O Sinal

by Thomas de Wesselow, Ângelo S. Pereira (Translator)

O cristianismo nasceu há dois mil anos, na antiga Palestina, e moldou o curso da história da humanidade. Contudo, os historiadores ainda não conseguiram determinar como realmente despontou. Como é que um judeu chamado Jesus conseguiu implementar uma nova religião? É um dos maiores e mais profundos mistérios de todo o sempre, sobre o qual este livro tenta dar uma resposta.

Tradicionalmente, o nascimento do cristianismo tem sido explicado pelo milagre da Ressurreição de Jesus pouco depois da sua crucificação. Jesus ressuscitou dos mortos e apareceu aos seus discípulos, pedindo-lhes para divulgar a mensagem do Evangelho. Rapidamente o cristianismo se propagou pelo Médio Oriente e pela Europa, e, poucos séculos mais tarde, por quase todo o mundo.

Hoje essa explicação parece pouco credível. Os historiadores têm sido incapazes de explicar o extraordinário crescimento do cristianismo, pois, se ninguém viu Jesus Ressuscitado, como foram os seus discípulos convencidos de que era, de facto, o verdadeiro Messias?

O historiador de arte Thomas de Wesselow passou sete anos a tentar descortinar este mistério e, ao fazê-lo, formulou uma nova perspetiva sobre o nascimento desta religião. Analisando sob um novo prisma fontes históricas já conhecidas e reinterpretando muitas passagens bíblicas, Wesselow demonstra que a solução deste mistério sempre esteve perante os nossos olhos. O Santo Sudário, que durante muitos séculos se pensou ser uma fraude, é, de facto, autêntico. E encerra em si a chave para o maior mistério da história da humanidade.

Genres: Religion, History, Nonfiction, Theology, Christianity

492 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2012

Reviews

[Susan Paxton · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first half of this book is exceptionally interesting. De Wesselow has obviously done a great deal of detailed research on this fascinating artifact and he shares it in a clear and accessible manner. While some might believe that the carbon dating tests "prove" the shroud is a fake, it's not so simple. There's good evidence the shroud existed well before the earliest C14 date, and, as de Wesselow points out, there is no known artistic technique that would produce such an object. It's vital to remember that the shroud's real secret - the fact that it's a 3D image - was only discovered at the very end of the 19th century when it was photographed. If the shroud is a fake, this would have been an entirely accidental artifact of its means of production, and yet it's in perfect 3D. The jury is still very much out on this unusual length of linen.

The second half of the book falls down completely. Having suggested that the shroud is authentic, de Wesselow, as an agnostic, then needs to find a way to make it a natural artifact. He never really succeeds in doing this, and his suggestion that the shroud "explains" the appearances of Jesus after the Resurrection is strikingly ridiculous. It makes an odd visual picture to imagine Peter or some other disciple tearing the shroud off Jesus' body, leaving it rotting in the tomb, and then running around displaying it as "proof" that Jesus had been raised. It's just not convincing in any way, shape, or form.

The first half is very well worth reading; even the second half has some thoughtful insights, so if the subject is something you're curious about, it's worth reading.

[Greg · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was truly both a fascinating and a most interesting read, and well worth the time of any open to experiencing genuine wonder in our jaded age. Moreover, it depends not one whit on whether or not one is a professed Christian or even, for that matter, one who has any religious faith. For this is, in essence, a detective story, and a well-told one at that, in which he investigates – and poses answers to – the questions surrounding the Shroud of Turin, a long linen cloth that is said to show a mysterious image of the crucified Jesus of Nazareth.

There are essentially two parts to Mr. de Wesselow’s book. In the first part, he investigates both what and how of the Shroud of Turin is and came into being and whether or not it is authentic or some kind of clever forgery. Then in the second part he uses the Shroud to explain how he thinks it is the source of the resurrection stories in the Christian Gospels.
Please note that while the book rewards attentive reading – as he marshals his evidence and argues his points – it is not difficult to follow or understand. In the first part, in particular, he is basically citing the findings of other expert researchers while, in the second, he applies his findings about the Shroud’s authenticity to his reconstruction of how to explain the resurrection.

