Joe Marino, friend, fellow shroudie, venerabilis eruditus, stands out as a scholar recognized for his meticulous attention to detail and well-reasoned beliefs. Joe and I certainly hold differing viewpoints on many matters and he possesses a stronger belief in the authenticity of the Shroud than I do. However, concerning something he wrote in a paper earlier this year, I am in strong agreement, especially with the sentiments expressed in the last of three paragraphs below:
Many people will acknowledge that it is possible to place Jesus in a historical time and place, and that he was wrapped in a shroud after his crucifixion. Although his apostles and other disciples claimed to have seen him after his death, no one witnessed what is generally referred to as his “Resurrection,” which most generally agree was something beyond a resuscitation. The tomb was found empty, which alone doesn’t prove anything, as the body could have been stolen. If the Shroud could be shown to be authentic, it would have been a witness of sorts. The empty tomb and the testimony of the apostles/disciples (along with perhaps personal spiritual experiences/testimony of the Holy Spirit) have been sufficient for many to accept the truth of Christianity. An authentic Shroud could strengthen that conviction. It is important to note that the Catholic Church never proclaims any relic as authentic. It only permits veneration if there is no clear proof that the relic is inauthentic. So, in a real sense, ascribing authenticity to the Shroud would be by popular acclamation, since science would never be able to prove it unequivocally.
The Shroud has been called “The Silent Witness, “The Fifth Gospel,” and even “The First Gospel,” since it would historically pre-date the writing of the gospels. Some also believe that a secondary witness was the face cloth mentioned in Jn 20:7. A church in Spain has what numerous people believe to be that cloth—it is called the Sudarium of Oviedo. But the combination of the empty tomb, the testimony of the apostles/disciples and an authentic Shroud still would not constitute proof.
Given that Jesus stressed the importance of faith, that he taught in parables and through signs, and that there has never been a knock-down proof of the truth of Christianity, it is unreasonable to believe or assert that the Shroud could be proof of the Resurrection. But as the quotes cited in this article express, it can speak in multiple ways to our hearts, which can be more persuasive than evidence and proofs.
Marino, J. (2023). The Shroud of Turin: A Matter of Clear Evidence or a Subtle Sign? Retrieved 8/13/2023 from academea.edu
Wow, this is such a transparent attempt to use the “divide and conquer” technique by using Joe as your human shield.
You’re not gonna get me to “bite” on this one. And, it appears that you are using Joe with this post to detract from my responses to yesterday’s post.
Thanks, Dan, for including this. I, too, applaud Joe’s meticulous approach to documenting the various media references to the Shroud and find that I agree with him that The Shroud is Christ’s burial cloth.
As a late-comer to the study of this artifact, I am intrigued by the plethora of writings concerning “proof”.
I don’t think the authenticity of the Shroud can ever be proven here within the time/space continuum.
But I also believe it is appropriate to use what we already know about our world/universe (scientific knowledge) to better understand how the Image was formed.
Just because we do not now understand the fullness of scientific knowledge, and most likely never will, should not cause us to scoff at new ideas about how our world/universe works. I am comfortable with our Creator using elements of this world, such as radiation, in ways we cannot now fathom because they don’t fit our worldview.
I fully believe “All things are possible with God”.
Have a Blessed Day, and thank you for this Blog!
And, Dan, if you wanted legitimate debate on these various issues (that have already been discussed before) you wouldn’t be using Joe like this. You would just state the issues on your own.
You are being very manipulative with this post.
I’m more interested in responses to yesterday’s posts —that deal with the real issues about the Shroud that you doubt so much.
Enough with the “smoke and mirrors.”
On second thought, I’d be “playing into your hand” if I did not respond to the points that you bring up. So, since I’ve called out your tactic, I’ll proceed to respond to the issues that are raised.
Regarding the “stolen body” hypothesis that some consider to be viable, one just needs to ask a very common sense question: who in the world is going to steal a body that has been wrapped in a large cloth by REMOVING the body from the cloth? This “stolen body” hypothesis tends to presume, of course, that Jesus did not ever actually supernaturally rise from an ACTUAL state of deadness (is that a real word –if not, I’m now making it one.) (Again, none of this “Lazarus syndrome” nonsense.) The thought that someone would rather steal an uncovered bloodied body WITHOUT a clean covering surrounding it (AND HIDING IT FROM POTENTIAL OBSERVERS who might see them) is just patently absurd. I mean, even nowadays, ne’er do wells have the good sense to wrap a corpse in a big rug before they go to dispose of the body. Sure, could the “body snatchers” like handling an exposed, bloodied naked body for anybody to possibly see? Yeah, maybe. But, with the same probability that the moon is made from green cheese.
The Catholic Church’s common (but not absolute) stance on relics is borne from the fact that there have been plenty of fake relics. So, the Church does not want to “stick their necks out” on relics lest the relic proves to be a fake. The Church is engaged in a thinking error –that just because they might be wrong on the issue of a relic that they think that everyone will think that they are, also, wrong about the Truth of Christianity. But, Truth always stands –even if it is surrounded by one or more untruths.
However, Pope John Paul II is reported to have referred to the Shroud of Turin (while visiting Turin in April 1980) as a “distinguished relic linked to the mystery of our redemption.” That sure does seem to me like Pope John Paul II is endorsing the Shroud in Turin as being an authentic relic. Moreover, Pope Pius XII in 1936 referred to the Shroud in Turin as a “holy thing perhaps like nothing else.” That doesn’t sound like he had any doubts about it, either –and he was proclaiming this. Pope Julius II had a Mass written in honor of the Holy Shroud –that seems pretty official, too, if you ask me (not that you did.)
And, again, there’s the old canard that people often like to use that “science cannot prove anything 100%” –or some iteration of this. But, again, science cannot really prove anything to a 100% certainty. So, we must think in terms of evidence (and its accumulation) and how likely it is that something is True.
And, YES, there is knock-down proof of Christianity and the Resurrection –and it is contained within the evidence culled through many important disciplines (science, forensics, medicine, history, archeology, etc.) that compellingly point to the Shroud in Turin being the Shroud of Christ with a supernaturally imposed Image of Christ on it. And, NO, this does not go against Christ’s teachings. After all, did not Jesus, Himself, permit Thomas to put his hands in His wounds? God knows that some people need more than just Faith. Moreover, blind faith is not really what Christianity is about, anyway. I’m not sure why so many Christians seem to think so. Christianity is an evidenced-base religion, and God (as well as Jesus –with all of the miracles that He was performing in front of crowds) gives us the ultimate form of evidence for Christianity’s Truth by way of the Holy Shroud.
And, I failed to consistently emphasize with the “body stealing” hypothesis that this is a DEAD body.