Content uploaded by Jack Brandão
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jack Brandão on Feb 08, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
LUMEN ET VIRTUS
REVISTA INTERDISCIPLINAR
DE CULTURA E IMAGEM
V O L . X I I I N º 3 4 J U L H O - D E Z E M B R O / 2 0 2 2
I S S N 2 1 7 7 - 2 7 8 9
Página 132
THOMAS OF WESSELOW AND THE
SHROUD OF TURIN: HOW TO TURN
HALF-TRUTHS INTO A NEW THEOLOGY?
THOMAS DE WESSELOW E O SUDÁRIO DE TURIM:
COMO TORNAR MEIAS VERDADES EM UMA NOVA
TEOLOGIA?
Prof. Dr. Jack Brandão
i
ABSTRACT – This article seeks to
deconstruct the aura of methodological
exemption employed by the English art
historian Thomas de Wesselow in their
work The Sign: the Holy Shroud and the
Secret of the Resurrection, released in
Brazil in 2012. Furthermore, it will seek to
demonstrate how the historian uses his
object of research just as a springboard for
creating his doctrine. That, by the way, has
a clear objective: to destroy the concept of
Resurrection, the basic foundation of
Christianity, since it states that the printed
fabric would be the risen Christ himself.
KEYWORDS – Holy Shroud of Turin;
scientific methodology; image;
Christianity; faith; science.
RESUMO – Este artigo busca
desconstruir a aura de isenção
metodológica empregada pelo historiador
de arte inglês Thomas de Wesselow na
obra O sinal: o Santo Sudário e o segredo
da ressurreição, lançada no Brasil em 2012.
Buscar-se-á demonstrar como o
historiador emprega seu objeto de
pesquisa apenas como trampolim para que
possa criar sua própria doutrina. Esta, por
sinal, tem um claro objetivo: destruir o
conceito de Ressurreição, alicerce basilar
do Cristianismo, já que ele afirma que o
tecido impresso seria o próprio Cristo
ressucitado.
PALAVRAS-CHAVE – Santo Sudário
de Turim; metodologia científica; imagem;
Cristianismo; fé; ciência.
LUMEN ET VIRTUS
REVISTA INTERDISCIPLINAR
DE CULTURA E IMAGEM
V O L . X I I I N º 3 4 J U L H O - D E Z E M B R O / 2 0 2 2
I S S N 2 1 7 7 - 2 7 8 9
Página 133
The carbon 14 test question:
pseudoscientific uses and abuses
When in 1989, the journal Nature
(Vol. 337, No. 6208, p. 611-615) published
the result of dating the Shroud of Turin
using the carbon 14 (C14) method,
indicating that the probable mortuary
sheet of Jesus had been made between the
years 1260 and 1390, many skeptics
celebrated, while the gullible were
appalled.
However, what draws attention most in
this controversy is the use that many of the
former made of the result, applying the
same expedient as the latter: dogmatism
– which they are keen to refute. That is
because they want to credit the published
results with an irrefutability that is not
consistent with the science of which they
claim to be exponents.
Many pseudoscientific publications
also took advantage of the emphasis given
to the fact to use the result to validate their
judgment, sometimes refuting it by
affirming its non-conclusiveness, now
using it as undisputed data to prove the
non-authenticity of the Shroud of Turin.
Both, however, fall into the same error in
rushing into their prejudgments.
The latter act, it is evident, in a more
unreasonable way. They forget that all
scientific knowledge must be questioned,
refuted, and revised. Its truth lasts until it
is denied by other research results and its
different conclusions: the scientific
language is inherent in the provisional
nature.
Morin (2013), quoting Karl Popper,
makes this clear by stating that theology,
for example, by relying on irrefutability,
“has great stability because it is based on a
supernatural, unverifiable world”
(MORIN, 2013, p. 22); while science
“which is based on the natural world”
(MORIN, 2013, p. 22), on the contrary,
has to be refutable:
No scientific theory can be forever
proved or forever resist falsification.