Part the First: What the heck is the Shroud?
The dust jacket informs us that the author is “an art historian experienced at tackling ‘unsolvable’ problems” and “He has written on a number of famous Renaissance paintings whose meanings have hitherto defined analysis” as well as developing “new ideas about medieval world maps.” Moreover, since “2007 he has been researching the Shroud full-time.” (This book was published in 2012, but I only read it over the last few weeks.)

In essence, he says that he is convinced that the Shroud is actually what it has long been reputed to be: the actual burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth. Personally, while I am convinced by the numerous authorities he cites – and they include experts on linen, weaving, photography, bodily chemicals, and many, many others – I am still amazed that this could be so! Just think, we may actually be able to see what Jesus really looked like!
I also find it interesting that while numerous tests have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it cannot be a forgery of any kind, scientists are still unsure how this remarkable image came to be imprinted on this cloth.
We learn that the cloth is much older than the Middle Ages, that it is woven in a manner that is known to date to the first century (and which was not used much beyond that time), that pollen and other residues indicate that the Shroud has traveled rather widely through the ancient Middle East until it came to rest in Europe sometime after the first millennium, and that the image resides only on the topmost layers of the linen’s fibres. While the blood – proven to be human blood – found in the Shroud does permeate beyond the surface of the cloth’s fibres, the image does not. It appears, he suggests, that the image was the result of some kind of chemical reaction between elements left in the linen in the process of its preparations and emanations from Jesus’ tortured body that caused this remarkable image to form, including residues sweat and possibly urine. He cites evidence that suggests that dead persons whose bodies have suffered grievously over a period of time show distinct chemical markings that are different in composition from those of those who have died without trauma.
And, as he demonstrates carefully, there is no doubt that this is a body of a crucified man who suffered extremely. While the wounds attributable to the nails, and the marks of scourging on his back, and even the spear wound in the side were all characteristic of the brutality of Roman crucifixions, the blood traces around the head mark the likelihood of an actual crown of thorns which the Gospels report was placed on Jesus’ head, but which was not a common part of crucifixion ritual.
From all of his carefully marshalled evidence – and I found it remarkably convincing – he concludes that while the shroud definitely somehow contains an image of a man crucified in the Roman manner, it also appears to be wholly consistent with the careful description of Jesus’ passion and death found in the Christian Gospels. Taken together, he concludes, the Shroud is the actual burial cloth that once enclosed Jesus’ body after it was taken down from the cross!
If this is the case, it also explains how and why the Shroud could have been preserved for the last 2,000 years – it was evidence of Jesus’ reality and horrible death and, as he goes on to argue in the second half of his book, also proof of Jesus’ resurrection.

Part the Second: How the Shroud Explains the Resurrection
This section of the book, which I found at least as fascinating as the first, is also more controversial, both because most people of the Christian faith might dispute his conclusion but also, for me, because he does some picking and choosing among the Gospel texts he cites as evidence for his position.
Having said this, though, I think he makes a very well-argued case for his position which, since we will likely never really know what happened on that long-ago morning we now call Easter, could be true. It is, for what it’s worth, the best argument for a non-physical “resurrection” of Jesus that I have yet come across (and I’ve read a lot of theories).
Here is the essence of his argument:
 We must remember this was a time long before anything like modern science and modern scientific methods existed
 The Jewish people had by this time come to believe that there would be a resurrection for all faithful Jews at the end of the age, e.g. the “end of the world,” but that the form this resurrection would take was uncertain
 As we learn from St. Paul’s letters (and he thinks Paul is credible because his letters represent the beliefs of the first Jesus-followers only short years after Jesus’ death), Paul believed that there was a difference between our physical bodies – what Paul called earthly bodies – and our resurrected forms – what Paul called our spiritual bodies. [“It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.” 1st Corinthians 15:44]
 When the women arrived at the tomb of Jesus early in the morning to complete the proper rituals for Jewish burials – remember, Jesus had died late in the day before the Sabbath began (and the Sabbath is marked from Friday evening through Saturday evening), and they had to perform only the most basic initial washing before entombment then – as they began to unwrap the linen cloth surrounding Jesus’ body they would have encountered the incredible, truly ethereal and inexplicable image. They would have instinctively recoiled in fear and amazement: What in the Holy One’s good name was this?
 In short, the women – and later, Peter and the other disciples – came to understand this as the image of the risen, transformed Jesus miraculously preserved on the cloth. And this is what the Twelve – and later Paul himself when he was shown the Shroud – saw when they testified to the resurrection of Jesus.

