Cambridge Art Historian Thomas de Wesselow has failed to debunk the Turin Shroud as proof of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
He went on to say that the shroud was probably not a medieval hoax because it does not resemble any other art of the time.
In other words the resurrection of Jesus Christ was more symbolic in nature yet would have had a profound effect on those present and enough to make them believe that either that Christ had risen or the imprint of his body was a sign.
All sounds rather plausible doesn’t it?
Well no not really, what De Wesselow doe not address is to myself and Christians across the globe, startlingly obvious.
Firstly Christ is supposed to have walked and spoken with the disciples after the resurrection and this is not something that a piece of bloodstained cloth can do.
Again one can ponder the circumstances of this ‘walk and talk‘ with the disciples and whether it was figurative i.e. did they walk with the shroud and talk to it?
In context of the faith at the time when Rabbinical law was very much known even by the lowly disciples of Christ would have seen communing with any graven image as being idolatry bordering on blasphemous, such speculation of a figurative walk with Christ seems rather ludicrous to say the least.
Every generation likes to think that the previous was less sophisticated and that is amplified when gazing back through history to Biblical times when many academics perceive the writings of our predecessors as being fables with artistic licence on the part of the author.
In other words we must first assume that the authors of the Gospels were not just simple men but downright stupid to think that the Turin Shroud was the actual resurrection of Christ.
I would argue that even though they were potentially the most literate of individuals, they were far from simple.
The proof of this lies in the ground breaking spiritual concepts which they had to digest in order to rationalise or even justify committing to parchment.
Then of course there is the question of how the Turin Shroud made such an imprint on the cloth.
To this day we are not sure how such a thing was possible but we do know it would have required significant energy to do so and this was the finding of the Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development.
A short yet highly intense burst of directional UV radiation would have been required and the facilities to achieve such a thing are just about available today.
This has lead many scientists to raise their heads above the parapet and say such an event 2000 years ago could only have been a supernatural one.
But finally I would like to go back to Thomas de Wesselow’s assertion that the image on the Shroud was so profound to the disciples that it gave birth to the resurrection postulation which stands as the cornerstone of the Christian faith.
I must say believe this to be nonsense.
Anyone living in that region at that time would have been used to seeing immaculate marble carved depictions of their ruling masters from Rome adorning the imperial administrative buildings.
So why would a linen cloth have had such a profound effect on them? and why is the burial cloth only mentioned in brief and never in the manner which De Wesselow mentions?
If the impact on teh followers of Christ was so significant then they would have pointed to it as being so even if under crude superstition.
Christians all around the world can enjoy Good Friday safe in the knowledge that a Cambridge Art historian has most certainly not debunked the resurrection of Jesus Christ.