If the Shroud of Turin existed in New Testament times, it would have been mentioned in the New Testament. The writers had to contend with flesh-haters who insisted that Jesus was a spirit—an immaterial being, not a man. Yet the only weapon they employed against them was their testimony. If they had the Shroud, they could have used it and written about it, for hard evidence is stronger than mere testimony.
If the apostles were afraid to use the Shroud as ammunition against heretics in case something happened to it, that says a lot about their confidence in Jesus. It would be ascribing incompetence and stupidity to him—hardly consistent with their being the witnesses appointed by God to identify Jesus as the Savior and Messiah. There are countless ways to protect a relic while still letting enough people know of its existence.
If it is true that the cloth did originate in the time Jesus allegedly lived, then perhaps it was the weapon that Paul and some others used to verify that the risen Jesus they saw in their visions was a real person, even though nobody else thought so. Perhaps the Christian tradition was shaped to fit the Shroud and inspired by it.
It seems that expecting a mention of the image in the early days of the Church is one of the weaker arguments against the cloth. Arguments from silence are not strong. But here we have a silence that went on for centuries. The most recent research on the Shroud of Turin underscores that – despite its fame and the many claims for its authenticity – it is not referenced in the New Testament nor in the earliest centuries of the Christian church. Because of the absence of mention in those sources, and the historical gap until the medieval period, many scholars regard its origin as likely medieval rather than first‑century. While some advocates argue for veiled references or lost traditions, the consensus view is that the omission casts serious doubt on the idea that the cloth is the original burial shroud of Jesus.
In addition to the Shroud of Turin not being mentioned in the New Testament or early Christian writings, the early church had strong theological reasons not to preserve or venerate such an image. From roughly the 1st through the 4th centuries, Christians were extremely cautious about images of Jesus or any holy figures. Chances are, the cloth would have been burnt as a possible trick of Satan.
BOOKS CONSULTED
Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Roberts and Donaldson, T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870
Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine, Raymond E Brown, Paulist Press, New York,
1985
Free Inquiry, Spring 1998, Vol 18, No 2, Article by Joe Nickell, Council for
Secular Humanism, Amherst New York
From Fasting Saints to Anorexic Girls, Walter Vandereycken and Ron van Deth,
Athlone Press, London, 1996
Holy Faces, Secret Places, Ian Wilson, Corgi, London, 1992
Inquest on the Shroud of Turin, Joe Nickell, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY, 1987
Jesus Lived in India, Holger Kersten, Element, Dorset, 1994
Looking for a Miracle, Joe Nickell, Prometheus Books, New York, 1993
Miracles, Ronald A Knox, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1937
Sceptical Inquirer 9/10 2001 Vol 25, No 5, Article by Joe Nickell, CSIOCP,
Amherst New York
Relics, The Society for Irish Church Missions, Bachelor’s Walk, Dublin
The Blood and The Shroud, Ian Wilson, Orion, London, 1999
The Book of Miracles, Stuart Gordon, Headline, London, 1996
The Divine Deception, Keith Laidler, Headline, London, 2000
The DNA of God?, Leoncio A Garza-Valdes, Doubleday, 1999
The Holy Shroud and Four Visions, Rev Patrick O Connell and Rev Charles Carty,
TAN, Illinois, 1974
The Holy Shroud and the Visions of Maria Valtorta, Msgr Vincenzo Celli, Kolbe
Publications Inc., Sheerbrooke, California, 1994
The Image on the Shroud, Nello Ballosino, St Paul’s, London, 1998
The Jesus Conspiracy, Holger Kersten amd Elmar R Gruber, Element, Dorset, 1995
The Jesus Relics, From the Holy Grail to the Turin Shroud, Joe Nickell, The
History Press, Gloucestershire, 2008
The Pagan Christ, Tom Harpur, Thomas Allen Publishers, Toronto, 2004
The Second Messiah, Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas, Arrow, London, 1998
The Skeptic’s Guide to the Paranormal, Lynne Kelly, Allen & Unwin, Australia,
