Hostname: page-component-5d84bcc8dc-9p9wk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-08-17T10:32:26.957Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Turin Shroud, Resurrection and Science: One View of the Cathedral

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Tristan Casabianca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In a topic as controversial as the Turin Shroud, it is always surprising to note that there remains a large area of consensus among scholars who hold opposite opinions on the origin of this piece of fabric. According to the consensus view, neither science nor history can prove that the Turin Shroud shows signs of the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. However, the reasons provided for this important claim are not convincing, especially in light of recent developments in historiography and analytic philosophy.

Keywords

Shroud of TurinMiraclesJesus of NazarethResurrectionHistoriographyMethodological naturalism

Information

Type
Original Article
Information
New Blackfriars , Volume 98 , Issue 1078 , November 2017 , pp. 709 - 721
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Kearse, Kelly P., ‘Icons, Science, and Faith: Comparative Examination of the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo’, Theology and Science 11:1 (2013), p. 58CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Currie, Lloyd A., ‘The remarkable metrological history of radiocarbon dating [II]’, Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology 109:2 (2004), p. 200CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

2 ‘A Summary of STURP'S Conclusions’, available at http://shroud.com/78conclu.htm (1981), accessed on August 15, 2015; Larry A. Schwalbe and Raymond N. Rogers, ‘Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: A Summary of the 1978 Investigation’, Analytica Chimica Acta 135: 1 (1982), pp. 3‐49.

3 Damon, Paul E. et al., ‘Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin’, Nature 337:6208 (1989): pp. 611‐5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 For example: Rogers, Raymond N., ‘Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin’, Thermochimica Acta 425:1‐2 (2005), pp. 189‐94CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Benford, M. Sue and Marino, Joseph G., ‘Discrepancies in the Radiocarbon Dating Area of the Turin Shroud’, Chemistry Today‐Chimica Oggi 26:4 (2008), pp. 4‐12Google Scholar; Poulle, Emmanuel, ‘Les sources de l'histoire du linceul de Turin. Revue critique’, Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique 104:3/4 (2009), pp. 747‐82CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Riani, Marco et al., ‘Regression analysis with partially labelled regressors: carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin’,Statistics and Computing 23:4 (2013), pp. 551‐61Google Scholar.

5 For example, all of the articles published in a special Turin Shroud issue, Giulio Fanti (ed.) Scientific Research and Essays 7:29, were not taken into account.

6 Fanti, Giulio, ‘Open issues regarding the Turin Shroud’, Scientific Research and Essays 7:29 (2012), p. 2507CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Simon Joseph, ‘The Shroud and the historical divide: challenging the disciplinary divide’, available at http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/sjoseph.pdf (2012), accessed on August 15, 2015.

8 Pochon, Martin SJ, ‘Le Linceul du Christ: preuve ou épreuve ?’,Etudes 394:4 (2001), pp. 497‐509Google Scholar.

9 Calabresi, Guido and Melamed, A. Douglas, ‘Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral’,Harvard Law Review 85:6 (1972), pp. 1089‐128CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Philip Ball, ‘Material witness: Shrouded in mystery’, Nature Materials 7:5 (2008), p. 349. See also Philip Ball, ‘To Know a Veil’, available at http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050128/full/news050124‐17.html (2005).

11 Petitfils, Jean‐ChristianJésus(Paris: Fayard, 2011)Google Scholar. See also the italian medievalist Frale, Barbara, Il Sindone di Gesù Nazareno (Bologna: Il Mulino, 2009).Google Scholar

12 Wesselow, Thomas deThe Sign: the Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection(New York: Dutton Adult, 2012)Google Scholar.

13 Casabianca, Tristan, ‘The Shroud of Turin: A Historiographical Approach’, The Heythrop Journal 54:3 (2013), pp. 414‐23CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Bevilacqua, Maurizio et al., ‘Do we really need new medical information about the Turin Shroud?’, Injury 45:2 (2014), p. 464CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

15 Catechism of the Catholic Church (Vatican, The Holy See, 1993)Google Scholar, paragraph 643.

16 Gallie, Walter B., ‘Essentially Contested Concepts’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian society 56 (1956), pp. 167‐98CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Tucker, Aviezer, ‘Glossary of Terms’, in A companion to the Philosophy of History and Historiography, ed. Tucker, Aviezer (Chichester: Wiley‐Blackwell, 2009), p. XIIGoogle Scholar.

18 See Petitfils’ Jésus recension by Rastoin, Marc, ‘Jésus en personne’, Etudes 416:1 (2012), p. 116Google Scholar.

19 Meier, John P., A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (New York: Doubleday, 1991‐2009), 4 volCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Meier, , A Marginal Jew, II: Mentor, Message and Miracles (New York: Doubleday, 1994), p. 514Google Scholar.