He [Popper] developed a kind of theory
of selection of scientific theories, which
is analogous to the Darwinian theory of
selection. Some ideas survive, but later
they are replaced by others that better
resist falsification. (MORIN, 2013, p.
39)
In the same way, it cannot be said that
the examination carried out by three
leading scientific institutions is doubtful
and incurs elementary or purposeful
errors, as certain theists claim. That is
because, according to the results
published, all protocols referring to the
fragments’ decontamination used for the
examination were carried out:
Because it was unknown to what degree
dirt, smoke or other contaminants
might affect the linen samples, all three
laboratories subdivided the samples,
and subjected the pieces to several
different mechanical and chemical
cleaning procedures.
All laboratories examined the textile
samples microscopically to identify and
remove any foreign
material. (NATURE, 1989, p. 613)
There is, however, one issue that
caught our attention when Nature
published the results: which contaminants
were the laboratories referring to? The
LUMEN ET VIRTUS
REVISTA INTERDISCIPLINAR
DE CULTURA E IMAGEM
V O L . X I I I N º 3 4 J U L H O - D E Z E M B R O / 2 0 2 2
I S S N 2 1 7 7 - 2 7 8 9
Página 134
ones from when the samples were taken or
the ones that have seeped into the fabric
over the years?
We could, in a certain way, question
this statement because if it were today’s
contaminants (1988), they would not be so
many as to influence, in a significant way,
the test result; now, if they refer to those
that have accumulated over the many
generations that have passed in front of
the Shroud, the story is quite different.
Its quantity was known, with precision,
ten years before the use of the C-14
method by the universities of Oxford,
Zurich, and Arizona. During more than
120 hours of non-stop work led by Dr.
John Jackson, a team of more than forty
American scientists had already pointed
them out in large numbers.
However, this is also part of scientific
art which, like any other human activity
and despite its objective rationality, is also
subject to particular subjective pretensions
and vanity tricks. When it tries to prove, at
all costs, that its hypothesis is valid and
subject to confirmation, that of the other
is nothing more than a deception or a
fraud.
That became clear when, on October
13, 1988, Dr. Michael Tite of the British
Museum, London, along with Edward
Hall and Dr. Robert Hedges, announced,
with an air of triumph, the result of the
carbon 14 test: the rumored Shroud of
Turin was nothing more than a medieval
hoax, as they made clear in the dates
written on the blackboard behind them:
1260-1390!
Such an attitude, however, is not
surprising; it is already part of the history
of the Shroud of Turin since its
appearance in Western Europe around
1350, when the then Bishop of Troyes,
Henrique de Poitiers, to whose diocese
Lirey belonged (the city where he was),
declared it false, prohibiting its exhibition.
For this, he used a scientific claim that
Theologians and other wise people had
declared that this could not be the true
Shroud of Our Lord, thus bearing the
likeness of the Savior imprinted, since
the holy Gospel did not mention such
an imprint.” (WILSON, 1979, p. 317)
One cannot forget that, for the Middle
Ages, the Bible, of which the Gospel is a
part, was not content with being a factual
reality. On the contrary, it intended and
was seen as “the only real world”
(AUERBACH, 2013, p. 15); after all, it
was the word of God! In this way, he
possessed and represented authority, a
paradigm that could neither be ignored
nor refuted.
This role was also played by Antiquity,
although medieval man, when trying to
translate into the image what the classics
could offer, configured them in a different
way (PANOFKSY, 2004, p. 75), in a
constant anachronism (LE GOFF, 1990,
p. 217):
During the Middle Ages all practical
acquaintance with alien forms of life
and culture was lost. Although two past
cultures- the antique and the Judaeo-
Christian-were of great importance
within the frame of medieval
civilization, and although both of them,
especially the Judaeo-Christian, were
often portrayed in literature and art,
there was yet such a lack of historical
consciousness and perspective that the
events and characters of those distant
epochs were simply transferred to the
present forms and conditions of life:
LUMEN ET VIRTUS
REVISTA INTERDISCIPLINAR
DE CULTURA E IMAGEM
V O L . X I I I N º 3 4 J U L H O - D E Z E M B R O / 2 0 2 2
I S S N 2 1 7 7 - 2 7 8 9
Página 135
Caesar, Aeneas, Pilate became knights,
Joseph of Arimathaea a burgher, and
Adam a farmer, of twelfth or 13th
century France, England, or Germany.
