Here is part 5, "1.3 The central dilemma of the Shroud." The previous post in this series, "The Shroud of Turin" was part 4, "1.2 The Shroud and me."
1. INTRODUCTION
1.3 THE CENTRAL DILEMMA OF THE SHROUD
© Stephen E. Jones
The central dilemma of the Shroud is this: either the Shroud is a work of human art, deliberately designed to depict Jesus' burial 
Shroud with the imprint of His flogged, crowned with thorns, crucified by nails, dead, speared in the side, legs not broken,
[Left: Walsh, J.E., 1963, "The Shroud," Random House: New York NY.]
buried in a tomb, and resurrected body on it; or it is authentic, the very burial sheet of Jesus! There is no third alternative, because no other person would have had the same set of injuries (particularly having been crowned with thorns) which the Gospels record that Jesus had, nor would their burial shroud have survived intact to this day. Therefore, if the Shroud is not a work of human art, then it must be the burial sheet of Jesus!
Perhaps the most well-known statement of this dilemma was by writer John Evangelist Walsh, who stated it in the preface of his 1963 book, "Shroud" (my emphasis on each quote below):
"Only this much is certain: The Shroud of Turin is either the most awesome and instructive relic of Jesus Christ in existence-showing us in its dark simplicity how He appeared to men-or it is one of the most ingenious, most unbelievably clever, products of the human mind and hand on record. It is one or the other; there is no middle ground."[1]
One of the earliest statements of this dilemma was by Jesuit historian Fr. Herbert Thurston (1856-1939), an implacable opponent of the Shroud's authenticity, who admitted in 1903:
"As to the identity of the body whose image is seen on the Shroud, no question is possible. The five wounds, the cruel flagellation, the punctures encircling the head, can still be clearly distinguished in spite of the darkening of the whole fabric. If this is not the impression of the Body of Christ, it was designed as the counterfeit of that impression. In no other personage since the world began could these details be verified."[2]
Pro-authenticists Ken Stevenson and Gary Habermas in 1981 stated one arm of the dilemma quantitatively by conservatively estimating the probability that the image on the Shroud was "someone other than Jesus" was "nearly 83 million to 1":
"The gospels say that these eight irregularities were present in Jesus' death and burial. The Shroud evidence says they were also present in the death and burial of the man of the Shroud. We have estimated the probability that they happened to someone other than Jesus, deliberately using skeptical and conservative estimates. Yet, multiplying these probabilities, we have 1 chance in 82,944,000 that the man buried in the Shroud is not Jesus. This ratio of nearly 83 million to 1 is almost meaningless to many of us. Yet consider this practical illustration. 82,944,000 dollar bills laid end-to-end would stretch from New York to San Francisco more than three times. Suppose one of these bills is marked, and a blindfolded person is given one chance to find it. The odds that he will succeed are 1 in 82,944,000. These are the odds that the man buried in the Shroud is someone other than Jesus Christ. There is a chance that the man of the Shroud is someone else, just as there is a chance that the blindfolded person would find the marked bill. But the odds are practically infinitesimal. There is no practical probability that someone other than Jesus Christ was buried in the Shroud of Turin."[3]
Microanalyist Dr Walter McCrone (1916-2002), also a leading opponent of the Shroud's authenticity, stated the dilemma in 1982:
"Finally, I can see no possible mechanism by which the shroud image could have been produced except as the work of an artist. The faithful representation of all of the anatomical and pathological markings, so well described in the New Testament, would be difficult to produce except by an artist. They are totally without distortion and, indeed, look exactly the way we would like to have them look."[4]
Two other leading anti-authenticists, Steven Schafersman, and Joe Nickell quoting him approvingly, actually agree with Stevenson and Habermas' estimate of "the odds as 1 in 83 million that the man on the shroud is not Jesus Christ" and state the dilemma clearly, "there are only two choices: If the shroud is authentic [i.e. not "a product of human artifice"], the image is that of Jesus" and there is "[no possible third hypothesis":