OK, I find this well-argued and recognize that it could be how it happened. I have long wrestled with the question of the physicality of Jesus’ resurrection, since it implied a kind of resuscitation of his physical body.
The only significant problem I have with de Wesselow’s argument is that he accepts certain aspects of the Gospel texts and Paul’s letters as valid and truthful while rejecting others, something that plagues almost everyone I’ve encountered who tries to “explain” just what happened on that first Easter.

For example, he brushes aside as legends added later the Gospel report that Jesus’ tomb was empty, the accounts of Jesus’ strange physicality (by, for example, eating a fish in front of the disciples), and Paul’s testimony that he received the gospel from the Lord directly.

Despite this rather limited caveat, the book is an incredible achievement of scholarship, investigation, and of posing a sound alternative explanation as to what actually happened. And, as such, it deserves attentive reading by all who still have their child-like ability to experience wonder intact.

A fascinating book! Well done, sir, well done!

[Simon · Rating 2 out of 5]

Golly. The first few chapters of this book are terrific. de Wesselow provides a reasonable scientific explanation as to how the image --- which he accepts is of the dead Christ --- emerged onto the shroud. That accomplished, I expected him to advance a rational interpretation of the Resurrection, i.e. that the body, which had to have been removed from its shroud before decomposition set in, had simply been taken away by either his followers or his enemies.

Nope. He proceeds to get lost in gnostic interpretations of the significance of the image in relationship to the Resurrection. Put briefly, it is the image that caused the apostles to assume that Jesus had ascended to a new, spiritual body, and it is this new form that is represented on the cloth. His physical form was still in the tomb, of course (de Wesselow does not believe in the divinity of Christ), but this remarkable byproduct of the Crucifixion was, in fact, the palpable Resurrection that launched the birth of the Church. In other words, when Saul of Tarsus encountered Christ --- as he says he did in the epistles --- he was remembering the first time he saw the image that is on what we now call the Shroud of Turin.

This sort of stuff is unbearable to read. I understand that if you are not a believer in the miraculous, the Shroud must be explicable as a natural phenomenon. de Wesselow is withering in his treatment of those who have attempted to pass the image off as a medieval forgery, or a painting. He also discounts the idea that it represents the after-image of the moment when the physical body of Christ was transformed into his resurrected state, pointing out that the energy released would have leveled Jerusalem. Of course, if it was an actual miracle, I think one could assume that everything was on the table, including the idea that Jesus' body must have become some sort of atomic bomb.

Two-thirds of the book is simply speculation that de Wesselow, who is lavish in awarding himself points for insights no one else has achieved, comes up with after a spell sitting in his garden and thinking. Really hard. The problem is that he doesn't come across as an historian, or a theologian, or a scientist (in fact, he is a youngish art historian). He comes across as Dan Brown, right down to the role that Mary Magdalene played in the entire story.

Which is a shame, really, because he does have some interesting reads on early Church history. But they have to be gleaned from a text that smothers them in unsupported speculations, suppositions, whatever you want to call his methodology. I rated it okay, because he can write --- in places it reads like a thriller, which is not totally a compliment given his subject --- and the first third of the book is very good. The rest is not, although I will give him this --- it is never boring.

[Shannon · Rating 1 out of 5]

Too many scholars get wrapped around their personal theories, to the point that they write 428 pages of circular reasoning around one piece of evidence. This book is a perfect example of "much learning doth make thee mad."

[Stan Fleetwood · Rating 3 out of 5]

He makes a convincing argument as to the authenticity of the Shroud. However, when he got into the role of the Shroud in the "birth" and early evolution of Christianity I wasn't so convinced. He makes a lot of assumptions and then proceeds to refer to them as facts. However, overall interesting, if a bit long.