(AUERBACH, 2013, p. 321)
It is not just theists who need to rely on
written lógos (λόγος) to point out, disregard
or minimize what cannot be explained
through the rigorous systematization of
the scientific method, whose usually
precise standards, providing, therefore,
elements for its investigation and
contestation.
Today, there is no doubt that the
dogmatic method, closed in on itself, such
as religious thought, cannot be scientific,
even if this is considered: dogma does not
need answers; otherwise, it would not be
dogma.
Such questions are relevant insofar as
since 1898, with Secondo Pia’s
photograph, the Shroud of Turin has
ceased to be a mere relic – in dogmatic
molds – unquestionable to become an
object of scientific studies.
Therefore, its transit was not restricted
to the sacred and the mythical sphere but
entered into empiricism or certainty (in the
mold of the Cartesian cogito).
As it erupted in the scientific sphere,
countless voices emerged that, without
any criteria and using sparse and
disconnected data, sought not only to
reject what was already known and
verified by history over the years but also
to minimize the latest discoveries
regarding the old sheet. Moreover, even
more surprising, such voices use both
biblical sciences – evidently in medieval
molds – and scientific bibliographical
references of a dubious nature.
It should be noted, however, that by
employing biblical auctoritas to ratify such
pseudoscientific theories – not from a
rational perspective, as a scientific study
proposes, but of a dogmatic one, which
they say are contrary -, such authors often
prefer the so-called apocryphal books to
the canonical ones.
That is likely due to the belief that the
Apocrypha is, in some way, purer or less
contaminated by the Catholic tradition,
being able to instigate and polemicize
more than the canonical texts dominated
for centuries by this same tradition.
The issue intended to be raised here is
not their historical validity as research
material nor whether one should or should
not base oneself on historical criteria to
use such books. Instead, it should be clear
that they, as archaeological objects
representing a particular extracanonical
vision, are already worthy of credit. This
value, however, will depend on the
objectives outlined by the scientific work,
in which a mere excluding and minimalist
relationship should not prevail but one
that incorporates and adds. Thus, the
question intended to be raised is another:
the exceptionally personal use of such
texts as if they were not only unknown or
prohibited but extraordinary.
Besides unusual texts, works of a
literary and novel nature are also used by
such authors as argumentative sources of
a scientific nature. Even if, for that, they
have to create an artificial pertinence since
they are texts belonging to genres that, a
priori, would not mix.
There is an article (in an academic
guise, by the way), “Shroud: true relic or
medieval forgery?” in which the author
uses several quotes that are inappropriate
LUMEN ET VIRTUS
REVISTA INTERDISCIPLINAR
DE CULTURA E IMAGEM
V O L . X I I I N º 3 4 J U L H O - D E Z E M B R O / 2 0 2 2
I S S N 2 1 7 7 - 2 7 8 9
Página 136
for a text intended to be scientific. For
example, when the author says that the
Shroud of Turin is a work of Leonardo da
Vinci or that “carbon-14 dating is not
necessary to show that the image is a
forgery – a brilliant forgery, we must
admit, but a forgery” (PICKNET,
PRINCE apud SILVA NETO
SOBRINHO, 2011, p. 30) employs, as a
basis, a work of fiction with no
commitment to the reality of facts nor to
supporting data through serious research.
This, not counting a whole page of
arguments taken from the book by the
authors in question with various
anomalies present in the Shroud, but at
no time does he provide scientific data to
prove his thesis.