21 Craig, William Lane, ‘Noli me Tangere: Why John Meier Won't Touch the Risen Lord’, The Heythrop Journal 50:1 (2009), p. 92CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Meier, A Marginal Jew, II, p. 512.

23 Timothy McGrew, “Miracles,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2014), ed. Edward N. Zalta, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/miracles (2014), accessed on August 15, 2015.

24 Meier, , A Marginal Jew, I, The Roots of the Problem and the Person (New York: Doubleday, 1991), p. 197Google Scholar.

25 O'Collins, Gerald G., ‘Is the Resurrection an ‘Historical’ Event?’, The Heythrop Journal 8 (1967), p. 384CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Craig, ‘Noli me Tangere’, p. 95.

27 Licona, Michael R., The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2010)Google Scholar.

28 Novakovic, Lidija, ‘Jesus’ Resurrection and historiography’, in Charlesworth, James H., Rhea, Brian, Pokorny, Petr (eds.), Jesus Research: New methodologies and perceptions, The Second Princeton‐Prague Symposium on Jesus Research, Princeton 2007 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), p. 932Google Scholar.

29 Hume, David, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, ed. Millican, Peter (New York: Oxford University, 2008), p. 83CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 Earman, John, Hume's Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles (New York: Oxford University, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 Houston, Joseph, Reported Miracles: A Critique of Hume (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1994), p. 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 Earman, Hume's Abject Failure, p. 20.

33 Keener, Craig S., Miracles: The Credibility of New Testament Accounts (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011)Google Scholar.

34 Ogorzelec‐Guinchard, Laetitia, Le miracle et l'enquête, les guérisons inexpliquées à l’épreuve de la médecine (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2014)Google Scholar.

35 Earman, Hume's Abject Failure, p. 8.

36 Schoen, Edward L., ‘David Hume and the Mysterious Shroud of Turin’, Religious Studies 27:2 (1991), pp. 209‐22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 Schoen, ‘David Hume’, p. 218.

38 Griffith, Stephen, ‘Miracles and the Shroud of Turin’, Faith and Philosophy, 13:1 (1996), pp. 34‐49CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ogorzelec‐Guinchard, Le miracle et l'enquête.

39 Earman, Hume's Abject Failure, p. 60.

40 Hughes, Christopher, ‘Miracles, Laws of Nature and Causation’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes 66 (1992), p. 186CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pritchard, Timothy, ‘Miracles and Violations’, Religious Studies 47:1 (2011), p. 55CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 Fanti, Giulio, ‘Can a Corona Discharge Explain the Body Image on the Turin Shroud?’, Journal of Imaging Science and Technology 54:2 (2010), 20508‐1‐11CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 Casabianca, ‘The shroud of Turin’.

43 Law, Stephen, ‘Evidence, Miracles and the Existence of Jesus’, Faith and Philosophy 28 (2011), pp. 129‐51CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 McGrew, Timothy, McGrew, Lydia, ‘The argument from miracles: a cumulative case for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth’, in Craig, William Lane, Moreland, J.P. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Chichester: Wiley‐Blackwell, 2009), pp. 593‐662CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 Robert A. Larmer, “The ‘argument from miracle’: an example of ramified theology,” (2013) http://www.epsociety.org/userfiles/art‐Larmer%20(ArgumentFromMiracle‐ExampleOfRamified).pdf, accessed on August 18, 2015.

46 Gregory, Brad. S., ‘No room for God? History, Science, Metaphysics and the study of Religion’, History and Theory 47:4 (2008), pp. 495–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gregory, Brad S., ‘The other confessional history: on secular bias in the study of religion’, History and Theory 45:4 (2006), p. 138CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 Cf., for example, Earman's ‘personal opinion’ in Earman, Hume's Abject failure, p. 61: “I could say (with pompous solemnity) that my prior probabilities are such that I am not in much doubt about what such investigations will uncover. Or I could say (less pompously) that I am cynical.”

48 Boudry, Maarten, Blancke, Stefaan, Braeckman, Johan, ‘How not to attack Intelligent Design Creationism: philosophical misconceptions about methodological naturalism’, Foundations of Science, 15:3 (2010), pp. 227‐44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 PZ Myers, http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/11/08/in‐which‐i‐join‐michael‐shermer‐in‐disagreeing‐with‐jerry‐coyne‐and‐coyne‐in‐disagreeing‐with‐shermer/, accessed on August 18, 2015.

50 Alvin Plantinga, ‘Science and Religion’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014), ed. Edward N. Zalta, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion‐science/ (2014), accessed on August 18, 2015.

51 Nagel, Thomas, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo‐Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False (New York: Oxford University, 2012), p. 8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 Plantinga, ‘Science and Religion’.