[Al Bità · Rating 3 out of 5]

Published in 2012, two years after the latest exhibition of the Shroud of Turin, and about a century after the first photographs of it revealed its astonishing “secret” and sparked a flurry of diverse discussions and theories throughout the 20th-c about what it actually meant, de Wesselow’s book proposes his version of this enigma: he attempts to provide a type of coherent narrative that links it with the central tenet of the Christian faith (the Resurrection of the Christ). In other words, de Wesselow believes that the Shroud actually is the “spark” which created this belief, and that it was this belief that provided the original believers with the immense surge in popularity resulting ultimately with the extensive power still evident in the Christian Churches and its affiliates today.

All the above can be inferred from the title and sub-title of the book itself, so there is no need for a spoiler alert re this. The book is essentially an accessible reporting of de Wesselow’s reasons for his belief, and which permit him finally to present his version of this story. Whether you believe this version or not will depend on whether you fully agree with de Wesselow’s research and findings.

This is no mean task. If I am reading this correctly, de Wesselow needs to establish three things: (1) that the Shroud itself is authentic, i.e. that it is the actual cloth used to cover the body of Jesus after his crucifixion; (2) that the original Jewish communities which would later develop into the “Christians” were of such a mindset that the idea of Jesus’ resurrection was eminently believable; and (3) that the accounts relating to the “resurrection appearances” (starting with Paul’s “creed” — which de Wesselow calls the First Creed) and that the various “appearances” to the apostles and others can be interpreted as reaffirming this by examination of the writings and reports (both orthodox and unorthodox) of the times. These three threads are not necessarily presented in that order, but are intertwined throughout the book as and when the author needed them to shore up his final interpretation.

The first of these threads attempts to examine the provenance of the Shroud in history. There is a kind of reverse Timeline (starting with 2010 CE and then proceeding down to 30 CE. It provides a summary of de Wesselow’s argument for the authenticity of the Shroud. The immediate impression is that there are lots of gaps in this history, and it assumes that the Shroud, the Mandylion and the Sindon are one and the same thing. Throughout, we are informed that access to the relic was very limited, usually controversial, and restrained for only a select few people before being secreted again. The periods between appearances are often extensive, sometimes involving centuries of “silence”/“absence”.

Re the second thread, de Wesselow consistently writes that the Jews of the early first century CE would have had a mindset which would have made them agreeable to the idea of a Resurrection. What the author provides as the content of such a mindset reminds me more of a kind of Platonic Idealist abstraction, where the images on the Shroud would “materialise” as actual manifestations of that Ideal. If one were to take into consideration the mindset of the apostles as repeatedly illustrated in the Canonical gospels, one could be forgiven for disbelieving that such rhetorical philosophical metaphysical postulates were part of their mental make-up. The Jewish “mindset” in those years in Palestine would have been far more preoccupied with the Roman occupation of the land; the apparent collaboration with the Romans of the top echelons of the Jewish religion (the Sanhedrin); the intrusive moral do-gooders of the Pharisees; and those who objected to everything in one way or another (the Nazarenes, the Essenes, the many rebels and zealots, especially the Galileeans, etc.). As an aside, the reader should be made aware that de Wesselow’s take re all of this is very much a Christian one.

The third thread is perhaps the most contentious. In pursuing his hypothesis, the author fearlessly enters what might be called the domain of theologians. Not constrained by any sense of obligation or submission to orthodox texts and interpretations, de Wesselow deftly but courteously elaborates on the various inconsistencies obvious in any literal reading of the texts, scours alternative and non-canonical texts for reinforcements for his inferences, reinterprets selected aspects of the narratives as special metaphors, clears out any dissenting interpretations (in this sense, it would benefit the reader to take note of the references to the endnotes, where many alternative versions not specifically dismissed within the body of the text are banished) and then stitches his own interpretation into a “reasonable” and “obvious” fable. QED. This selective process is a technique often used by people wanting to emphasise a specific interpretation (their own) on unsuspecting readers — it creates the impression that what is being offered is rational and logical. It ain’t necessarily so. Worse, when examined more closely, it could easily flip into something else altogether.

In summary, readers of this book will find that the journey is far more interesting than the destination. As mentioned earlier, the destination is more or less spelled out in the title and sub-title of the book; but when one reaches the destination indicated, I suspect the reader might find it all a bit of a let-down.

