Ian Wilson disputes Frale’s claim

TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon May 22, 2023 7:02 am It is a worry that this was not (apparently) published as a historicalpaper but is one of three books by the same author. I shouldlike to know more of the sources and eviudence for all this.

Wiki says:
In June 2009, Frale published, always for Il Mulino, another essay dedicated to the Templars, I Templari e la sindone di Cristo, where she debates some documents concerning the mysterious idol, which was cited during the process as a charge against the order to accuse the order itself of idolatry, being actually a particular image of the dead Christ, which has similar characteristics to the Shroud of Turin.

Ian Wilson was the first to propose the Templars was involved with the TS. Wilson disputes Frale’s claims about the Sabbatier document contained “a long linen cloth on which was imprinted the figure of a man.”

In April 2009 the London Times, along with other quality newspapers across the world,
reported that Dr Frale had discovered in the Archives Nationales in Paris a hitherto unknown
document describing an initiate to the Order of Knights Templar, Arnaut Sabbatier, being
shown the Shroud at one of the Order’s secret reception ceremonies held in the year 1287.
The newspapers’ reports were based on an article that Frale had written for the Vatican
newspaper L’Osservatore Romano in which she specifically referred to the object shown to
Sabbatier as being ‘a long linen cloth on which was imprinted the figure of a man’.
Although Dr Frale had never ever contacted me , her article mentioned me by name,
speaking of her discovery as ‘vindicating’ my theory, first published in 1978, that the
Knights Templar had owned the Shroud at some time during the so-called ‘missing years’
period between its disappearance from Constantinople in 1204 and its reappearance in
Lirey, France during the 1350s.

Furthermore, Frale’s assertions that the lineum (whatever its nature), was ‘long’
and was ‘imprinted’, both crucial elements for identifying it with the Shroud, were simply
not present in, or supported by, the original Latin text.

In summary, and quite aside from her seriously questionable behaviour towards me, Frale’s
so extravagant claims to the world’s media as made back in 2009 simply cannot justify the
conclusiveness that she so publicly attributed to them. Besides her misinforming the world
in general, she misled me, and thereby seriously misdirected the line that I took in chapter
14 of my latest book. This is not to say that I have rejected my original theory of Templar
ownership. Although the details have always been hazy and the hard evidence hard to
come by, for me the broad theory remains the most plausible explanation for how Geoffrey
de Charny of Lirey came to be in such suspiciously unprovenanced possession of the
Shroud in the mid 14 th century.