Central dilemma of the Shroud: The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus! #18

The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus!
CENTRAL DILEMMA OF THE SHROUD
© Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is "Central dilemma of the Shroud," being part #18 of my online book, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus!" For more information see the Cover #1, Contents #2 and Preface #3, of this series.

[Contents #2] [Previous: Was radiocarbon dated 1260-1390 #17] [Next: Selvedges #19]

---

1. What is the Shroud of Turin? #8
8. Central dilemma of the Shroud #18

By "dilemma" is meant a situation where realistically there are only two alternatives[2], that either the Shroud is a forgery or it is the very burial sheet of Jesus, bearing His crucified image.

It is possible that the image on the Shroud is a natural imprint of a dead body on a linen sheet, as on the Jospice mattress cover [Right (enlarge)[3].] but the evidence is against it. That image was found imprinted on a synthetic material mattress cover in Liverpool's St. Joseph's Hospice (Jospice) after the removal of the body of a 44 year old West Indian man, Les, who died of pancreatic cancer on it in 1981[4]. The image shows the outline of the patient's hand, buttocks, arm, shoulders, and jaw[5]. The image appears to have been formed through the patient's pyjamas, undersheet and the pillow on which his head rested[6]. The image was presumably caused by Les' abnormal urine reacting with the nylon material of the mattress cover[7]. It may be that the Jospice image was faked[8], although a similar image was reported of a kidney cancer patient in a German hospital[9]. Irrespective of whether the Jospice image is genuine or a fake it bears only a superficial resemblance to the Shroud[10]. After an exhaustive scientific examination, medical examiner Dr Frederick Zugibe (1928–2013) found "many dissimilarities" between the Jospice mattress cover image and that of the Shroud[11]. One obvious dissimilarity is that Jospice image is strongly outlined (see above), whereas one of the major features of the Shroud image is that it uniquely has no outline (see Preface)[12]. Another obvious dissimilarity is that the Shroud image is a photographic negative (see Contents) whereas the Jospice image clearly is not[13].

Roman Catholic writer John Evangelist Walsh (1927-2015) [Left (enlarge)[14]] stated the dilemma that either the Shroud is a "relic of Jesus Christ" or it is a "product... of the human ... hand ... there is no middle ground":

"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"[15].

By "relic" Walsh would have meant it in the Roman Catholic sense of "some object, notably part of the body or clothes, remaining as a memorial of a departed saint"[16]. That is, either the Shroud is the actual burial cloth of Jesus or it is a forgery!

Leading Shroud sceptics have affirmed the dilemma. In 1903 Fr. Herbert Thurston (1856–1939), an English Roman Catholic priest, conceded that either the image on the Shroud was "the impression of the Christ" or "it was designed as the counterfeit of that impression":

"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"[17].

Modern Shroud sceptics Steven Schafersman, and Joe Nickell who quoted him approvingly, agree that, "Either the shroud [was] ... produced by the body of Jesus ... or it is a product of human artifice" 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[18]:

Is there a possible third hypothesis? No, and here's why. Both Wilson[19] and Stevenson and Habermas[20] 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[21] 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" (emphasis original)[22].

Since either the Shroud is authentic, the very burial sheet of Jesus, or it is a forgery, with no realistic third alternative, it follows that evidence and arguments against the Shroud being a forgery are evidence and arguments for the Shroud being authentic. Therefore in this book I will point out problems of the forgery theory as we go along and gather them together in chapter 13, "Problems of the forgery theory."

To be continued in the part #19 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of this post (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. "Dilemma," Dictionary.com, 2020. [return]
3. "The Jospice Mattress Cover Image," Shroud.com, 8 March 1981. [return]
4. Wilson, I., 1988, "The Next BSTS Meeting - News of an upcoming lecture by Ian Wilson on the Liverpool Mattress," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 19, April, pp.8-9. [return]
5. Ibid. [return]
6. Ibid. [return]
7. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, fig. 39. [return]
8. Moon, P., 2016, "The Jospice Mattress in comparison to the Shroud of Turin," The Shroud of Turin Exhibition, 19 March. [return]
9. Morgan, R.H., 1988, "The Lancashire Image," Shroud News, No. 46, April, pp.13-15, 14-15. [return]
10. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, p.305. [return]
11. Zugibe, F.T., 1981, "The Jospice Mattress Cover Image," 8 March, Shroud.com. [return]
12. Wilson, 1998, p.4. [return]
13. Wilson, 1998, p.209. [return]
14. "Walsh, John Evangelist," Obituaries, Madison.com, 28 March 2015. [return]
15. Walsh, J.E., 1963, "The Shroud," Random House: New York NY, pp.xi-xii. [return]
16. "Relics," New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, 20 July 2020. [return]
17. Thurston, H., S.J., 1903, "The Holy Shroud and the Verdict of History," The Month, CI, January, pp.17-29, 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]
18. Schafersman, S.D., 1982, "Science, the public, and the Shroud of Turin," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 6, No. 3, Spring, pp.37-56, 42. [return]
19. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.51-53. [return]
20. 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.121-129. [return]
21. Op cit, p.128. [return]
22. Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000, p.141. [return]

Posted: 18 July 2020. Updated: 15 November 2020.