N. T. Wright on the possible nature of the Resurrection

N. T. Wright Resurrection View

Is it possible to think that Jesus' body, at the moment of resurrection, became mechanically transparent thus enabling a cloth to fall through it (or the body to pass through the cloth). Historian and biblical scholar N. T. Wright in The Resurrection of the Son of God (London: SPCK, 2003) illustrates this thinking:

The beloved disciple came to his new belief, the text wants us to understand: not simply on the basis of the emptiness of the tomb (which had been explained by Mary in verse 2 in terms of the removal of the body to an unknown location), but on the basis of what he deduced both from the fact that the grave-clothes had been left behind and from the position in which they were lying. He, like Thomas at the end of the chapter, saw something which elicited faith. The fact that the grave-clothes were left behind showed that the body had not been carried off, whether by foes, friends or indeed a gardener (verse 15). Their positioning, carefully described in verse 7, suggest that they had not been unwrapped, but that the body had somehow passed through them, much as, later on, it would appear and disappear through locked doors (verse 19).

This resonates with the collimated appearance of the images on the Shroud of Turin and the topographical spatial information that can be plotted as three-dimensional images. It is also consistent with something that forensic experts tell us. The body images show no visible signs of decomposition and the linen fabric is not damaged by any bodily decomposition products. It is also consistent with a baffling observation about the bloodstains. Dried blood, in acting like weak glue between body and cloth, should have cracked and broken apart if the body was unwrapped by convention physical means. Small fibers of blood-soaked linen should have pulled apart. Yet this not observed in the bloodstains.

See: Miracle Images and Natural Images

Home Page & Introduction: The Shroud of Turin Story - A Guide to the Facts 2005

Key questions

The Shroud of Turin for Journalists: Where have all the skeptics gone? How new peer-reviewed science redefines the controversy: scientists vs. the Papal custodians in Turin.

New Tests Prove 1988 Carbon 14 Dating Invalid: Shroud of Turin Shown to be Much Older.

Thermochimica Acta (Volume 425 pp. 189-194, by Raymond N. Rogers, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California) - The article is available on Elsevier BV's ScienceDirect® and the American Chemical Society's ChemPort

The Shroud of Caiaphas An amazing forensic science mystery.

Second Face Image What does an announcement by the Institute of Physics in London mean?

Mozarabic Rite What does a 6th century rite from the Visigothic Kingdom of Spain have to do with the Shroud of Turin?

Chemistry What do we know about the chemical nature of the images?

Carbon 14 Tests They conclude for a medieval provenance. Are they wrong? It seems so. According to National Geographic News (April 9, 2004) there is now definitive chemical evidence that the test samples were cut from a medieval repair patch.

Image Formation Were they created by 1) a faker of false relics, 2) a miraculous event, or 3) some perfectly natural phenomenon?

FAQ Facts and dubious claims.

updated 2005

Point 1: Because scientists and historians have yet to prove or disprove its authenticity, the Shroud of Turin is controversial and interesting. From secular, peer-reviewed, scientific journals alone, we can make a strong case that the Shroud of Turin is a burial shroud of a crucifixion victim. With the addition of historical records we can infer that the Shroud of Turin might be the burial shroud of the Jesus of history. HOME

Point 2: The Shroud of Turin is not about "gotcha" religiosity by people who point to the Shroud of Turin as proof of Jesus' divinity and resurrection. Instead, if real, the Turin Shroud, like scripture, like apocryphal literature, like ancient secular documents, like many recent archeological findings is a part of the ongoing quest for the historical Jesus. We may infer much; but how much depends on how reasonably the shroud’s authenticity can be determined. HOME

Point 3: By focusing on 2004 and 2005 peer-reviewed journals, we see that the carbon 14 dating is invalid and that the images, thought by some to be miraculous, may have formed by a natural amino/carbonyl reaction; a chemical process perhaps unique to and commonplace in Jewish tomb burials of the late-Second Temple era. HOME

And: Philip Ball, one of today's most brilliant science writers, wrote in Nature, that most prestigious of scientific journals: "It is simply not known how the ghostly image of a serene, bearded man was made." (Jan 2005) HOME

Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant and Evangelical Christians (conservative and liberal alike) are beginning to realize that there is something not easily understood about the Shroud.

