The Shroud Of Turin: A Surrejoinder -- By: Randall Basinger

Journal: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Volume: JETS 25:2 (Jun 1982)
Article: The Shroud Of Turin: A Surrejoinder
Author: Randall Basinger


The Shroud Of Turin: A Surrejoinder

Randall Basinger

David Basinger

The rejoinder by Gary Habermas is very helpful. He clarifies his position and identifies weaknesses in ours. There are, however, still points of contention.

One of the basic issues in this discussion is whether the shroud itself, as Habermas claims in his rejoinder, furnishes us with evidence for a resurrection that is “new and apart from the gospels or historical evidences.” In his initial article Habermas argues that three pieces of scientific evidence—the lack of decomposition stains on the shroud, the fact that the body was not unwrapped, and the fact that the image was probably produced by a burst of heat/light—provided “new and very strong arguments” for a resurrection.1 We argue in response that such evidence at best demonstrates that the dead body disappeared in a very strange manner and not that a dead body came back to life. In his rejoinder, Habermas offers an expanded statement of his position:

1. Scientific investigation of the shroud has established the following: (a) The body was in a state of rigor mortis—i.e., it was completely dead; (b) the body had not begun to decompose, so the individual wrapped in the shroud could only have been covered for a few days; (c) the body was not unwrapped but was separated from the cloth in some other manner; and (d) the three-dimensional, nondirectional, superficial image was probably caused by a burst of heat/light.

2. Scientists report that “no known natural causes could account for [these phenomenal.”

3. To assume that there may be a yet unknown natural explanation is to “both beg the question in favor of an unknown naturalistic theory and to indefinitely postpone an investigation when adequate data is available.”

4. Accordingly, the resurrection (supernatural) hypothesis is most plausible—i.e., it is more likely to be true than the other options.

Unfortunately, this argument still fails to meet our basic objection. To claim that the body in the shroud was resurrected is not only to claim that the body was separated from the cloth in a manner currently unexplainable by science. It is first and foremost to claim that the body in the shroud came back to life. But (1.a) to (1.d) do not in themselves stand as “empirical, repeatable evidence” for the claim that the body in question was resurrected in this sense. Scientists cannot, through repeatable experiments, demonstrate that bodies that come back to life produce an image like that found on the shroud. Nor do we have any historical evidence from Biblical or extra-Biblical sources supporting the assumption that bodie...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()