"As the (red ochre) dust settles briefly over Sindondom, it becomes clear there are only two choices: Either the shroud is authentic (naturally or supernaturally produced by the body of Jesus) or it is a product of human artifice. Asks Steven Schafersman: `Is there a possible third hypothesis? No, and here's why. Both Wilson[5] and Stevenson and Habermas[3] go to great lengths to demonstrate that the man imaged on the shroud must be Jesus Christ and not someone else. After all, the man on this shroud was flogged, crucified, wore a crown of thorns, did not have his legs broken, was nailed to the cross, had his side pierced, and so on. Stevenson and Habermas even calculate the odds as 1 in 83 million that the man on the shroud is not Jesus Christ (and they consider this a very conservative estimate). I agree with them on all of this. If the shroud is authentic, the image is that of Jesus.'[6]"[7]
In a follow-up 1990 book, Stevenson & Habermas pointed out that if "human artifice" has been "virtually ruled out" as an explanation of the Shroud's image, then it is not "crazy or unscholarly or unscientific to suggest the image is likely that of Jesus":
"Oddly enough, the Shroud opponents have actually helped to make our case. Certainly the need to resort to a denigration of the scientists on the basis of their religious preferences shows a decided bias on their part. In addition, if critics feel the need to declare Jesus a myth, are they not actually suggesting that the Shroud evidence indeed matches the Gospel narratives of Christ's passion and death? At least a few of them are willing to admit this in print. For example, Schafersman states, `Stevenson and Habermas even calculate the odds as 1 in 83 million that the man of the shroud is not Jesus Christ ... a very conservative estimate'[3]. I agree with them on all of this. If the shroud is authentic, the image is that of Jesus. Otherwise, it's an artist's representation..."[6] The bottom line then is that either the image is that of Jesus of Nazareth or it was intended by its creator to portray Jesus. Since we've virtually ruled out human artifice, are we crazy or unscholarly or unscientific to suggest the image is likely that of Jesus?"[8]
Since both Shroud anti- and pro-authenticists agree that there are only two realistic alternatives: 1. either the image on the Shroud is that of Jesus; or 2. it the work of a human artist intending to depict the image of Jesus; then the less likely the image on the Shroud is the work of a human artist, the more likely the image on the Shroud is that of Jesus!
NOTES
1. Walsh, J.E., 1963, "The Shroud: The Authoritative, Comprehensive and Concise Report on the Single Most Fascinating Artifact in the Christian World," Random House: New York NY, pp.xi-xii. [return]
2. Thurston, H., 1903, "The Holy Shroud and the Verdict of History," The Month, CI, p.19, in Wuenschel, E.A., 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, Third printing, 1961, p.40. [return]
3. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, pp.127-128. [return]
4. McCrone W.C., "Shroud image is the work of an artist," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 6, No. 3, Spring 1982, pp. 35-36, p.36.[return]
5. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.51-53. [return]
6. Schafersman, S.D., 1982, "Science, the public, and the Shroud of Turin," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 6, No. 3, Spring, pp.37-56, p.42. [return]
7. Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000, p.141. [return]
8. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R. , 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, p.196. [return]
Continued in part 6, "2.What is the Shroud of Turin?"
Last updated: 27 February, 2013.
Posts
13 comments:
I'm afraid that without any straining of the imagination I can think of a couple of alternative scenarios to the two alternatives you emphasise so much, and there may be more. While I agree that the image is incontrovertibly either Jesus or a representation of him, it is not impossible that the shroud was intended to be a representation of a different man who died in similar circumstances, possibly tortured and killed in an ironic duplication of his master's fate. It is also not impossible that the shroud was formed accidentally, by being in contact with some other representation of Jesus, such as statue or painting. That statue or painting might have been a work of art or considerable craft, while the shroud itself was entirely fortuitous.
Hugh
I am reposting this comment because of inexactitudes in the original.
Thanks for your comment, by the way.
>I'm afraid that without any straining of the imagination I can think of a couple of alternative scenarios to the two alternatives you emphasise so much, and there may be more.
