At this point in the argument I am going to assume that the
Shroud of Turin is indeed
the burial
shroud of Jesus Christ. The posts up to this point have largely been a
justification for this assumption. The real excitement about the Shroud is when
we start to examine it in the light of Pascha.
There already exists
voluminous studies on the Resurrection and what the apostles saw, largely in
the camps of criticism and apologetics. My contention all along is that the
Shroud adds unprecedented weight to the claims of the apologists, not only
confirming the written record of the Gospels but giving us a primary document
which supplies us with far more information than we had previously.
Why then, a Resurrection?
Couldn't we just say that the image of Christ was made via a naturalistic
process and that as eerily and unique it may be (eerily perhaps because of it's uniqueness) it does not prove the
Resurrection? Yes and no.
Yes in the sense that
I am not arguing that this proves the
Resurrection. I don't know if I can do that, or if anyone can do that, but what
I will say is that it makes it seem logically possible. So much so to the point
where I believe that the Resurrection is a more powerful explanation for both
the events surrounding Easter and the Shroud than any naturalistic one.
No in the sense that
even if there were to be a purely naturalistic explanation for the image, it
would be irrelevant to what I just claimed. I will elaborate on this further
when I talk about the properties of the Shroud and how they pertain to the
different image forming hypotheses. However, first we must lay the context of
the claim.
To explain the rise of
early Christian belief, there are some key factors that any hypothesis must
take into account. I will essentially be touting the typical evangelical
apologetic given by figures such as William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, etc.
Firstly, the apostles
of Christ claimed to have seen their Rabbi after His death and believed that He
was truly Risen from the dead. I am putting emphasis on 'Risen' as there have
been many theories that the early Church did not believe in a bodily
resurrection, but that such a dogma came later and was anachronistically forced
upon earlier writings.
However, scholars such as N.T. Wright have shown this to be an erroneous claim.
In a similar vein, there's been many (bad) attempts to show that Christ was
just a copycat savior from preexisting mythology. However, the very concept of
the bodily resurrection – the word 'anastasis' – flew in the face of everything
that the Hellenic world imagined.
Also, there have been many works that have debunked such theories, such as the
apologetics of James Patrick Holding, or Edward L. Winston's criticism of the
popular internet movie 'Zeitgeist'.
Yet, the visions
themselves wont convince most skeptics. After all, people have visions of
things frequently, and in an ancient world that did not have the sciences
people had to of been more prone to be
duped by hallucinations, right?
While the assertion
may seem reasonable to us in our post-modern age, the ancients were actually
quite skeptical themselves of any kind of vision or hallucination.
But rather than delve too deep into this subject, there is a key point I'd like
to make. In the ancient world, whenever someone saw a recently departed person
it was their soul that came back to talk, or a vision of some kind.
Never was it the entire person, both body and soul, who
returned.
To the pagan mind this was pure foolishness; the body was something that was
shed after death. This is why the Greeks found Christianity to be “foolishness”
as St. Paul says, and why many of them laughed at him when he preached the
risen Christ.
Secondly, coupled with
this message was the fact that
Christ
was Risen. While many, though not all, Jews believed in the resurrection of the
body, the idea that the resurrection had already begun was what was so unique
about the message. This did not
sit with the ideas of the Jews that everyone would be resurrected at once – no
one would resurrect before anyone else. Yet, as the disciples clearly preached,
Christ was Risen – the resurrection had begun.
Thirdly, the empty
tomb. Some contest that the empty tomb is a legendary embellishment . Mark's
gospel in the earliest copies we have, ending with the women telling “no one”
what they saw seems to fit with this. Indeed, the later gospels seem to be
covering up this error by saying that they did tell the apostles, trying to fix an obvious blunder. For indeed if the empty tomb were true, why would the women
disciples tell no one?
Yet, there are
problems with this train of thought. If the tomb was indeed a legend, why have
female disciples be the ones who discover it? Female testimony in Jewish law was
non-existent – they simply were not seen as reliable witnesses. True, the
disciples did verify their message for themselves, not solely relying off their
testimony (in fact they distrusted them from the outset). Yet why, if inventing
a story, have the women disciples be the ones to discover it at all? Perhaps
its supposed to be a reversal of sorts: while the men ran away after Christ's
arrest, the women stayed. Where it was Eve who first disobeyed, it was the
women who now first believe. While this is certainly true, and is even how it
is seen in the Tradition of the Orthodox Church, why are we to believe that
such a theological premise was to be invented, one with much profundity, but
that then the disciple who inaugurated it completely botched everything up by
saying they told “no one”? Is such a blatant error consistent with one who
could 'invent' such a theological reflection?