As if that were not enough, this
researcher bases his argument on a
surreal work of fiction – he seeks to
interpret the Bible verse by verse – by an
author who is also surreal. That is because
there is absolutely nothing about him
either inside or outside Brazil, although he
is, according to alleged biographical data,
American! There should therefore be
some mention of it, at least in Portuguese.
The article in question, citing this
strange work, reveals how the burial of
Jesus would have been:
Verse forty [of St. John, 19] of this
chapter shows us that the spices were
put into the folds of the linen cloths, as
the pieces of cloth were wrapped
around the body of the Lord Jesus.
That was done as was customary
among the Jews, in a measure that was
not intended to prevent the
putrefaction of the body, but served
only as a demonstration of high respect,
as a religious service [...]. (CHAMPLIN
apud SILVA NETO SOBRINHO,
2011, p. 25 – our emphasis)
An essential feature of a scientific text
is to observe whether the citations used
and their authors are credible. Eco (1991,
p. 126) is categorical: “Citing is like
testifying in a lawsuit. We always need to
be in a position to resume the testimony
and demonstrate that it is reliable [...], as
well as verifiable by all.”
When in the excerpt it is stated, “the
pieces of cloth were wrapped around the
body of the Lord Jesus,” one has the
impression that its author is talking about
the mummification process and that it
does not correspond, at all, with the burial
method of the Jews, as he later states.
Let it be precise that this article does
not intend to confirm or deny the veracity
of the Turin sheet – nor would we have
such pretension – but only to demonstrate
that any statement that is based, solely and
exclusively, on the carbon 14 test is, in a
way, opportunistic, biased and
sectarian, as it only aims to exclude other
verification mechanisms as invalid.
Opportunistic, as it appropriates
scientific data massively announced by the
media, creates an aura of reliability to such
writings. It is biased because, as we tried to
demonstrate, it will only serve as a decoy,
linking worthless pseudoscientific papers
to a solid scientific base. Finally, it is
sectarian, as it employs the basis and
authenticity of science, not to add to it but
to denigrate not only those whose ideas do
not agree but also the scientists who affirm
what they deny.
Mário Praz (1982, p. 24) says: “Every
age has its peculiar calligraphy or
calligraphies, which, if it could be
LUMEN ET VIRTUS
REVISTA INTERDISCIPLINAR
DE CULTURA E IMAGEM
V O L . X I I I N º 3 4 J U L H O - D E Z E M B R O / 2 0 2 2
I S S N 2 1 7 7 - 2 7 8 9
Página 137
interpreted, would reveal its character, or
even its physical appearance, just as
paleontologists can reconstruct the whole
animal from a fossil fragment.”
Only a tiny part of this calligraphy, that
of the iconographic art of the
representation of Jesus – above all that
which appears around the 5th century and
extends until the 16th century – would
serve to demonstrate the implausibility of
the Middle Ages not having been able to
produce, artistically, the relic, object of
this essay.
However, this is not the object to
which we will focus in the following lines,
but a work that seeks, precisely, to confirm
the integrity of the Shroud of Turin.
Despite being written by someone
from the academic field, the work The
sign: the Shroud of Turin and the secret
of the resurrection, by Thomas de
Wesselow, will employ somewhat
doubtful expedients, mixing science and
religion to the point of even creating his
theology, distorting the result of his
research.
The biased opportunism of a sectarian
doctrine: scientific creation or just
arbitrary vanity?
While the previously discussed article
employs the carbon 14 test to disprove the
authenticity of linen cloth, the work that
we will now deal with does the opposite: it
uses the test to prove the existence of the
mortuary sheet by denying its probative
value. It enters, however, the same role as
1
The work used to carry out this essay is the
version translated into Portuguese by Berilio
Vargas, Denise Botmann, and Donaldson M.
Garschagen, published by Editora Paralela in
the other text for also being, in a way,
opportunistic, biased, and sectarian,
despite being in a very peculiar way, as will
be demonstrated below.