ANYTHING and its opposite is possible in the human "imagination", e.g. Jesus and the Shroud are just a cosmic joke played on us earthlings by extraterrestrials; there are an infinite number of universes and everything and its opposite will happen by chance in at least one of them, and we just happen to be on a planet in that universe where the Shroud image formed by chance; and my schoolboy favourite: I am just a brain in a vat imagining everything including Jesus, the Shroud, your comment and my reply.
But as my post above says, I am only concerned with "REALISTIC alternatives."
>While I agree that the image is incontrovertibly either Jesus or a representation of him,
Then you have conceded my point.
>it is not impossible that the shroud was intended to be a representation of a different man who died in similar circumstances, possibly tortured and killed in an ironic duplication of his master's fate.
Again you concede my point: it is "not impossible" that 1 chance in 83 million can happen.
>It is also not impossible that the shroud was formed accidentally, by being in contact with some other representation of Jesus, such as statue or painting. That statue or painting might have been a work of art or considerable craft, while the shroud itself was entirely fortuitous.
Thanks for again conceding my point. A "representation of Jesus, such as statue or painting" is a work of human art.
That both leading anti- and pro-authenticists agree that there are only two REALISTIC alternatives (as opposed to IMAGINARY or fantastically IMPROBABLE ones): 1) either the Shroud image is a work of human art, designed to depict the crucified body of Jesus; or 2) it IS the image of the crucified body of Jesus; confirms that the central dilemma of the Shroud is a true dilemma, with only TWO mutually exclusive REALISTIC possibilities.
Stephen E. Jones
-----------------------------------
Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. I reserve the right to respond to any comment as a separate blog post.
I think you're probably quite correct that the leading anti- and pro- authenticists hold firmly to one or other of your two alternatives. I'm delighted to belong to the non-leading not-yet-decided-authenticists, who think that there is a considerably better than 1 in 83 million chance that another explanation may be worth exploring. I don't mean to suggest that your two alternatives are unlikely, but I think it rash to dismiss others quite so readily. In particular, the fact that the shroud may derive from a work of art does not ipso facto make it one itself.
Hugh
>I think you're probably quite correct that the leading anti- and pro- authenticists hold firmly to one or other of your two alternatives.
No. They STATE that there are only two alternatives. There is a BIG difference.
>I'm delighted to belong to the non-leading not-yet-decided-authenticists, who think that there is a considerably better than 1 in 83 million chance that another explanation may be worth exploring.
You can "think" whatever you like. But pro-authenticists Stevenson and Habermas actually went through the major features of the Shroud and calculated the probabilities that the Shroud image is someone other than Jesus. And the final product of those separate probabilities was conservatively about 83 million to 1.
And anti-authenticists Schafersman and Nickell AGREED with their estimate and that it was "conservative".
>I don't mean to suggest that your two alternatives are unlikely, but I think it rash to dismiss others quite so readily.
It was NOT done "readily".
>In particular, the fact that the shroud may derive from a work of art does not ipso facto make it one itself.
It DOES! In this context deriving from a work of art falls into the category of "a product of human artifice."
One of the leading anti-authenticists theories is that the Shroud image was created by laying the cloth over a statue or bas-relief. And then the underlying image was transferred to the cloth by scorching it or the cloth being rubbed with a pigment.
In either case it would be the statue or bas-relief that was the primary "product of human artifice" and the image on the cloth would be merely a secondary impression of it.
Stephen E. Jones
Hi Stephen, I find it funny that people will try to undermine the logic of Walsh's quote. They will claim there is other possiblilites, and sometimes mention these possibilites. But I have noticed if they had thought over thier possibilites with more care, they would find there is no logic in them lol. Anyways a question; I just read a post on Dan Porter's blog by a commentor in which he mentions a point against 'anyother person' being depicted on the Shroud. The point was that scientists have found that the blood remnants on the Shroud show absolutely no sign of disturbance, in that there is no sign that the Shroud was pulled away from whatever surface they had contacted. Is this a scientific truth? I cannot seem to be able to find information on this.