[Steven Paglierani · Rating 4 out of 5]

Having already read far too many religious-relic, "truth revealed" books, I approached this one with caution. In the end though, I was pleasantly surprised. This one is well written, comprehensive, logical, and thought provoking.
Does it prove without doubt that the shroud is authentic? Not really. I'm not sure this will ever be possible. But what it does do is a good job of discrediting the debunkers, as well as making an equally credible albeit largely circumstantial case for that there are too many coincidences for the shroud to be fake.
Perhaps what I enjoyed the most though was de Wesselow's non-judgmentally scientific professional attitude. Indeed, this book is worth reading even if all you're interested in is an overview of the kind of infighting, bad science, and biased claims these investigations provoke.
Steven Paglierani

[Jennifer Eckel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very Interesting. This book convinced me The Shroud is the burial cloth of Christ. The research is very meticulous. I'm a little less impressed by the author's conclusions about how The Shroud was used in early Christianity. He does draw some interesting conclusions, but I'm not completely sold on where he takes them.

[Ron · Rating 4 out of 5]

An exhaustive and exhausting examination of the founding of Christianity and the role played by the shroud. Don't want to be a spoiler, so if you want the gist of it contact me via Facebook or e-mail. Let's just say he believes that it is authentic but there is much more to the story!

[Luiz Felipe · Rating 5 out of 5]

Uma abordagem histórica e científica sobre a relíquia que foi a faísca do surgimento do Cristianismo. As teorias apresentadas são, no geral, bem fundamentadas e muito coerentes com todos os episódios apresentados. Valeu muito a leitura.

[Todd · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very well researched book. The author makes some assumptions about half way through the book that seem tenuous at best, but over all a good read.

[Abhishek Datta · Rating 5 out of 5]

Marvelous.The author has researched very profoundly and it seems,ultimately,someone has really solved the mystery behind the birth of Christianity.

[Joacelio Moura · Rating 4 out of 5]

Conheça a história completa do Sudário e da faísca que espalhou o cristianismo. Livro muito interessante repleto de referências históricas.

[Belinda · Rating 4 out of 5]

The argument is well researched and presented but to accept it is a matter of faith, not science.

[Adilson · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ao ver, numa livraria, a capa do livro O Sinal - O Santo Sudário e o Segredo da Ressurreição, de Thomas de Wesselow, devo dizer que o título me chamou a atenção de imediato. Logo minha ponta de interesse foi solapada ao imaginar que a obra provavelmente devia ser fruto de mais um fanático religioso ou aspirante de teorias absurdas sobre o controverso Sudário de Turim. Certamente, eu passaria muito longe desse livro, não fosse o preço mais que convidativo de uma recente promoção na Submarino e uma breve pesquisa sobre o seu autor e o escopo da obra. Para a minha surpresa, Wesselow não é um religioso mas um historiador de arte. Eliminei a primeira razão para não adquirir o livro, citada acima - capaz de desviar o meu interesse. Agora faltava descobrir se a minha segunda razão tinha fundamento ou se o autor apresentaria algum argumento verdadeiramente fenomenal para fazer valer o subtítulo pretencioso.

Okay. Dei uma chance ao livro e encarei suas quase 400 páginas com curiosidade.

O Sudário de Turim foi desacreditado pela comunidade científica após ter sido exposto a uma série de exames empíricos. Para muitos, trata-se de uma pintura engenhosamente produzida entre os séculos XIII e XIV - essa última, época oficial de sua primeira aparição pública em Troyes, pequeno povoado na França . O pano, contudo, é um artefato inacreditável. Nele, nota-se nitidamente, à distância de uns 2 metros, várias manchas amareladas e difusas que, descolorindo o linho, formam a imagem fantasmagórica de um homem nu - frente e costas. Sua posição, de recém sepultado, é anatomicamente surpreendente. Mas o que ressalta antes de mais nada a surrada peça são as manchas vermelhas que se fazem ostensivas nas mãos e braços, pés, cabeça, costas e uma estranha mancha do lado direito o peito. Mãos e pés parecem perfurados. As marcas nas costas sugerem dilaceramento da pele. Chibatadas. Sinais que lembram imediatamente uma das práticas da pena capital romana infligidas a criminosos e inimigos do Império, há 2.000 anos atrás, a crucificação. Ainda que não historicamente, o único personagem conhecido que corresponde exatamente as características de flagelo da impressão do Sudário é Jesus. O judeu que teria sido coroado com uma coroa de espinhos, morto crucificado, perfurado no lado por uma lança romana e ressuscitado, dando início ao maior movimento religioso e cultural da história da humanidade.