Launched in 2012, The sign: the
Shroud of Turin and the secret of the
resurrection
1
, by the Englishman Thomas
of Wesselow uses the Shroud of Turin
only as a springboard so that its author can
only create his doctrine. So that, more
than another theology or a new
pseudoscientific religion (since it is based
more on dogmatism than would be
acceptable in a scientific text!), has one
whose sole objective: is to deconstruct the
concept of Resurrection, the basic
foundation of Christianity, built
throughout of two thousand years.
The work launched in Brazil by Editora
Paralela and mentioned in the caricatured
article discussed above is impressive for its
more than 400 pages, richly illustrated, and
exquisite edition. Its author, faced with the
evidence he found and unable to deny the
authenticity of the mortuary sheet, seeks
plausible ways to try to elucidate it;
because, as he says: “it bothered me [...]
the idea that the Shroud could be an
authentic marvel” (WESSELOW, 2012, p.
208), since
For a skeptical agnostic, it was a
suffocating thought. The idea that the
Shroud could be authentic suggested
that something supernatural had
happened to Jesus in the tomb.
Preconditioned as I was, my thoughts
inevitably turned to the supposed
miracle at the heart of Christianity, the
2012. There may be differences with the English
original since what is presented here is an English
version I made.
LUMEN ET VIRTUS
REVISTA INTERDISCIPLINAR
DE CULTURA E IMAGEM
V O L . X I I I N º 3 4 J U L H O - D E Z E M B R O / 2 0 2 2
I S S N 2 1 7 7 - 2 7 8 9
Página 138
Resurrection, and an idea that ran
counter to my deepest convictions. It
was as if the Shroud, backed by the
immense weight of Christian tradition,
was pressing down on me, threatening
to stifle my secular worldview.
(WESSELOW, 2012, p. 208, our
emphasis)
The obvious must always be the non-
acceptance of the supernatural to explain
specific so-called insoluble facts, such as
the fixation of the image on this possible
mortuary sheet, as the American scientific
team at STURP
2
did so well, which went
to the limit of what their theoretical
possibilities and techniques allowed.
Despite all his apparatus to find the
answer to the formation of the image on
the cloth, the team concluded that it is not
known how the image was formed on the
cloth; everything is still a mystery.
Dr. John Heller, one of its members,
said at the end of his work on the subject,
“The images are the result of the acid-
dehydrating oxidation of linen; the blood
is human. How the images marked, the
cloth is a mystery. We would love to have
the answer to this mystery, explain the
science of it.” (HELLER, 1986, p. 219)
Nevertheless, that was not what
Wesselow was looking for clearly. On the
contrary, he needs precisely these gaps left
by science to fill them with his
convictions. Therefore, allied to his
opportunism, he searched for a new
doctrine so as not to fail in the subject
where science itself had still failed: the
explanation of how the image was formed.
2
The Shroud of Turin Research Project consisted
of a multidisciplinary group of American scientists
who devoted themselves, for nearly four years and
By claiming to be agnostic, one is led
to believe that the researcher would
remain exempt from a possible subjective
relationship about the theme and from a
possible dogmatism resulting from it, not
allowing himself to be corrupted by
theistic ideas and ideals. However, what
was verified in work was an inverse
dogmatism.
The book is the result of everything
that could not be expected from someone
in the academic world since by
proclaiming that he would approach the
issue from “a new angle” (WESSELOW,
2012, p. 11) since he is a historian of art,
we are led to believe that it would bring
new data, within the rational and objective
line proposed by scientific language.
However, when reading the second
part of the book, which is about “an art
historian specialized in unsolvable
questions,” one perceives a certain
strangeness: would it be an excess of
presumption coming from a serious
researcher or just an editorial strategy
and marketing to sell the book?
Probably, the second option is not the
only possible one!
At the beginning of the book, the
author discusses the issue of the concept
of Resurrection, one of the central points
of Christian doctrine. Therefore,
something is based on faith and dogma
and not verifiable by any scientific theory.