If this is true, I would think it completely dismisses 'ANY' hypothesis of forgery.
Thanks and great blog you have here.
F3
Flagrum3
>... I find it funny that people will try to undermine the logic of Walsh's quote. They will claim there is other possiblilites, and sometimes mention these possibilites. But I have noticed if they had thought over thier possibilites with more care, they would find there is no logic in them lol.
Agreed. There are only three possibilities. The Shroud is: 1) the burial sheet of Jesus; 2) it is of a crucified victim other than Jesus who just happened to have the same wounds as Jesus did; or 3) it is a work of human artifice intended to depict Jesus' crucified image on His burial Shroud (including crucifying a victim on a linen sheet to imitate Jesus' crucifixion).
Possibility 2) is what the odds of 83 million to 1 are about. It is really a ZERO probabilty, i.e. an IMPOSSIBILITY.
Apart from there would be no reason for any crucifixion victim to have been crowned with thorns, since it was only done to Jesus' in mockery of His claim to be the King of the Jews:
Mt 27:29. and twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on his head and put a reed in his right hand. And kneeling before him, they mocked him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!"
as Vignon pointed out, all shrouds of crucified victims decomposed rapidly with their bodies.
Then there is the fact that on the Shroud the bloodclots are intact, not broken as they would be if the Shroud was taken off the body, but they would be intact if Jesus' body was resurrected through the Shroud.
>Anyways a question; I just read a post on Dan Porter's blog by a commentor in which he mentions a point against 'anyother person' being depicted on the Shroud. The point was that scientists have found that the blood remnants on the Shroud show absolutely no sign of disturbance, in that there is no sign that the Shroud was pulled away from whatever surface they had contacted. Is this a scientific truth? I cannot seem to be able to find information on this.
I wrote the above about the blood clots being intact before I read your next paragraph. Here is a quote stating that fact, which I have used before:
"The second sign of the resurrection on the Shroud concerns the body's removal from the cloth. The facts militate against the body being removed from the Shroud by any human means because the bloodstains are intact. As we saw earlier, each bloodstain is characterized by anatomical correctness, including precisely outlined borders, with blood clots intact. If the cloth had been removed from the body, the blood clots would have smeared or broken. This precludes any separation of the body from the cloth by normal means. A moment's reflection will reveal some of the medical reasoning here. When the linen was wrapped lengthwise around Jesus' body, it contacted the shed blood flowing from the head, the open chest wound, and the left wrist, feet, and elsewhere. As the blood dried, the linen would have become loosely attached to the wounds. Removing the Shroud, however carefully, would require both the removal of blood clots and the disturbing of the edges of the bloodstains. Since this did not happen with the Shroud, we may assert the probability that the body left the cloth in some way other than normal unwrapping of the Shroud. The contact bloodstains indicate that the body was not moved, rewrapped, of unwrapped." (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "Verdict on the Shroud," 1981, p.156).
>If this is true, I would think it completely dismisses 'ANY' hypothesis of forgery.
It is indeed true and it DOES dismiss ANY hypothesis of forgery.
I will mention that when I get to it, under "8.Major features of the Shroud's Image."
>Thanks and great blog you have here.
Thanks.
Stephen E. Jones
Why do some that are committed to the belief (Barrie Schwortz for one)that the Shroud wrapped the body of Christ do not commit to that belief?
Thanks
Dcstar56
>Why do some that are committed to the belief (Barrie Schwortz for one)that the Shroud wrapped the body of Christ do not commit to that belief?
Your comment is self-contradictory. If they "are committed to the belief ...that the Shroud wrapped the body of Christ" then they ARE committed to that belief! But I presume what you mean is why do some who believe the Shroud to be authentic, not become Christians?
One answer is that it is possible to believe the Shroud wrapped the body of Christ, but not believe it is evidence of His resurrection.
For example, the French agnostic Yves Delage presented a paper to the Paris Academy of Science in 1902 which argued that, on the basis of the scientific evidence, the Shroud was authentic but its image was a natural phenomenon.
