Thomas de Wesselow

Thomas de Wesselow is an academic art historian and agnostic. He thus comes at the problem of the Shroud of Turin and the advent of Jesus in a secular fashion. First off, he does not believe in miracles or the supernatural. Thus Jesus was a normal man, not a prophet or the Son of God, and there is thus no such thing as the resurrection, post-resurrection appearances, or the ascension. Secondly, as a non-believer, he buys into theories about the Bible that most fervent believers would not. Thus the Bible is not divinely-inspired, written by prophets, and secured for mankind by the providence of God. Instead, it is a collection of misbegotten texts. The gospels were written probably a hundred years after Jesus, and in no way written by witnesses like Matt, Mark, Luke, or John. De Wesselow also believes that Paul distorted Jesus's true teachings and probably did not write all the texts ascribed to him. Third, the gnostic gospels and traditions are acceptable sources of evidence. Finally, like any good academic today, the Bible and its religion, is a bundle of misogyny and patriarchy.

Here be spoilers.

Once you understand this, it helps you to understand de Wesselow's book. Parts 1 and 2 talk about the Shroud of Turin. Here de Wesselow shines. This is, in fact, probably THE best explanation and explication of the Shroud. De Wesselow proves, using science, history, and logic, why the Shroud is an ancient artifact, why and how the Shroud probably enshrouded a victim of crucifixion, and how the Shroud made it to Turin from Constantinople (and from Edessa before that) as the Mandylion. De Wesselow shows that the Shroud is real, probably from first century Palestine, and probably the burial cloth of a crucified Jew named Jesus. It pre-dates the shady radiocarbon dating given to the Shroud (de Wesselow attacks the radiocarbon dating in fine fashion). De Wesselow, true to his secularist fashion, believes that the Shroud is merely an artifact of death and that no miracles were needed in its production. De Wesselow's Figure 39 shows the imprint of a human figure on a mattress from a London hospital in 1981 (the "Jospice imprint") that looks quite similar to the Shroud. De Wesselow thinks that the Shroud was produced in a similar, natural fashion: the result of a whipped, sweaty, partially washed dead Jewish body on a special piece of fabric.

Once De Wesselow has, to his satisfaction, proved that the Shroud of Turin is an authentic relic of a first century Jewish man's burial, Part 3 discusses his thesis: the Shroud of Turin was the artifact that caused his disciples to believe that Jesus had risen. It was the founding document of Christianity. Mary Magdalene and the ladies see the Shroud's ghostly, spirit-like image in the tomb on the third day. It takes them a second to recognize it as proof of a spiritual resurrection. (Jesus's body, in de Wesselow's account, just sits there ignored and a-mouldering in the grave.) Peter sees the Shroud, takes a sec to see what it really is, and shows it to the Twelve (or, rather, Eleven). They see it as proof of Jesus's resurrection. They begin setting up the religion that would become Christianity. Doubting Thomas, at first doesn't get it, until it dawns on him (see de Wesselow's Figure 59, which alters Caravaggio's painting of the Doubting Thomas incident, with Thomas poking his finger into the Shroud of Turin's wound hole). Saul (aka Paul) starts persecuting the Jesus-followers, searching for the Shroud. He traces it to Damascus, where he sees it and believes it is a miracle (a modified Road to Damascus incident). Paul too becomes a Jesus-follower. The Shroud eventually makes it to Edessa, gets wrapped into the icon-looking Mandylion, disappears for a few hundred years, and then eventually gets taken to Constantinople, then eventually Turin. Early Christianity, forgetting the Shroud, mistakenly turns the "Shroud-resurrection" into a bodily resurrection. Voilà.

This is De Wesselow's thesis and theory: the Shroud caused Christianity. He tries very hard to prove it, and he writes well and argues lucidly too. If you too are a secular, non-believer, the theory just might make sense.

But De Wesselow makes too many mistakes, illogical jumps, and incorrect assertions for this believer in the Bible to take.

De Wesselow calls Paul's First Corinthians 15:1-8 the "First Creed" of Christianity. He claims that these verses (written, according to him, before any gospels) only make sense if they are referring to the Shroud. The Shroud is what caused the Jesus-followers to believe. But de Wesselow otherwise mocks the words of the Bible. He mocks Paul. He confuses the spiritual body and physical body of First Corinthians 15. And, worst of all, he roundly ignores the BODY of Christ. Supposedly the women come to give the body a proper burial on the third day, find the image on the Shroud, and just forget about the body of Jesus. What happened to it? De Wesselow never says. But, if it is the smoky image on the Shroud that is a mark of Jesus's soul and the proof of the resurrection of his spiritual body, why did no Jewish or Roman talk about the dead, decaying body and bones of Jesus and point to it as proof Jesus was no miracle and no Son of God? You'd think it would show up in Josephus, Tacitus, or the Talmud? That anti-Christian writers would mock the idea of the resurrection by pointing to the body. (Surely the Talmud, which found rumors like the whole ben Pandera mess to bandy about, would have dug up the rumors about Jesus's body a-mouldering in the grave. I guess if you like the theory of Simcha Jacobovici and Charles Pellegrino that there is a Jesus ossuray and Jesus bones out there, this theory fits in perfectly.) De Wesselow dismisses an empty tomb as proof of resurrection, he dismisses as supernatural superstition that there is such a thing as a bodily resurrection of Jesus.