Era considerado uma fraude desde o século XIV, após o resultado de investigações a pedido do bispo de Troyes. Exibido publicamente na recém inaugurada igreja de Lirey, foi devolvido para a família de Godofredo I, detentora do pano e que o considerava autêntico.
De lá pra cá, a mortalha quase foi perdida num incêndio na Capela de Chambéry, em 1532. Foi salva por pouco. Apesar dos danos sofridos, a imagem não foi comprometida e as freiras do lugar lhe fizeram remendos e puseram um forro novo.

Em uma de suas raríssimas exposições públicas, foi fotografado pela primeira vez por Secondo Pia, em 1898. Enquanto revelava o trabalho em seu laboratório, ficou impressionado com rosto que surgia dos negativos. A imagem em negativo do Sudário revelava, diante de seus olhos, uma impressão que ninguém tinha visto até então. Estopim para novas pesquisas e teorias, a velha conclusão de que o tecido não passava de uma falsificação da Idade Média foi abalada pela inacreditável revelação e outras descobertas que atravessaram o século XX. Especialmente a década de 1970. Nenhuma delas contundentes. As tentativas de ligar o Sudário ao século I e, principalmente, a figura de Cristo, resultavam sempre em ambiguidades - embora o respaldo arqueológico indicasse que o linho pudesse provir da Palestina e os padrões de tessitura correspondessem àquela cultura. Em 1988, porém, pedaços do tecido foram expostos ao teste de carbono-14 e a comunidade científica pôs um fim à discussão. Os testes comprovaram que o linho foi produzido entre os séculos XIII e XIV. O resultado anacrônico abalou a comunidade de pesquisadores defensora da autenticidade do Sudário.


Thomas de Wesselow nos apresenta, inicialmente, um mistério. O mistério da Páscoa ou da Ressurreição de Cristo. A base da pregação do cristianismo, movimento que cresceu surpreendentemente nos primeiros séculos. O capítulo introdutório de O Sinal narra esses acontecimentos segundo os evangelhos, o testemunho de Paulo, o livro dos Atos dos Apóstolos e as poucas menções de historiadores da época.

Unido ao coro dos que não concordam com o resultado da datação por carbono-14, o autor passa então a se valer da pesquisa dos sindonologistas que tiveram contato com o sudário e com as evidências arqueológicas que remontam a possibilidade de origem no século I. Discorre sobre a impressionante impressão do homem do Sudário e as várias teorias e recriações da fraude, com resultados sempre aquém do original, a fim de atestar a impossibilidade de engenhosidade humana. Finalmente, parte para diversas suposições de impressão natural causadas por emanações corporais. Nesse ponto, o livro contém um apanhado de informações preciosas que seriam bem mais interessantes caso não estivessem dispostas para comprovar a autenticidade do Sudário com o fim de promover a sua ambiciosa teoria sobre a Ressurreição.

E é aqui que seu livro atesta minha segunda impressão inicial.

A segunda metade da obra é uma pretensão equivocada de explicar racionalmente a origem do cristianismo e o sucesso de sua rápida ascensão - obviamente ligado ao seu cerne, a inexplicável Ressureição de Jesus. Wesselow sugere, categoricamente, que o Cristo ressuscitado não pode ser outra coisa senão o próprio Sudário. Nessa tentativa ele reinterpreta algumas passagens dos evangelhos e do Novo Testamento, sempre se utilizando do texto grego original. Encaixa, de maneira nem sempre convincente, o Sudário nas situações que julga estar embasadas em testemunho histórico, aproveitando o fato dos evangelhos serem o resultado de tradição oral e resultarem em um registro não muito preciso e geralmente ambíguo. Faz também uso dos evangelhos apócrifos. Procura explicar a diferentes narrativas sobre a descoberta do túmulo vazio - surpreendentemente sustenta que o túmulo não estava nada vazio, para validar suas hipóteses - e elimina os testemunhos que classifica como complementos fantasiosos para tentar explicar e dar forma física ao Jesus Ressurreto (como a aparição de Jesus a duas testemunhas no caminho de Emaús). O resultado é uma interpretação forçada que se reconhece como uma visão racional e viável da origem do Cristianismo.