Then there was the late Rodney Hoare, a former Chairman of the British Society for the Turin Shroud, who wrote at least three books arguing that the Shroud was authentic, but who believed that Jesus did not die on the Cross and therefore was not resurrected.
More recently, art historian Thomas de Wesselow, is convinced by the evidence that the Shroud is authentic, and that Jesus did die on the Cross, but he believes that Jesus' image on the Shroud was what the early Christians MEANT by His resurrection!
But as a journalist at the Telegraph observed, this is "as absurd as a scene from a Monty Python film":
"Christianity teaches that Peter, James, Thomas, Mary Magdalene and up to 500 other disciples saw Jesus in the flesh, back from the dead, in the ultimate proof that he was God. De Wesselow rejects this `divine mystery' in favour of something that he believes is much more plausible. What the apostles were seeing was the image of Jesus on the Shroud, which they then mistook for the real thing. It sounds, I can't help suggesting, as absurd as a scene from a Monty Python film." (Peter Stanford, "Mystery solved? Turin Shroud linked to Resurrection of Christ," Telegraph, 24 Mar 2012)
De Wesselow is an extreme example of how one can reconcile one's evidence-based belief in the Shroud's authenticity while not committing to the belief that Christianity is true.
Stephen E. Jones
-----------------------------------
Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. I reserve the right to respond to any comment as a separate blog post.
Stephen, how could anyone get that body off the shroud by any natural mean without disturbing the anatomically perfect blood clots. It doesn't take much of a leap to say that the only reasonable explanation that fits all of the data concerning the shroud image is the resurrection of our lord and savior.
Would the apostles (especially Peter) transform from terrified wimps into Fearless Men who preached the Gospel in the very town that Christ was crucified unless they were totally certain that Christ had indeed risen to life again? Highly unlikely to say the least.
Peter, the one who denied Christ 3 times and hides like a man terrified to lose his life suddenly starts preaching the gospel in jerusalem and asks to be crucified upside down because he was not worthy to be crucified in the same manner as Christ. It just doesn't make sense unless Christ did indeed rise and appeared to Peter and the 12.
A person one second that is afraid for his life just doesn't suddenly lose that fear unless something extraordinary happens to transform that person in a way that would completely take his fear away.
I hope one day I can make a trip to Spain to at least see the sudarium which is put out on display 3 times a year.
bippy123
>... how could anyone get that body off the shroud by any natural mean without disturbing the anatomically perfect blood clots.
They could not. The unbroken blood clots on the Shroud defeats ALL non-authenticity theories and is SCIENTIFIC PROOF that the Shroud IS the burial sheet of Jesus, and bears the image of His tortured, crucified, dead and RESURRECTED body!
Jesus (who was God in human flesh), told the Jewish religious leaders of His day that, even if they did not WANT to believe He was their Messiah, they SHOULD believe it, ON THE BASIS OF HIS MIRACULOUS WORKS:
Jn 10:25. Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me,
Jn 10:37-38. If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father."
Jn 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.
Those who know about the Shroud, but who refuse to believe its OBJECTIVE (i.e. true irrespective if whether it is belived or not) evidence (expecially in its unbroken blood clots) that: 1) the Shroud is authentic; and 2) Jesus rose from the dead; are in the same position as those Jewish leaders.
When they stand before Jesus at the Judgement (Mt 16:27; 2Cor 5:10; Acts 10:41-42; Rev 20:12, Rev 22:12) they at least won't have Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)'s proffered excuse of, "Not enough evidence, God":
"Bertrand Russell was asked what he would say if he died and found himself confronted by God, demanding to know why Russell had not believed in him. `Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence,' was Russell's (I almost said immortal) reply." (Dawkins, R., "The God Delusion," 2006, p.104).
>It doesn't take much of a leap to say that the only reasonable explanation that fits all of the data concerning the shroud image is the resurrection of our lord and savior.
Agreed.