2004
The Shroud, The 2000 Year Old Mystery Solved, Ian Wilson, Bantam Press, London,
2010
The Turin Shroud is Genuine, Rodney Hoare, Souvenir Press, London, 1998
The Turin Shroud, Ian Wilson, Penguin Books, Middlesex, 1979
The Unauthorized Version, Robin Lane Fox, Penguin, Middlesex, 1992
Turin Shroud, Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince, BCA, London, 1994
Verdict on the Shroud, Kenneth E Stevenson and Gary R Habermas, Servant
Publications, Ann Arbour, Michigan, 1981
THE WWW
Still Standing on Sinking Sand, Farrell Till,
www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1997/1/1sink97.html
Why I Don’t Buy the Resurrection Story by Richard Carrier
www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/index.shtml
A Naturalistic Account of the Resurrection, Brian Marston
http://www.phlab.missouri.edu/~c570529/PhilosoStop/resurrection.html
This site argues that somebody unknown stole the body to stop the apostles
stealing it or venerating it and lost it and argues that the witnesses of the
risen Jesus were lying because no effort was made by them to preserve first hand
reports of what was seen and how and when. It argues that since the apostles had
followed Jesus at great personal sacrifice and now he was dead they invented the
resurrection to save face. Also the inclination of people at the time to believe
in dying and rising gods may have overwhelmed them and made them lie to
themselves that Jesus had risen. He answers the objection that a lie like that
would need a large-scale conspiracy for lots of lies start off with a small
group of people and if the lies are attractive other people will believe them.
Plus he says that Jesus could have rigged events to make sure he would fulfil
Old Testament prophecy so the Christians should not be saying the gospel story
is true for it fits old prophecy. I would add that owing to the total absence of
evidence that Jesus was nailed to the cross and the fact that the gospels never
say any of his friends were close to the cross that Jesus might have been tied
to it and the Christians later assumed he was nailed because the psalm seemed to
say so.
The Case For Christianity Examined: Truth or Lies?
www.askwhy.co.uk/awstruth/ChristianCase.html
Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story, A Reply to William Lane Craig by
Jeffrey Jay Lowder
www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/empty.html
The Resurrection, Steven Carr
www.bowness.demon/co.uk/resr.htm
Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead? Dan Barker versus Mike Horner
www.ffrf.org/debates/barker_horner.html
Craig’s Empty Tomb and Habermas on the Post-Resurrection Appearances of Jesus
www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/indef/4e.html
Did a Rolling Stone Close Jesus’ Tomb by Amos Kloner
www.bib-arch.org/barso99/roll1.html
Who Moved the Stone? Review by Steven Carr,
www.bowness.demon.co.uk/stone.htm This tells us that if you assume that two
contradictory books are true in all they say and try to make them fit you will
manage it but the result will be contrived. You are really still assuming they
are true and have no proof for it. This observation should be a warning to the
fundamentalist Christians who say there are no contradictions in the Bible. They
have no faith in the Bible at all for they are only assuming it is right. If
they really believed, they would not need to work out and produce laughable
far-fetched ways of reconciling Bible contradictions. They wouldn’t do that with
anything else but the Bible.
Morison claims that Peter’s clever and unbiased mind was behind the first Gospel, that of Mark. But Morison only assumes this for there is no evidence that the gospel is clever and unbiased or that Peter had much if anything at all to do with it. Morison then tries to make out that the claim of Luke that the apostles waited seven weeks before saying Jesus had risen from the dead is too detrimental to the evidence for the resurrection to be true. In other words, the evidence for the resurrection is right and any evidence against it is wrong! That is bias if I ever seen it. He then makes out that these things which undermine the pro-resurrection evidence prove it happened. So the evidence against the resurrection makes the evidence for it stronger! How ridiculous.