Não me convenceu.

Para validar sua teoria, Thomas de Wesselow se torna extremamente repetitivo, deixando a agradável exposição da primeira parte do livro dar lugar a uma série de pressupostos que reforçam seu argumento, já duvidoso desde o instante em que detalha a maneira como os apóstolos teriam interpretado a impressão na mortalha de Jesus. O início dessa exposição nos é apresentada como um insight repentino seu, uma ideia exclusiva - o que talvez não seja - que resultou nos cinco anos de pesquisa sobre o material que gerou o livro e cujas respostas entram para a já enorme onda de especulações sobre o Sudário.

Genuíno ou não, apesar de tudo, o Sudário de Turim é uma peça, no mínimo, desconcertante. E, penso, pode sim ter sido o tecido que envolveu Jesus no sepulcro quando, por conta da aproximação da Páscoa, não foi possível finalizar o ritual de sepultamento, ficando esse para ser concluído posteriormente. Na tentativa de identificar o pano como a mortalha que teria envolvido Jesus, a pesquisa do autor é abrangente e bastante esclarecedora, atestando ou contestando essa possibilidade. O livro seria melhor se ficasse apenas nisso.

[Al Ashcott · Rating 3 out of 5]

Thomas de Wesselow stelt een interessante, soms een ietwat vergezochte, theorie voor over het ontstaan en de echtheid van de lijkwade van Turijn in zijn Het teken.
Het boek staat vol typefouten en dat is uiteraard niet een blunder van de auteur, want ik heb het boek in het Nederlands gelezen. De verantwoordelijkheid voor de slordige afwerking ligt bij de vertaler en redactie.

Het boek bevat heel wat voetnoten. Ieder hoofdstuk heeft er zeker zo'n 20, dus als u de uitdaging aangaat om het werk te lezen, wees erop voorbereid om heel vaak de voetnoten te raadplegen, want het zijn niet enkel naslagwerken waaruit geciteerd wordt, maar ook extra uitleg van de auteur zelf.

Na het lezen van dit boek zult u, als een kritische denker, geen antwoord gevonden hebben op het vraagstuk van de lijkwade van Turijn. Er is iets mis mee, maar dat het een authentieke afdruk van een lichaam is en geen schilderij van een vernuftige kunstenaar uit de Middeleeuwen geloof ik wel. Echter, De Wesselows hypothese dat Maria en de andere vrouwen de lijkwade voor de opstanding in vlees en bloed van Jezus zagen toen ze de grot waar Hij lag binnengingen, is iets té fantastisch.
De auteur vraagt zich meermaals af hoe het Christendom het zolang heeft kunnen volhouden zonder fysieke bewijzen van de terugkeer van Jezus uit de dodenwereld. Volgens mij, zou een lijkwade, of het nu echt is of niet, geen beweegreden kunnen zijn voor het bestaan van het Christendom.

Al

[Frances · Rating 2 out of 5]

I’m not big on religious relics and this is a prime example of why. The author is an art historian, and by his language, a nonbeliever. I mainly wanted to see the scientific and historical information on the shroud, not this guy’s tortuous picking apart of the Gospel accounts, use of the Apocrypha, or agonizing justification of his denial of the resurrected Jesus. His conclusion: the spread of the Church after Easter was not due to the resurrection, disciples or Jesus, but the shroud.
The historical and scientific data presented does a pretty good job of placing the cloth in the first century. The imprint is explained as a chemical process after death, and the wounds are that of a man crucified, flogged (by weapons known to be used in Rome at that time), and having a band of piercing wounds around his head. Since crucifixion ended in the 4th century, unless it was an elaborate fake by a process unknown at the time (and yet not clearly understood) this points to the shroud of Jesus.
The enigma of the Shroud is interesting….wouldn’t it be just like God to leave something like this laying around to confound the wise?

