Not to go into all the arguments, but it seems to me that the shroud might have had some more easily verifiable history, prior to the late Middle Ages, were it genuine. The dark ages had ended centuries, before. Yet, Cruz seems to think it not so difficult as, not surprizingly, the debunker would have it, to trace the shroud to the east as the Mandylion.

  There is that odd difference in 'exposure' beyond what appears to be a straight fold in the linen just to either side of the face; giving sort of a highlighted vertical sliver of the face. It suggests the handkerchief, noted in Scripture, perhaps used to bind the jaw and running up over the cheeks. But it would depend on the method used to fold the shroud in those times.

  It's also the case that I haven't heard of other shrouds showing such images, even if artificially produced for posterity by loved ones. And there's the odd fact about this that the detail does not really appear, except as a negative, as it were, of the shroud image. It suggests there was another way to view the shroud in recent antiquity; else, why create it as a fake in such a way? Perhaps the skeptic would reply it is merely serendipity that whatever technic was used, yields such detail when manipulated by spectrally sensitive photo equipment or even simple digital image processing software, of the present day.

  The thing is, it isn't simply a matter of seeing Our Lord however He wishes to appear. It may be Ruebens, or someone else, somehow had a better take on what Our Lord, Jesus Christ, really looked like. Perhaps, instead, Hofmann was onto something, or whoever drew that more recent sketch; both of which more resemble the image on the shroud. But if the shroud is, in fact, the Holy Shroud, the one likely carried away by the Apostles, only rarely to be opened, stored away and forgotten through Roman persecution to emerge in Byzantium as the Mandylion, and only later to be discovered at the close of the Middle Ages in what amounts to an estate sale, then even at that we should consider that image as that of Our Lord, and not merely one of many possibilities. It deserves, then, to be considered and held in just that highest esteem (as frankly, it is, even now - without our really knowing for sure). The same holds for the veil of Seraphia/'Veronica', currently in St. Peter's, should it be verified as authentic. And there is the question, of course, that if the shroud of Turin is the Mandylion, why is there any confusion over this - as those from the east, those who had seen it, could verify it was at least one and the same. Surely the battle lines were sufficiently porous that those from the east could visit in the west.

  However, since we _don't_ know, since it forces us to continue to rely on faith since we don't, it suggests that we can see God in various guises, in reaching out to various people; however they look. It suggests we ought not be disappointed not only if the shroud, ultimately, turns out to be a medieval fake, but if Our Lord appeared then, and appears now, otherwise than as suggested by the rather consistent images above.

  That is, the images of Our Blessed Mother vary, somewhat, just by comparison, from Guadalupe to Jasna Gora. Perhaps the images we have of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, from various hands, and on the shroud of Turin, are not entirely how He appeared. And we might find many people similar in appearance, similar to Mary, rather regal looking - with the eyes, the long nose, the rather tall, oval face, and the like. Beyond that, Our Lord may have had some other unique features, so that He did not, really, at the time, look so much as He has been depicted, since, by certain artists, and not others.

  And yet my opinion, my gut, perhaps my conscience, here, tells me this is not a fake, but is the self-same shroud spoken of in Scripture, the Holy Shroud, that the holy women saw, but didn't retrieve, laying in the vacant tomb, next to the face cloth all neatly folded, pointed to by the angel on site, we might say. But I can't say it for a fact. There are so many problems, unanswered questions, about it, even for all the things that would be consistent were it the genuine Holy Shroud.

  Perhaps I'm led to believe this is the face of God, of Jesus Christ, Himself, because simply of the expression we can now see in the various enhanced photos. Where one can just make out the eyes, downcast and almost entirely closed, perhaps swollen from beating, likely soaked with the blood obviously still flowing down, they suggest not bitterness, nor smugness nor haughtiness, but fatigue and exhaustion. They even show sadness, not the traces of anger. It appears to be the face of a man utterly spent, to the very last. The lips are parted, as if still making that final Mysterious effort to cast His soul out of His Body, as Our Lord shouted out, at the last, on The Cross.

  If it is the face of Christ, it's the countenance of God giving every last little bit for our sake; holding nothing back, without bitterness; literally on a mission of Redemption, of love, and with nothing else in mind. For Him to have been treated as He was . . . and yet it had to be done, the prophecy had to come true, and He did not offer the words that would have spared Him, either before the high priests or before Pilate, who would have let Him go (but not simply because He was obviously innocent). It recalls His words to His parents in the 2nd Temple, at the age of twelve. I think we see evidence of that business of His Father in the face of the shroud, as He was tortured and gave up His last, so many years later, on a hill just within site of that very same Temple in which He had later taught, again, as an adult.

11-Jun-97 -- EWTN News Brief
[http://www.ewtn.com/ewtn/news/getstory.cfm?number=5250]

SCIENTIST SAYS SHROUD OF TURIN IS MUCH OLDER THAN BELIEVED

TURIN, Italy (CWN) - An American scientist said on Tuesday that the Shroud of Turn is much older than has been recently stated and is not a painting or other manufactured work.

Professor Alan Adler, who was attending a news conference announcing new conservation measures for the shroud, said the cloth is older than the 14th century date most recently attached to it. The cloth has historically been named as the burial shroud of Jesus Christ and bears a mysterious image of a crucified man. "The marks on the shroud are of exuded blood, belonging to a man who was tortured and crucified," he added. "It cannot be from the 14th century, but is much older and far more consistent with what we know of the crucifixion of Christ."

Adler said the Shroud could be the same age as another shroud, in Oviedo, Spain, that has been carbon-dated to the 7th century. The accuracy of the carbon-dating tests have been disputed by many scientific experts.

Tuesday's news conference was called to discuss new conservation measures to preserve the shroud. The cloth has been kept furled on a wooden roller in a silver case, but scientists recommend that it be kept unrolled in a receptacle containing an inert gas to prevent further discoloring and deterioration. Until recently, the shroud was kept in a Turin cathedral that was devastated by fire on April 12. After it was rescued through the heroic efforts of firemen, the cloth was moved to a secret location.