The arguments on both sides of the authenticity debate are being updated with puzzling information coming out of new discoveries in 2004.

The Shroud of Turin is poignantly contrary to the expectations of believers and skeptics alike. But at the same time it is auspiciously not too fantastic for modern sensibilities.

SEE HOME PAGE

strong case

Together, a conspectus of its history and valid scientific evidence make a strong case that the Shroud is a genuine burial cloth of a Roman-style crucifixion victim.

JOHN DOMINIC CROSSAN
PARADOX

Valid is emphasized because much that is reported in polemic books and websites—by zealous believers and skeptics alike—is junk science.

If it is a burial cloth, then historical records are sufficient to infer that the Shroud's enigmatic images of a naked, much wounded man are of Jesus of Nazareth.

It is certainly much older than the now discredited radiocarbon date of ca 1260-ca 1390. This is supported by chemical evidence.

It is quite possible that the unusual images were formed by some perfectly natural chemical process. The superficial conjugated carbon bonds—the microscopic chromophores of the images—possibly result from a Maillard reaction between reactive body amines and residual starch fractions and saccharides in natural soap. We need only turn to Pliny the Elder to see how ancient linen was made and to find supporting evidence.

Science cannot rule out a miracle but it can and does rule out fakery.

If genuine, then the Shroud is unquestionably the oldest historical document pertaining to the life and death of Jesus. If genuine, it is pictorial and forensic evidence that gives credence to the the passion story.

And if genuine, this piece of ancient linen offers new insights in the quest for the historical Jesus and new ways to scrutinize contemporary biblical exegesis.

Is the Shroud evidence of the resurrection? Possibly, but perhaps only indirectly. Clearly, if it is a burial cloth, the body it wrapped was separated from it soon after burial—before decomposition products could have ravaged the cloth. Forensic science, applied to the Shroud, argues against the polemics of swoon theory or a stolen body.

Ray Rogers, a Fellow of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory, a chemist who has scientifically examined the Shroud—in Turin—and studied the object for more than 27 years, wrote:

with some legitimacy, we might put up a strong case for a First Century shroud with an image best explained as being that of a crucified man. Isn't that enough? Remember that there weren't any Christians or Christian fanatics (e.g., Templars) in the First Century. There wasn't anyone around so warped that they would crucify a person to create a relic, and the technology did not exist to produce an adequate fake.

Perspective: My name is Dan Porter. I am the author of this website.

Biblical scholar and Anglican bishop, John A. T. Robinson wrote in Honest to God: "All I can do is try to be honest, honest to God and about God and to follow the argument wherever it leads." I have tried to make this my guiding principle in exploring the Shroud.

JOHN A. T. ROBINSON
SURPRISE »

I am a lifelong Episcopalian with one foot firmly planted in liberal theological views and the principles of Progressive Christianity and one foot planted in conservative thought and traditional orthodoxy. I am a member of Trinity Church Wall Street (Episcopal) in New York City.

While I personally believe in the Resurrection of Christ, I claim no opinion about its physical or spiritual nature. I don't interpret the Gospels as literal or linear accounts of the life of Jesus. I believe the Gospels were written to elicit faith and as such are truer than they could be as mere historical narratives. But the accounts, starting with Jesus' arrest and ending with the discovery of the empty tomb, seems very historical.

If the Shroud is real, as I have come to believe it is, it confirms the Passion story and lavishes new verisimilitude upon the Resurrection. It could be that we have a picture of Jesus.

N. T. Wright Resurrection View

Key questions

what's the scoop on

Addenda

Google

links

updated 2005

strong case