Why an Atheist Thinks the Shroud of Turin is the Real Deal

Questions About Authenticity of the Letter

Carol Sweetenham, in her 2005 translation and commentary of Robert the Monk's History of the First Crusade: Historia Iherosolimitana, questions the authenticity of Alexios’ letter to the Count of Flanders, believing that Alexios would not itemize the treasures of Constantinople. It was, she believed, a drummed up propaganda piece written in the West to mobilize support for the crusades. Nothing appealed so much as the lure of wealth attached to the prospects of adventure. But, as Dan Scavone notes:

To dismiss this letter as a spurious piece of Latin propaganda virtually making the Byzantine emperor beg for the Latins’ expropriation of the imperial relics during the Fourth Crusade is to miss its significance as a Byzantine document referring to the presence of Jesus’ burial wrappings in Constantinople. . . . Most historians have agreed that Alexios would not have written such words, but they also concur that this epistula probably “depends on an authentic letter of the basileus” written with another end in mind and that it dates, variously, from 1091 to 1105. 

In other words, though the letter may well have been a propaganda piece, it strongly suggests that the burial cloth of Jesus—real or not—was in Constantinople. And while I agree with Scavone in almost all of historical assessments, I am reminded too that he has counseled me to remember that all history is interpretation. I see it differently.