Furthermore, as
historian N. T. Wright points out, the empty tomb is a
necessary condition for explaining the Paschal story.
If the Apostles only had visions of a risen Jesus, this alone wouldn't of
brought them to their belief; like I said previously, despite our normal
assumptions, the ancient world had a firm grasp on the difference between
reality and visions. As Wright points out, “the response to reported visions of
this kind might of course have been, in the ancient as in the modern world, to
question the mental balance, or perhaps the recent diet, of the witnesses.”
To add on to this, visions of those recently departed were always seen as a
sign “that the person was dead, not that they were alive”, yet the claim of the
early Church was that Christ was
alive.
Had the apostles only seen visions, they, like most of the ancient world, could
have just written them off. However, it is – as Wright again points out – that
the visions had a “Jesus who was appearing...in bodily continuity with the
corpse that had occupied the tomb”.
Now, when we look at
the Shroud we must remember that any
hypothesis about the image and the end result of Christ's body has to also
account for all the other data I just went over. It's no good if a theory can
account, for example, the source of the image but have no way of explaining the
empty tomb. First, let's see some of the things the Shroud seems to vindicate
in our previous apologetic.
First, the empty tomb.
My reason for this is how else should we have access to the Shroud unless the
Apostles found it as they describe in their accounts? Now skeptics may argue
that it was indeed recovered but not necessarily from an empty tomb. However,
the travertine aragonite located at Christ's feet on the Shroud has an
incredibly “similar [signature] to
limestone samples from ancient [Judaic] tombs”.
This obviously does not prove the empty tomb, but it is certainly powerful
evidence for it's validity.
Second,
a historical Jesus. The reason I mention this is that though 'Jesus-myth'
theories are not generally given the time of day, certain works and views by
authors such as Earl Doherty and Richard Carrier as well as serious laymen such
as Neil Godfrey are gaining more of an audience. However, if we're accepting
that the Shroud of Turin did indeed wrap Jesus Christ, then the idea that He
was a myth is soundly gutted.
So then, how can we
explain the empty tomb, the rise of early Christian beliefs, and the image on
the Shroud? The first theory we can look at is that the body was stolen from
the tomb. Immediately though, we run into problems because of the blood clots
on the Shroud. Vignon noted that these clots “showed the characteristics of
authentically dried or 'clotted' blood – separation of serum and darker
cellular mass”.
Though a
few of the stains had broken borders, “most were smooth” indicating “they must
first have dried and separated on a non-absorbent surface, such as the skin of
a corpse, before being transferred to the cloth.”
This would be possible due to the sweat released by Christ during His torture,
which then would have lingered longer if His body was placed in a cool
environment such as a tomb
(hence giving even more evidence to the fact that the empty tomb was not a
developed legend). However, the perfect quality in which the wounds are
transferred are the real problem for the stolen body theory; if the body was
stolen from the Shroud we would not see the perfection we do – instead things
would have been messy and haphazard.
This makes sense as a wound that hadn't fully clotted yet would have smeared on
the Shroud while one that had clotted to the linen would have broken a-new. We
see neither of these on the Shroud, though.
Second, the Shroud
does away with 'swoon theory', or the idea that Christ didn't die on the Cross.
This is very hard to take seriously even without the Shroud, and most skeptics
don't hold to it. However, there is no doubt of its invalidity when we remember
that the image of Christ on the Shroud is in rigor mortis. The reason I bring
this up is for a more inter-religious apologetic than a theist-atheist one. To
my understanding, most traditional forms of Islam hold that Christ never died
while on the Cross. This seems to fly directly in the face of said claim. The
implications spell themselves out.
Third, the idea that
Christ was buried in a common grave. The first problem with this theory is the
aforementioned data of both the limestone and the blood. Any theory that claims
that Christ was buried instead in a common grave has to deal with these facts.
Second, the weave as I had mentioned in my second post was only one that could
be purchased by those with wealth. Why, if Christ was going to be subjected to
a common grave, would someone have bothered to bury such an expensive cloth
with Him? Such a cloth makes sense if the story about St. Joseph of Arimathea
is true, but doesn't seem to be the case if it is false.
One may opt that
Christ was wrapped in the Shroud and then buried in a common grave after wards
rather than a tomb (or just reburied). Again, this fails to deal with the
evidence we have (the clots and our possession of the Shroud), but even if this
were not the case we run into a different problem. The body would have
necessarily had to of been formed by contact in this case since there would
have been no proper environment for gasses to diffuse as perfectly as one sees
on the Shroud in this naturalistic hypothesis. Let me extrapolate:
One set of
naturalistic theories that attempt to explain how the image was made comes from
gases that proceed death. The most popular theory is the Maillard reaction
proposed by Raymond N. Rogers. The theory in brief states “that [the] colour
[on the Shroud] can be produced by reactions between reducing sugars, left on
the cloth by the manufacturing procedure, and amines deriving from the
decomposition of a corpse.”
