed in the last BAR. Space naturally restricts what I can say, and my correspondents will not be surprised if I do not take note of all their remarks.