wales@cs.ucla.edu (Rich Wales) (04/10/91)
In article <Apr.7.22.11.36.1991.28806@athos.rutgers.edu>, Tim McGuire
states his belief that the Shroud of Turin can be disproved based on the
Scriptures. I trust Tim will accept the following as a fair summary of
his comments:
(1) The Shroud is inconsistent with the New Testament descriptions of
Christ's burial.
(2) Christ's hair would not have made an imprint on the Shroud, since
it would not all have made the necessary contact with the cloth.
(3) The belief that Christ had long flowing hair is not based in the NT
and probably came from a mistaken medieval tradition that He was a
Nazarite.
(4) The Shroud is superfluous anyway on grounds of Biblical sufficiency,
and it is thus not reasonable to assume that God would have provided
for its preservation or would sanction it as a vehicle of faith.
My replies to the above:
(1) Biblical scholars are divided as to exactly how the descriptions of
the graveclothes in the NT are to be understood.
The "napkin", for example, could have been bound around Christ's jaw
and over the top of His head and still be "about His head" without
obscuring the face. Binding of the jaw in this way -- as well as
binding of the wrists and ankles -- would have facilitated handling
of the body and would have countered the effects of rigor mortis.
The exact interpretation of the Greek verbs describing how Christ's
body was enclosed in the burial cloths is open to question. A
mummy-like wrapping seems not to have been standard procedure -- at
least in the case of Lazarus, who would have had a hard time coming
forth from his grave if he had been wrapped in that way.
Non-Biblical Jewish sources regarding the customs of the 1st Century
suggest that a Shroud-like burial was quite plausible.
You might want to read Chapter 4 of _Verdict on the Shroud_ by Ste-
venson and Habermas regarding Shroud/NT reconciliation.
(2) Most Shroud researchers do =not= assert that direct contact between
the body and the cloth was necessary in order to create the image.
Indeed, this is clearly not the case anyway; otherwise, the much-
touted "3-D" quality of the image would not be apparent.
In any case, most researchers do not claim to know how the image on
the Shroud was produced; and those researchers (mostly skeptics)
who do claim to know the process have not thus far succeeded in
reproducing the technique to the level of detail seen on the Shroud.
(This, of course, is a controversial statement; the skeptics claim
they have in fact done just that.)
(3) The belief that Christ had long hair can, as I understand, be traced
at least as far back as 6th-century Byzantine art. While the NT
doesn't say Christ had long hair, as far as I remember, neither does
it say that He did =not= have long hair.
As I understand 1st-century Jewish tradition, it would have been
quite reasonable to assume that Christ had longish hair by modern
Western standards.
(4) This is really more a question of doctrine more than anything else.
Suffice it to say that, while some Christians do believe the Bible
to be 100% inerrant and self-interpreting, other Christians do not.
I agree that worship of veneration of the Shroud is inappropriate.
Nor do I think it wise for one to make the Shroud the cornerstone of
his/her faith in Christ. However, if God were, for whatever reason,
to decide to preserve the Shroud as an additional witness of some
sort to the divinity of His Son, I for one would not presume to pro-
test. (Admittedly, this may be begging the question; so be it.)
In summary, I believe the Shroud can be reconciled with what we know (or
can reasonably extrapolate or surmise) regarding Christ's burial. There
is not, in my view, an open-and-shut case of clear and blatant contra-
diction between the Shroud and the New Testament.
For what it may be worth (and especially in regard to my comments on
point #4 above), please note that I am LDS (Mormon). Please also note
that the LDS Church has not taken any stand, one way or the other,
regarding the nature of the Shroud of Turin. Nor, for that matter, do I
myself hold a set opinion one way or the other regarding the Shroud at
this time (though I do feel there is enough evidence in its favor --
even after the 1988 C-14 dating attempt -- to justify serious considera-
tion of the possibility that the Shroud may be genuine).
--
Rich Wales <wales@CS.UCLA.EDU> // UCLA Computer Science Department
3531 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, CA 90024-1596 // +1 (213) 825-5683