Surely, an extraordinary imprint on Jesus’ burial cloth would imply something extraordinary having happened . . .
David B Marshall continues his look at De Wesselow’s book by dissecting Chapter 2. Here is tempting morsel:
When life gives you lemons, make lemonaide. Some of the strongest arguments for the truth of Christianity are often quarried from anti-Christian arguments. This book may prove a gold mine.
And there is this:
At the end of the chapter, Thomas even uses a word beloved of the skeptical community (see, for instance, Stephen Law’s attempt to extend Hume’s argument against miracles, and my response): "extraordinary." The usual soundbite is, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." DW notes that two great mysteries seem to touch at this one small patch of time and space: what happened to Jesus after he died, and where this mysterious shroud came from:
How could two such grand enigmas resulting from the very same burial be unconnected? Surely, an extraordinary imprint on Jesus’ burial cloth would imply something extraordinary having happened to his body. (27)
As a skeptical art historian, apparently an atheist, DW points at that hotly-contested ground and renders the point emphatic and explicit:
The Shroud is extraordinary evidence. The stories about Jesus’ resurrection are equally extraordinary. So what is the connection?