This is because “decomposing bodies start producing ammonia and amines...fairly
quickly, depending on the temperature and humidity [of their surroundings]. The
ammonia and many of the amines are volatile, and they rapidly undergo Maillard
reactions with any reducing saccharides they contact.”
However, as Fanti and others pointed out, “t
he image
resolution and the uniform coloration of the linen resolution seem to be not
compatible with a mechanism involving diffusion.”
Even
if this weren't the case though,
such a reaction would take at least a day,
hence making us run into the problem of the blood clots once again.
The image on the
Shroud could not have been made by contact with the body for a few reasons.
Firstly, there are areas on the image that would not be visible if the image
formation resulted solely from contact. In other words, there had to be some
kind of vertical projection from the body in order to create the image in these
places, whether we want to say gas, radiation, light, etc. Furthermore,
“thermography proved that the emittance of the image was the same in all areas.
The entire image formed by the same mechanism. Spectra and photography
confirmed this observation.”
Secondly, as I had
previously mentioned the Shroud when analyzed by a VP-8 image analyzer comes up
as a 3-Dimensional image, meaning it maps the distance of the Shroud from the
body.
This would not be the case if the image was formed by contact since all areas
of the body would have to be on an equal plane, and thus the VP-8 analyzer
would have showed it as all being level instead of 3-Dimensional. However, for
the image to have been 3-Dimensional in the first place there had to be space
between the Shroud and the body as that is how a 3-Dimensional image is made in
such a case as this.
This is because of the aforementioned reasons – if the cloth had been touching
the skin directly then any place where the cloth was touching would be equal in
distance to another area in which the cloth was touching. For example, if the
cloth was touching Christ's nose at two points, they would be at the same level
in a 3-Dimensional image. However, this is not found to be the case. The
implication then is that somehow the cloth wasn't touching Christ's body during
the image formation process.
I've derailed a bit
from my initial point which is that if the
body had been buried somewhere other than the empty tomb and wasn't a reburial,
then the image must have been formed by contact since this seems to be the only
naturalistic explanation. However, we know the image wasn't formed by contact.
Hence, the theory is inadequate.
Fourth, what if
Christ's body had simply rotted away and the Shroud was taken later on. There's
a whole bunch of problems with this to begin with, for instance
why the Apostles would even bother to think their Savior
had risen if they removed the Shroud from His decayed body. However, these reasons
are irrelevant when we remember that there are no signs of putrefaction on the
Shroud of Turin. The image was made and the body was removed before any signs
of liquid decomposition kicked in, which at such a temperature would have been
roughly 30 hours.
So far, naturalistic
explanations for what happened to Christ's body while forming the image have
not fared well. This, of course, isn't even taking into account the Apostle's
visions, or their twist in Second Temple Judaic belief: that the Resurrection
had already happened to an individual. There is, of course, a theistic
explanation.
Every Pascha, or
Easter, in the Eastern Orthodox Church there is a certain troparion that is
sung: “Christ is risen from the
dead, trampling down death by death,
and on those in the tombs bestowing life!” This message, that Christ is
risen, or in Greek, Christos Anesti, is what I believe can explain all of what
we have covered. The Resurrection of an individual, the inexplicable image, the
missing body, the empty tomb, the appearances to the Apostles, etc. The
Resurrection is a far superior explanation to any of a naturalistic origin.
But aren't I saying
“God did it?”. Well, I believe He did do
it, but my point is not to just throw my hands up because of this incredible
image and stop thinking. My point is that all the data is better explained if
we allow ourselves to admit that Christianity could be true than if we a
priori rule it out. That is why at the very
beginning of these essays I said one must keep an open mind and be open to the
possibility that Christianity may be true, and that “Truly, He is risen!” –
“Alithos Anesti!”
Furthermore, a
naturalistic explanation does not necessarily discount the Shroud as evidence
for the Resurrection. For instance, let's say that there was some sort of gas
theory that could fit all the parameters required and could occur fast enough
so that the body could be stolen before the clots were too hardened. We still
have the problem of either robbers or re-burialists having to remove the cloth
in such a way that there is no signs that it was removed – an incredible feat,
maybe even impossible. But even if this was
done, that doesn't mean it necessarily happened. Even if we had such evidence, which we don't, the
body still could have been in the tomb and then resurrected.