[continued]
[continued]
>Would the apostles (especially Peter) transform from terrified wimps into Fearless Men who preached the Gospel in the very town that Christ was crucified unless they were totally certain that Christ had indeed risen to life again? Highly unlikely to say the least.
Agreed. But they didn't need the Shroud to convince them that Jesus had risen from the dead. Jesus appeared to them many times after His resurrection:
Acts 10:40-42. 40 but God raised him on the third day and made him to appear, 41 not to all the people but to us who had been chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 42 And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead.
>Peter, the one who denied Christ 3 times and hides like a man terrified to lose his life suddenly starts preaching the gospel in jerusalem and asks to be crucified upside down because he was not worthy to be crucified in the same manner as Christ. It just doesn't make sense unless Christ did indeed rise and appeared to Peter and the 12.
>
>A person one second that is afraid for his life just doesn't suddenly lose that fear unless something extraordinary happens to transform that person in a way that would completely take his fear away.
Agreed. But non-Christians can say they don't believe what the Bible says is true. They can say that was all made up by the early Church (which does not explain why there WAS an early Church). That argument can be successfully defeated but it would take much time and effort and few (if any) non-Christians would even LISTEN to that argument, let alone be CONVINCED of it.
But the Shroud short-circuits that Bible objection, since it is EMPIRICAL, SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that Jesus DID rise from the dead, and so the Gospels ARE reliable and Christianity IS true.
But of course non-Christians mostly ignore all that, but, if they don't "repent and believe the Gospel (good news):
"The time has come," he [Jesus] said. "The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!" (Mark 1:15)
they WILL find out, too late, that it WAS true!
>I hope one day I can make a trip to Spain to at least see the sudarium which is put out on display 3 times a year.
I didn't realise that. Thanks. I will put seeing the Sudarium of Oviedo with seeing the Shroud on my list of things to do before I die.
Stephen E. Jones
Stephen, when I think about the intact blood clots that you and flagrum mention the hairs on my hands stand up, just trying to imagine the incredible power of the resurrection process as Jesus's body went through it, but the shroud image also reminds me of how brutal the torture that Jesus had to gone through, which he did willingly, and all for us.
He came down from his throne in heaven just to save us.
The sudarium is put on display on good Friday, September 14th and September 21st
Maybe one day all of us on this thread can make that trip to Spain to see it together.
God bless
I'm really looking forward to part 8 of your series of articles
Bippy123
Bippy123
>... when I think about the intact blood clots ... the hairs on my hands stand up, just trying to imagine the incredible power of the resurrection process as Jesus's body went through it,
Agreed. But strictly speaking, according to Jackson's Cloth Collapse theory, the Shroud went through Jesus' body. That is, Jesus' body became "mechanically transparent" to matter.
And so the Shroud, and bloodclots, fell through the field of radiation emitted from Jesus' body when it changed state from "perishable" to "imperishable" (1Cor 15:50-52); from "lowly" to "glorious" (Php 3:21) in the "moment" [Gk. atome = atom, smallest unit of time, i.e. Planck time = 10^-43 seconds?] (1Cor 15:52).
>but the shroud image also reminds me of how brutal the torture that Jesus had to gone through, which he did willingly, and all for us.
>
>He came down from his throne in heaven just to save us.
That Jesus was God in human flesh, yet willingly endured the horrific torture of the Cross (Php 2:8) to save every one who believes in Him (Jn 3:16) gives an added dimension to Heb 2:3:
"how shall we escape if we neglect SUCH A GREAT SALVATION?"
>The sudarium is put on display on good Friday, September 14th and September 21st
Thanks for that information.
>Maybe one day all of us on this thread can make that trip to Spain to see it together.
An interesting thought. I will bear it in mind, if and when I plan to see the Shroud and/or the Sudarium.
>God bless
And you.
>I'm really looking forward to part 8 of your series of articles
Thanks, but it's only "2.2. Its [the Shroud's] location". I am preparing the post and I should have it posted by this Sunday night (Perth, Western Australia time GMT +8).
Stephen E. Jones
Post a Comment