Both do not match: the theory is open and
subject to contestation, while the doctrine
remains closed since it has found its full
more than 150,000 hours of research, to study the
supposed tomb of Jesus.
LUMEN ET VIRTUS
REVISTA INTERDISCIPLINAR
DE CULTURA E IMAGEM
V O L . X I I I N º 3 4 J U L H O - D E Z E M B R O / 2 0 2 2
I S S N 2 1 7 7 - 2 7 8 9
Página 139
proof once and for all, thus becoming a
dogma. (MORIN, 2013)
Wesselow, despite this, insists on his
pseudoscientific argument, reaffirming,
countless times, the implausibility of the
Resurrection, as if this could be, for being
dogmatic, somehow refuted:
The traditional idea of a resurrection in
the flesh remained unchallenged in
Christendom for over a millennium and
a half. In retrospect, it is astonishing
that such an unbelievable dogma
could have dominated the minds of so
many people for such a long period.
(WESSELOW, 2012, p. 17, our
emphasis)
We may further quote: “Belief in the
Resurrection, the most absurd miracle
of all, began to become more and more
implausible.” (WESSELOW, 2012, p.
19, our emphasis) However, since when is
a miracle not absurd if there are miracles?
In addition, if they are all absurd, when are
they plausible if plausibility presupposes
something admissible? It also reads, “The
tomb reports are a mixture of facts and
fiction, and no specific detail can be
considered historical” (WESSELOW,
2012, p. 89, our emphasis). How can facts
not be considered historical? Now, if
elements of fiction are mixed with facts,
we have literature that cannot be
considered history since it is inserted into
another reality.
Strangely and paradoxically, Wesselow
says, “the historian who bases his
understanding of Easter on the Gospel
accounts of the Resurrection is foolhardy”
(WESSELOW, 2012, p. 93). What is most
surprising, however, is that the author
himself ends up doing this by giving the
event, based on these same reports, such
weight to his work, to the point of
forgetting its intrinsic literary aspect.
Literature consists not only of an
inheritance, of a closed and static set of
texts inscribed in the past but of “an
uninterrupted historical process of
production of new texts” (AGUIAR E
SILVA, 2011, p. 14, our emphasis).
Moreover, it presupposes a specific use of
tradition – the shared legacy of a nation
and people, influencing new generations –
as well as its contemporaneity.
That answers the very question raised
by the author when he says that there was
in early Christianity an “obsession with the
Jewish idea of resurrection, which he
developed even further” (WESSELOW,
2012, p. 78); because, according to the
author, the “Jews saw the resurrection as a
peripheral issue [despite] the Nazarenes
giving it absolute relevance”
(WESSELOW, 2012, p. 78).
Such a statement is a little discordant
because Wesselow (2012, p. 65)
transcribes Saint Paul – to whom he
praises several times, maximizing his
significance, minimizing the importance
(this is what he makes it seem) of Saint
Peter and the other Apostles – ipsis litteris:
If there is no resurrection of the dead,
then Christ has not been raised.
Moreover, if Christ has not been raised,
our preaching is in vain, and our faith is
also in vain” (1 Cor 15, 13-14).
Later on, he transcribes (WESSELOW,
2012, p. 65) an extended excerpt from the
same letter of the Apostle to the Gentiles,
in which he highlights what he calls the
first Christian creed:
LUMEN ET VIRTUS
REVISTA INTERDISCIPLINAR
DE CULTURA E IMAGEM
V O L . X I I I N º 3 4 J U L H O - D E Z E M B R O / 2 0 2 2
I S S N 2 1 7 7 - 2 7 8 9
Página 140
Christ died for our sins according to the
Scriptures, and that he was buried, and
that he rose again the third day,
according to the Scriptures, and that he
was seen by Cephas [Peter], and then by
the Twelve. Afterward, he was seen
once by more than five hundred
brothers, most of whom are still alive,
but some are also asleep. (1 Cor 15, 3-
6)
That is, therefore, the central point of
Christianity: the resurrection of the dead,
as the author himself stated when inserting
the words of Saint Paul in his book.