This is why I will not
go as far as to say the Shroud of Turin proves the Resurrection. It, if accepted as Jesus' burial shroud, can only
act as evidence. However, what I do submit is that this evidence in its
historical context is good enough for a Christian to be logically justified in
his or her belief that Christ is Risen. I don't see how, unless God is ruled
out a priori, a non-theist can
honestly look at all what we have covered (which isn't close to the full body of literature) and think that the
Christian is somehow deluding himself or is using wishful thinking.
As some may or may not
know, I used to be an atheist, and I was a fan of the new atheist movement.
Admittedly I avoided the literature of Dawkins, Hitchens, etc (though I'm
hoping to get to them) because I had heard that they attack a fundamentalist
view of Christianity – the most vocal in this country. It makes sense as when I
do hear from such areas, their own biblical hermeneutic seems to be that of a
fundamentalist Sola Scriptura –
something completely foreign to an Orthodox praxis. Many atheists, though
certainly not all, that I knew personally had never heard of let alone read of
William Lane Craig or Alvin Plantiga. “The Kalam Cosmological argument? The
modal Ontological argument? Isn't philosophy just a bunch of rubbish?” The
irony, of course, is that the empirical method was born from epistemological
assumptions – from philosophical thought.
This isn't to just
attack the new-atheists or skepticism; I understand
why it exists having lived through it, and the example
that many of us Christians give – whether or not we are Orthodox – can be quite
appalling and hypocritical. Many of us, as Archbishop Lazar Puhalo of the OCA
points out, act just as self-righteous (if not more) than the pharisees.
However, an often forgot fact is that the Christendom is made of sinners.
Obviously we're battling the passions – we wouldn't be Christians if we were not.
But to return to my
point is to end this series (though I may revisit it someday). I have given the
reason as to why I believe in Christ's Resurrection. I also believe, since I
must be firm, that any Christian could use this as their reason for believing
and be justified in doing so. I thank you all for your time and patience in
these essays.
"If any man be devout and love God, let him enjoy this fair
and radiant triumphal feast. If any man be a wise servant, let him rejoicing
enter into the joy of his Lord. If any have labored long in fasting, let him
now receive his recompense. If any have wrought from the first hour, let him
today receive his just reward. If any have come at the third hour, let him with
thankfulness keep the feast. If any have arrived at the sixth hour, let him
have no misgivings; because he shall in nowise be deprived therefor. If any
have delayed until the ninth hour, let him draw near, fearing nothing. If any
have tarried even until the eleventh hour, let him, also, be not alarmed at his
tardiness; for the Lord, who is jealous of his honor, will accept the last even
as the first; he gives rest unto him who comes at the eleventh hour, even as
unto him who has wrought from the first hour.
And he shows mercy upon the last, and cares for the first;
and to the one he gives, and upon the other he bestows gifts. And he both
accepts the deeds, and welcomes the intention, and honors the acts and praises
the offering. Wherefore, enter you all into the joy of your Lord; and receive
your reward, both the first, and likewise the second. You rich and poor
together, hold high festival. You sober and you heedless, honor the day.
Rejoice today, both you who have fasted and you who have disregarded the fast.
The table is full-laden; feast ye all sumptuously. The calf is fatted; let no
one go hungry away.
Enjoy ye all the feast of faith: Receive ye all the riches
of loving-kindness. Let no one bewail his poverty, for the universal kingdom
has been revealed. Let no one weep for his iniquities, for pardon has shown
forth from the grave. Let no one fear death, for the Savior's death has set us
free. He that was held prisoner of it has annihilated it. By descending into
Hell, He made Hell captive. He embittered it when it tasted of His flesh. And
Isaiah, foretelling this, did cry: Hell, said he, was embittered, when it
encountered Thee in the lower regions. It was embittered, for it was abolished.
It was embittered, for it was mocked. It was embittered, for it was slain. It
was embittered, for it was overthrown. It was embittered, for it was fettered
in chains. It took a body, and met God face to face. It took earth, and
encountered Heaven. It took that which was seen, and fell upon the unseen.
O Death, where is your sting? O Hell, where is your
victory? Christ is risen, and you are overthrown. Christ is risen, and the
demons are fallen. Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice. Christ is risen,
and life reigns. Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in the grave. For
Christ, being risen from the dead, is become the first fruits of those who have
fallen asleep. To Him be glory and dominion unto ages of ages. Amen."
- The Paschal Homily of St. John Chrysostom
(MAILLARD
REACTION) MAY EXPLAIN THE IMAGE FORMATION. pp. 1
Labels: Apologetics, Resurrection, Shroud of Turin
