0 of 1 people found the following review helpful
MEDIEVAL FAKE? NOT PROVEN!,
This review is from: The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection (Hardcover)
The Shroud of Turin challenges our belief in modern science as much as it challenges our belief in Christian teaching. While the scientific carbon 14 testing indicates that the cloth was manufactured in the fourteenth century, the huge weight of historical evidence (and even common sense) suggest that it must be what it appears to be ie the burial shroud of Jesus. Imagine if carbon 14 testing "proved" that the mummy wrappings of Tutankhamen were of medieval date. Presumably this would mean that the tomb and all its contents are the work of an Arab forger of the middle ages! We would have to ask "how?" and "why?". We are in a similar position with the Shroud. De Wesselow convincingly demonstrates that, whatever it is, is is not a medieval work of art. Laughable attempts by medieval artists to make copies of the Shroud show that no artist working at that time was capable of making anything that looked remotely like it. Oddly enough, the Shroud was initially assumed to be a painting when it (re)appeared in the 1350s. In an age when people believed in the most absurd "relics", the only object that probably was a genuine relic of Jesus was treated with scepticism- ironic! De Wesslow's theory that the Shroud was seen as evidence of the resurrection (or indeed "was" the resurrection) is worthy of consideration, although he is selective in his use of Gospel evidence. I agree that, if the women found the tomb empty (the remains perhaps having been removed to Joseph of Arimathea's family tomb) except for a discarded shroud bearing a mysterious image, this could have been seen as something miraculous. We still don't know exactly what happened on that first Easter, but something happened, and it was something big!