However, the author, not wanting to
believe in Christian dogma (this is his
right), tried to create his own, as we will
see.
It is regrettable to see in a book that,
although its author states in the preface
that he does not intend to be academic
3
,
he does everything to demonstrate the
opposite; and, worse, constantly appeals to
scientific dogmatism. That is because
not only does he try to prove his doctrine
(since it cannot be called a theory!), but he
also tries to co-opt new followers who see
in his title of doctor in art history an
authority bias.
He demonstrates, however, despite
being a historian, a lack of knowledge of
certain concepts he employs, in addition
to discriminatory and inappropriate ideas
for a researcher who deals with
extemporaneousness. That occurs,
particularly when he enters a path that is
not his (as he claims), as is the case with
Christianity and, in particular, its Roman
3
It is not what he demonstrates when employing
scientific expedients – after all, what he seeks is a
“safe theoretical foundation” (WESSELOW, 2012,
Catholic branch. Even worse is wanting to
prove yourself with knowledge of the
facts.
When talking about the Hebrews, for
example, in the chapter “Judaism before
Passover” – which should be Christian,
not Jewish – and when talking about the
Chronicle of Israel, he makes some slips,
for example, when he states that: “The
original sin of Adam and Eve –
disobedience to the first law of God – was
the cause of all man’s suffering and death”
(WESSELOW, 2012, p. 46, our emphasis).
The idea of original sin could not have
been inserted within a Jewish context
because it is a Christian concept and, in a
particular way, Roman Catholic, employed
by most of the strands that originated
from it. Its origin dates back to Irenaeus
of Lyons (130-202 AD), when dealing
with the issue still incipiently in Book V of
Against Heresies, still in the 2nd century,
and to Saint Augustine (354-430 AD).
The Bishop of Hippo dealt with
themes arising from it, such as grace,
redemption, and predestination, in many
of his writings, as in Confessions, in the
5th century, despite focusing on this issue,
in a particular way, in Free will. He
gradually developed the concept of
original sin and intellectually matured it
until he reached the idea that remains
today: that all human beings inherit the sin
of Adam’s disobedience – only Christ’s
sacrifice on the cross, the new Adam,
would clean this stain. However, to arrive
at this, he needed a long struggle with the
p. 221) –, despite incurring several times his
dogmatism and prejudice.
LUMEN ET VIRTUS
REVISTA INTERDISCIPLINAR
DE CULTURA E IMAGEM
V O L . X I I I N º 3 4 J U L H O - D E Z E M B R O / 2 0 2 2
I S S N 2 1 7 7 - 2 7 8 9
Página 141
disciples of Pelagius, for whom human
beings were born without any blemish.
Such a doctrine, therefore, is not
consistent with that accepted by the Jews,
which rejects the idea that man is born
stained by sin since he is born free and
pure. Therefore, if he sins, it is not because
sin is inherent, something hereditary, as in
the Christian concept of original sin, but
because he is an imperfect being, therefore
subject to error.
Just as they do not consider this idea,
neither will they accept that the
Resurrection represented “the long-
awaited lifting of this universal curse”
(WESSELOW, 2012, p. 46, our emphasis).
However, what Resurrection is the author
talking about if he deals specifically with
the Jews, for whom such a curse belonged
only to Adam and was not a concept of
heredity?
The author then begins the main
objective of his book: to deconstruct the
Christian concept about the veracity, or
not, of the Resurrection – his only goal –
as if that were the responsibility of a severe
researcher since he intends to oppose two
realities, a priori, not immiscible: faith and
science. Unless this is done under a
philosophical bias, not pseudoscientific, as
Wesselow intends with his work, it will not
be easy to establish correlations between
both.
