The Shroud of Turin and the Resurrection

It is often stated that the Shroud of Turin doesn’t prove the Resurrection. That’s correct. But on Easter it is proper to discuss what the Shroud does prove in connection with the Resurrection. It certainly supports the possibility of the Resurrection and is consistent with it.

How so?

Analysis through the decades by forensic pathologists confirms two facts about the mysterious image on the Shroud: the crucified man represented by the image was in a state of rigor mortis and evidence of putrefaction is not present.

The relevance of these two observations established that image was not formed later than 48 hours after the crucifixion. Under normal circumstances, rigor mortis would be released (the taut muscles relaxed) at about 48 hours. That’s when by products of putrefaction would be secreted by the body, putrefaction having caused the rigor mortis to be released. Thus the conclusion that the image was created within 48 hours of death is reasonable.

Do these two facts prove the Resurrection? No. They only prove that the image was created within 48 hours of Christ’s death. The issue resolves to the process by which the image was created on the Shroud. There is no known process by which the image was created. It is an incredible delicate darkening of the very outmost exterior of the linen fibers of the Shroud and may have been a darkening of a uniform residue left from the retting of the linen fibers. It has surprisingly sharp definition.

No one has been able to duplicate the image with sufficient definition to say that problem has been solved. Personally, I tend to hypothesize a process created by light of some kind. But I only hypothesize.

We have still a way to go, but the evidence of the Shroud indicates that before 3:00 PM in the afternoon of that first Sunday, something happened to the body of Christ that left a mysterious, inexplicable image on his burial cloth that has never been duplicated or satisfactorily explained by any process that could have been completed by 3:00 PM.  

The simple fact is that the circumstances of the image may not prove the Resurrection, but they certainly lend support to its occurrence.  It’s called circumstantial evidence. Anybody have a better idea?

Happy Easter.