[Gerrit Himschoot · Rating 3 out of 5]

Uiteindelijk uitgelezen.
Leest niet echt vlot en de content is zeer zwaar om te volgen, zeker als je het maar 1 uur per dag op de trein kan lezen. Wel blij met een paar ideeën die de schrijver neerzet in het boek. Hij had stiekem gehoopt op een enorme controverse na het publiceren van het boek maar deze is uitgebleven.

[Ashish Jaituni · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really liked it! It is a good read! I liked the first part of the book which deals with the shroud not being a photography or a work of art. I agree with the author that the shroud is not a forgery. But having accepted that I am not at sure if one can say that it is the image of Christ. It is of a man who suffered something similar to what Christ must have experienced. De Wesselow, despite some speculation about vapours rising from the body, cannot explain how the image came to be on the Shroud. The second part of the book is not at all convincing because of various reasons. It is more of author's imagination than concrete proof. De Wesselow cannot explain the Shroud, but makes it explain everything.

Art historian Thomas de Wesselow believes that he has solved two great religious mysteries. One is the nature of the Turin Shroud. The other, is about'the birth of Christianity' and how it can be integrated with the shroud. I think he has done a good job with the former.

[Margarida · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first part, arguing the shroud is not a middle age fake is convincing, it is mostly logical from all the evidence that it is genuine. Whether it wrapped Jesus or someone else who died in a similar way in the same period, it is probably a leap of faith. The author argues there is no record of another person having died with a crown of thorns, however one could say that the absence of a record evidence is not evidence that it did not happen. If it did happen and was documented, would it have survived the Christian documentation "cleaning" that destroyed almost all the copies of the non approved gospels ? Anyhow, five stars on the first part of the book.
The second part, the theory about the resurrection and how it relates to the shroud, gets 3 stars from me. Though it provides an acceptably logical view, what the author presents as evidences seem too biased towards his view, too forced, reading too much into the texts.

[Chris Lytle · Rating 4 out of 5]

Focused on deconstructing the ongoing controversies surrounding both the birth of Christianity and its most pertinent relic, the Shroud of Turin, this well crafted work attacks these queries with an astounding level of research. With the author's theories presented early on, the overall conclusions may not come as a major surprise, however it's the consistent and thorough approach to building his case that keeps you engaged. While the subject matter, bouncing between scientific analysis, historical perspective and biblical interpretation, edges towards being too scholarly for the average reader, the style and flow provides a platform that is easily appreciated. Leaving no stone unturned, Mr de Wesselow delivers a powerful and thought provoking theory that inevitably comes down to Ockham's razor reasoning: the simplest hypothesis is the most likely one.

.

[David Silveyra · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was the perfect length and was excellently written. What I liked most about this book was where the photographs were and how they were referenced. The prose was good. In addition to learning a lot about the shroud I also learned about historical personages like St. Peter. I learned a lot from this book, especially about the STURP efforts. This book was an engrossing read and the author had a fair amount of erudition. This is probably the best book on this topic that you will find. All in all, I enjoyed reading this book.

[Sujith Philipose · Rating 3 out of 5]

Does it answer the question of the birth of christiantity/easter? Not completely, but it comes close. The author has included tons of historical allusions of the linen to bring his point but to me it still isnt water tight. Nevertheless interesting read for people who like history and investigative threads.

[Craig Barner · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is an exhaustive study of the Shroud of Turin, and readers who want to learn about the relic for the first time might be better served by another book. Nevertheless, De Wesselow's book also works for the first-time reader. He presents an original thesis about the relationship between the Shroud and Christianity. His argument is not entirely convincing, but it got me thinking.

[Jazz Singh · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Sign is another interesting take on the shroud of Turin. The endless debate continues: is it real, is it a fake? Was there a resurrection? What are the implications of these questions in terms of history; in terms of religion? The arguments put forth by de Wesselow make one think certainly, whether or not one agrees with him.

[Fredrick Danysh · Rating 3 out of 5]

A skeptical study of the Shroud of Turin and the Resurrection of Jesus that makes unexpected conclusions. Well researched. It also addresses the controversy around the shroud and provides a timeline of its history.

[Nan]

R

[Bruce · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very interesting read. The author makes a good argument.

[Phil Lawless]

This book contains a very clear physical description of the Shroud of Turin and its history. It is the interpretation of the impact of the Shroud on the Apostles that is speculative.