The Shroud and the Resurrection

by Gunther Simmermacher · August 21, 2012

THE SIGN: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection, by Thomas de Wesselow. Penguin, 2012. 448 pp. ISBN: 9780525953654

Reviewed by G�nther Simmermacher

One hot summer morning in 2004 the self-described agnostic Cambridge art historian Thomas de Wesselow read Ian Wilson�s book The Turin Shroud and had an epiphany.

What if, as Wilson forcefully argues, the Shroud was in fact not a medieval forgery and what if �the Gospels contain descriptions of the Shroud that no one has recognised as such since the days of the apostles, because it appears in their legendary narratives not as an image but as a supernatural person�?

Eight years later, the front shelves of book stores are stacked with his book, The Sign, which promises on its back cover to solve �the mystery behind the birth of a faith� � the Resurrection, no less.

De Wesselow�s premise hinges on three key points: firstly, that the Shroud of Turin is the genuine burial cloth of Christ and that the image on it was not made by human hand; secondly, the idea that the Gospel accounts are unreliable; thirdly that those who reported to have seen the risen Christ actually saw the Shroud and interpreted what they saw as a physical manifestation of Jesus� soul, not his physical body.

The third point suggests that those who supposedly saw the Shroud formed an empathy with it, much in line with what the art historian suggests was a cultural bias of the times. According to de Wesselow, they interpreted the Shroud as representing not a physical resurrection nor a supernatural apparition, but a spiritual resurrection that coincided with Jewish expectations of the time. The Shroud, he writes, �would have assured Jesus�s followers that it revealed him to be once again alive. The shroud figure was not a ghost�but a glorious, transfigured, re-embodied person�.

As an art historian, de Wesselow makes a strong case that the image on the Shroud cannot have been transferred by human hand. He echoes Wilson�s persuasive assertion that no medieval forger could have had the physiological, anthropological and historical knowledge to recreate the image of a crucified man with such an unerring authenticity.

In his narrative on the history and study of the Shroud, De Wesselow retreads ground already covered in greater detail by Ian Wilson. Radiocarbon test results in 1988 dated the origin of the cloth to between 1260 and 1390, but these tests have been challenged even by experts in the field. Other evidence � such as pollen and limestone dust found on the shroud as well as its distinctive weave and seams � suggest a much older provenance in Palestine. The notion of it as a medieval forgery is by no means an inevitable conclusion.

Departing from Wilson, De Wesselow seems to subscribe to the theory, proposed by the late scientist Raymond Rogers, that the image on the shroud is a vaporgraph, formed when carbohydrates from the cloth�s white dye came into contact with the amines a corpse releases.

As a summary of arguments in support of the Shroud�s authenticity, The Sign could be recommended, though not as confidently as one might Wilson�s books.

People view the Shroud of Turin on display at the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Turin in 2010 (CNS photo/Paul Haring)

De Wesselow is also insightful when he outlines the development of Jewish resurrection theology, but he loses the plot when he confronts the New Testament, the writings that relate directly to his hypothesis.

His summary dismissal of the Acts of the Apostles as a reliable source will be contested by many scripture scholars and Church historians, as will his suggestion that the Acts date to about 100 AD. An argument can be made that since Acts makes no mention of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD or of the temporary exile of the city�s Christians in (probably) Pella, it must have been written before that event. De Wesselow does not even acknowledge such objections.

As one would expect, De Wesselow spends much time on the post-Resurrection accounts in the gospels. Much of it is cookie-cutter scholarship, with the arguments� shaped to suit a hypothesis.

And the author does not adequately address the elephant in the room: why does not a single literary reference explicitly support the notion that what is clearly described as a man who had risen from the dead, was in fact a piece of cloth? Wouldn�t the enemies of the messianic sect have used just that kind of claim to mock and discredit the nascent movement?

Catholics in particular will also disagree with De Wesselow�s categorical but thinly supported assertion that James the Just, first bishop of Jerusalem, was born of Mary, or that the story of Peter�s presence (and death) in Rome is �dubious�.

The author frequently overextends himself. For example, he casually insists that �Jesus is likely to have had a wife�, as was customary in his culture. He concedes that celibates existed in Jesus� time, �but there is no evidence that Jesus was one of them�. Other, one might respond, than every credible literary reference to Jesus, none of which mentions a wife or even a romantic liaison.

Building up to his conclusion, which we know already, De Wesselow uses the literary device of posing leading questions and promising the revelation of a rational explanation which, we are assured, solves the mystery of Easter, as if he was scripting the inevitable Discovery Channel documentary.

A detail of the The Shroud of Turin is seen in a negative exposure.

The idea that the core of the Christian faith is predicated on a series of shroud parades is bizarre and unconvincing; it makes for entertaining conjecture, but fails to add to serious scholarship.

And yet, if the Turin Shroud is indeed the genuine burial cloth of Christ, then it might well have been used as one means of evangelisation after the first Pentecost, perhaps even in some of the ways which de Wesselow describes.

It is an intriguing thought.