Worse, De Wesselow must resort to extreme cherry-picking of evidence to prove his theories. He picks and chooses bits of gospel when it suits his theory, but then dismisses chunks of the gospels when they do not suit his theory. Cherry-picking. Likewise, he chooses bits of gnostic writings when it suits his theory, but then dismisses chunks of the gnostic writings when they do not suit his theory. Cherry-picking. He extols the virtues of his so-called "First Creed" (I Cor. 15:1-8) when he needs them (see pp. 243ff.), but then says you can't really trust the First Creed all that much because it was sexist and written by that Magdalene-hating misogynist Paul (see pp. 248-269). Which is it? Cherry-picking. In one weird passage, which serves as an example of his odd interpretations of cherry-picked versifying, he attempts to show (in chapter 23) that the apostles searched the scriptures for proof that the Shroud was proof of Jesus's resurrection. De Wesselow claims that all these passages (like, say, Daniel 10:5-6 "Then I lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a certain man clothed in linen...") only fit the Shroud, not a bodily resurrection. Of course, he skews the interpretations his own way. But here's the weird part: de Wesselow claims (p. 288) that if the Jesus-followers actually believed in a bodily resurrection, they would have turned to Ezekiel 37:1-10 as proof of a bodily resurrection. But, the first Christians did not point to this verse because it has nothing to do with the Jewish Messiah, not because there was no such thing as the bodily resurrection of Jesus. I could go on, but this is the kind of exegetical, verbal gymnastics that de Wasselow plays to make the Bible conform to his theory. I offer it as an example.

All-in-all, it is an intriguing theory, and one that gives me pause to think and ponder. But I must reject it for four reasons. (1) It misinterprets and cherry-picks the evidence of the Bible, mainly ignoring any evidence that might go against his theory (like for the bodily resurrection of Jesus) but highlights things that might suit his theory. (2) It uses too much evidence from the gnostic gospels, cherry-picking from them too, holding the gnostic scriptures (sometimes written by heresiarchs centuries after the events they described) as equal to the received scriptures. (3) It makes little logical sense (at least to me) that a religion could be founded on a stained burial wrapping while Jesus's body rotted away in a bone box. (Imagine the first Christians trying to convert the Jews and the Romans: Christians: "Look at this shroud, it is proof of Jesus's defeat of death and resurrection." Jews and Romans: "But isn't his body decomposing in that ossuary in that tomb over there? How is he resurrected?" End scene.) De Wasselow tap dances around this and makes no real attempt to address this dilemma. (4) As a believer in the authority of the Bible, I can't make faithful sense of this theory, as it ignores and misconstrues almost the whole of Christianity and the Scriptures to make its point.

It's a neat book and a good defense of the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, and a book that makes you think, but it's theory about the Shroud as the founding "document" of Christianity and SOLE indicator of the resurrection strains credulity, and doesn't hold water.… (plus d'informations)

The Sign by Thomas de Wesselow finally solves Christianity's greatest mystery.
‘The thinking man's Dan Brown' - Sunday Times
How did Christianity really begin?
In this powerful and controversial book, art historian Thomas de Wesselow reveals that the answer to this puzzle lies in one of the most mysterious images in the world - the Shroud of Turin. Re-examining the Shroud and New Testament texts, he argues that the traditional Christian view - that the apostles were inspired by seeing Jesus raised from the dead - is a profound misconception.
Using scientific, archaeological and historical evidence, The Sign demonstrates that the Shroud is the actual burial cloth of Jesus. That haunting image - which is a natural stain - holds the key to the greatest mystery in human history.
This astonishing book will appeal to readers around the world and is a must for fans of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, Inferno by Dan Brown and Diarmaid MacCulloch's A History of Christianity.
'Very intriguing' - Mail on Sunday
'A fascinating account of the Shroud as an image' - BBC History Magazine
'Thorough, well-researched and fair-minded. Persuasive... much more than just an addition to the canon of Shroud literature' - Irish Times
Thomas de Wesselow earned his MA and PhD at London's Courtauld Institute, researching the controversial Guidoriccio fresco in Siena, before becoming a Scholar at the British School in Rome where he worked on another of the great mysteries of Italian art history, the Assisi Problem. He has written on a number of famous Renaissance pictures whose meanings have hitherto defied analysis, including Botticelli's Primavera and Titian's Sacred and Profane Love. Since 2007 he has been researching this book full-time. He is 40 years old and he lives in Cambridge.… (plus d'informations)