The original title was The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection (Viking UK, March 26, 2012). Now there is a reprint edition, The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Birth of Christianity (Plume; Reprint edition, March 5, 2013). Notice the subtle change in the title and the new cover. This reprint edition includes a hardcover version for $26, a paperback version for $16 and a Kindle version for $10. How often do you see a hardcover in a reprint.
And then there is Das Turiner Grabtuch und das Geheimnis der Auferstehung and Sinal: O Santo Sudario e O Segredo da Ressurreicao.
The more reviews I read the more convinced I am that people de Wesselow’s argument for authenticity compelling but his argument that it gave birth to a false belief in resurrection untenable.
Looks like the people at that end had second thoughts after realising that a tall claim had been made.
de Wesellow has made a great contribution in debunking the carbon dating and establishing the existence of the Shroud before Constantinople. However, he falls into his own criticism when he says, he is an agnpostic and therefore there must be anoher explanation for the Shroud than the actual Resurrection. Therefore, he speculates wildly about the image of the Shroud being the Resurrection.
His argument is an argument frorm incredulity. I can’t believe A = B, therefore A doesn’t equal B.
Once he concluded that the Shroud was in fact the burial cloth of Christ, he has to face the fact that the cloth is at least consistent with the Resurrection. Actually, the Resurrection is the simplest solution, just ask Sean Connery, I mean William of Okham.
John, bear in mind the potential limitations of Occam’s razor in many fields of expertise, please. Any way, is the Resurrection really the “simplest solution”? I very much doubt so.
What about agenda-driven arch-miraculists’ intellectual laziness and/or blind spots?
The image does not have to have been caused by the Resurrection as an “arch-miraculist” might argue, for it to be PERSUASIVE evidence of the Resurrection; OR as Yannick Clement might insist, as a “sign of the Rersurrection”. I think the value of Occam’s razor in this case is that it can now be argued a) firstly, that the “simplest solution is that the image was caused by some as yet unknown means from shrouding a corpse, and that this occurred before corruption commenced”; b) secondly, that the “simplest solution as to the identity of the corpse is that it was Jesus Christ, who as it happens is the only person who ever claimed to have survived death”; c) thirdly, that the “simplest solution of there no longer being any body present with no sign of manual removal, and no other known place of burial, that the said claims of Jesus Christ, for which there is testamentary evidence, is that they are VERY LIKELY to be true”! I think this is the strict logic of the case and the appropriate use of Occam’s razor. Ultimately, however, as such a claim is outside normal human experience, and it is just possible to conjecture that the body was in fact deliberately removed, the truth of the Resurrection can only be accepted as a Faith decision. The Shroud image is a persuasive but not strictly conclusive argument which can support that Faith decision. The steps (a) through (c) is I think the appropriate use of Occam’s razor. It is not necessary to argue that the image was caused by the Resurrection event itself, for it to be a sign of the Resurrection, whether it was so caused or not. The gap in de Wesselow’s argument is that it does not adequately explain the disappearance of the body, nor who may have removed it, nor for what purpose, nor does it explain who removed the boulder blocking the entrance to the tomb. Clearly the authorities intended that the body remain in the tomb, and the gospel accounts record that the first witnesses did not really expect such an event as the Resurrection, and were in fact slow to accept it. So, who moved the boulder, and who took the body? Now, get out your Occam’s razor once more!
I have the book and at the very least it is a great resource. I agree the author presents a compelling case for authenticity but a less than compeling case that the Shroud inspired the resurrection story. However,I Do think the shroud could have lended great support to and essentially corroborated the resurrection experiences.
Personally I think his one your lecture at the BSTS last year was more significant than his book. Here is the link. Scroll down a little to find it. Well worth watching. http://www.shroud-enigma.com/BSTS/bsts-uk-homepage.html
I meant to say “one hour lecture.”
Further to # 1 this is probably a move with an eye on sales. The potential buyer is lead to believe that this is another book on the birth of Christianity when he reads the title and if he does buy the book without bothering to look at the contents first and then sees what is inside…