The Burial of Jesus & the
Shroud of Turin
Theme of Matthew: “Behold your King
is coming to you” (Zech.9:9; Mt.21:4-5) CHARTING THE COURSE OF THIS STUDY Ø Review Ø The Burial of Jesus Ø The Shroud of Turin THE
BURIAL OF JESUS (Matthew 27:57-66)
Why might Pilate have
been willing to give the body of Jesus to Joseph of Arimathea? (v.58) Why does Matthew give
so much detail the burial of Jesus? (vv.57-66; cf. Acts 13:29; 1 Cor.15:3-4) With what did Joseph
of Arimathea wrap Jesus’ body?
(v.59) A. The Shroud of Turin Shroud of
Turin/Torino– a
linen bearing the three-dimensional image of a Caucasian male, in his 30’s,
about 5 feet, 11 inches tall and 170 pounds.
The man on the linen has the marks of facial bruises, pierce marks in
his wrists, feet and side and over 100 marks from the shoulder to the calf
which could have been caused by a scourge.
Many believe this to be the linen cloth Joseph wrapped Jesus with
claiming that some kind of photo image was impressed upon the cloth when
Jesus rose again from the dead.
Amazingly, some 63 academic disciplines and over 500,000 hours of
scientific scrutiny have been spent studying the shroud. 1. Arguments that the shroud is a
hoax or religious work of art: a. After the earliest known exhibit
of the linen in medieval times, it was denounced as a fraud by Bishop Pierre
D'Arcis in a letter (1389) to the Avignon pope. This letter also claims the shroud had been
denounced by Bishop Pierre D'Arcis’ successor, Henri de Poitiers. “Eventually,
after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered how the said cloth had
been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had
painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously
wrought or bestowed.” http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/things/shroud_of_turin.htm In response to Bishop Pierre
D'Arcis, Pope Clement VII ordered that no liturgical ceremony or pomp
surround the Shroud’s display and that a priest announce “in a loud and
intelligible voice, without any trickery, that the aforesaid form or
representation is not the true burial cloth of our Lord Jesus Christ but only
a kind of painting or picture made as a form or represenation of the burial
cloth.” (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised, Vol.4, p.495) b. One prominent microscopist, Walter
McCrone, aruged until his death in 2002 that ordinary pigments were
used. McCrone wrote a book published
in 1999 entitled, Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin. Many other scientists do not believe the
image is a painting. c. Some
claim the figure in the shroud is not anatomically consistent. d. The blood on the
shroud is red but actual blood would darken. e.
Three independent radiocarbon datings suggest the shroud dates to the 13th
or 14th century. f.
According to John 19:39-40, Jesus’ body was wrapped with linen and myrrh and
aloes. Traces of this mixture of spices have not been found on the shroud. g. John
20:5-7 mention the empty tomb and the linens rolled up, but nothing about any
images of Jesus on these linens. 2. Arguments that the shroud is not
a medieval work but the linen used by Joseph of Arimathea to wrap Jesus’
body: a. Textile and material analysis
points to a 1st century origin. b. It is claimed that the unusual
properties of the image could not have been produced by a medieval artist. c. McCrone’s analysis was
faulty. One chemist claims that type
AB blood is found on the shroud. d. Radiocarbon dating is not always
accurate. Some claim the swatch used
came from a patch used to repair the shroud from a fire in 1532. e. The shroud depicts the wrists
pierced and not the hands. This was
not common in medieval depictions of crucifixion. f. Gary Habermas, a prominent
evangelical, believes the shroud to be authentic. He argues that scientific evidence has
established: i. The badly beaten, bruised, and
bloody body in the linen was dead ii. The body had not begun to
decompose iii. The body was not unwrapped but
somehow separated from the cloth iv. The three-dimensional image was
probably caused by heat/light/radiation. v. Habermas concludes that the
resurrection is the best explanation for these phenomena. vi. Habermas notes that two
University of Turin scientists did an in-depth study and “concluded that
there was one chance in 225 billion that Jesus and the man of the shroud were
different persons.” Habermas and
another did a “very skeptical figuring…and we still arrived at a one-in-83-million
probability that the two men are not the same” (“The Shroud of Turin and Its
Significance for Biblical Studies” JETS
Volume 24, No.1, March 1981). 3. Roman Catholicism has made no
official pronouncement. It is a matter
of personal decision and faith of the individual whether it is the actual
burial linen. B. The Shroud raises
many interesting questions which are beyond my competence to answer as a
pastor and exegete of God’s Word.
However, here are a few observations to keep in mind about the Shroud: 1. Even if the shroud did come from
the 1st century, we still don’t know for certainty the identity of
the individual buried in it. 2. We should take seriously the
testimony of Bishop Pierre D'Arcis and Pope Clement VII. 3. Even if it is authentic, the
Shroud of Turin has its limits. a. Gary Habarmas, a proponent of the
shroud’s authenticity, wrote, “the shroud cannot provide independent proof
for any resurrection, or even conclusive proof of anything in the Christian
faith” (“The Shroud of Turin: A Rejoinder to Basinger and Basinger” JETS Volume 25, No.2, June 1982,
p.227). b. “To the best of our knowledge we
can never prove that this is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus Christ. If
it is a fake, we may be able to prove that. But we can never prove
authenticity, only the absence of fakery.” (Donald Lynn, scientist from Cal
Tech’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory who worked on the Shroud in 1978)
|