Scientific truth is intrinsically linked
to formal and empirical operations that
allow the expression of its object of study
through theories, laws, and formal-
empirical concepts. It is, therefore,
“structurally adequate to the way our
intelligence proceeds in its attempt to
understand the world.” (VAZ, 1995, p.
17). In turn, the truth of faith, founded on
itself, seeks to explain itself. “His
reference is not to a state of things
apprehended by experience, but to salvific
events announced in the language of the
revelation received in hearing the Word”
(VAZ, 1995, p. 22).
Thus,
The passage from the world of
language and the truth of science to the
world of language and the truth of faith
does not take place through any logical-
conceptual process or through any
other form of continuity that allows, by
a simple adaptation of terms or
concepts, to pass from one to another.
They are two very distant worlds in the
universe of our apprehension and
understanding of being. The signals
sent from one to the other only attest
to their existence without allowing us,
from one of them, to reach the nature
and structure of the other. It is an
object distance and for which we will
have to seek the form of unification
that allows us to speak of one and the
other since both belong, after all, to the
same universe in which the plurality of
the forms of our thought and our
language. (VAZ, 1995, p. 18)
It is necessary to make such an aside in
the face of the author’s hostility, not in
front of the object of his study, in this
case, the Shroud of Turin itself. Still, in the
face of its distortion, its change of focus,
an art historian would have to work with
his object of study, not interfering in
another that is not within his competence.
There are several examples in the work
in question: when the author is interested,
he uses the concept of allegory
(WESSELOW, 2012, p. 51) for specific
obscure and fantastic biblical passages
from the Old Testament. On the other
LUMEN ET VIRTUS
REVISTA INTERDISCIPLINAR
DE CULTURA E IMAGEM
V O L . X I I I N º 3 4 J U L H O - D E Z E M B R O / 2 0 2 2
I S S N 2 1 7 7 - 2 7 8 9
Página 142
hand, about the New Testament, he
always seeks to ridicule it, even employing
unnecessary words for this: “In addition to
creating fictitious apparitions, the
evangelists omit others, mentioned in the
First Creed” (WESSELOW, 2012, p. 95);
“Nothing could better illustrate the
deficiency of the Gospels as historical
sources” (WESSELOW, 2012, p. 95); “to
form “conjectures as to the truth” of the
fanciful accounts of the Gospels, we
need to compare them not only with each
other” (WESSELOW, 2012, p. 96);
“Lucas can be deceptively verbose”
(WESSELOW, 2012, p. 327); “Paul’s
testimony is full of contradictions and
difficulties” (WESSELOW, 2012, p.
333); “The tale of a divine ambush on the
road to Damascus in Acts is as fanciful as
the legend of Emmaus. Luke’s narrative
has been pieced together from scriptural
materials, proving it to be largely
fictitious” (WESSELOW, 2012, p. 335).
With that, he ends up running away
from what the Italian art historian Barbara
Frale (2010), who is also dedicated to
extemporaneous images and periods, says
about the relics venerated by medieval
man:
The study of relics is a fascinating
chapter in the history of culture and
can teach us a lot if it is carried out
with due respect. Indeed, these are
cultural processes that the modern
historian must know how to record
without the pretense of dissecting them
in the light of a rationalism that is too
recent and too distant to judge.
(FRALE, 2010, p. 159, our emphasis)
Something that should not be what
Wesselow, the art historian who
specialized in insoluble questions,
thinks, as he demonstrates when talking
about this belief, rooted in a particular way
in the medieval heart. When, in a
somewhat mocking way, he affirms that,
as a historian of art, he was already
“accustomed to the whirlwind of
medieval relics” (WESSELOW, 2012, p.
208), so “he was extremely skeptical about
the possibility that this particular [the
Shroud of Turin] – the most impressive of
all – was genuine” (WESSELOW, 2012, p.
208).
If one seeks to know the past and
especially its images, to read them in the
light of our contemporaneity, one must
bear in mind that the world has changed,
and one must not read extemporaneous
time with our eyes; otherwise, we would
see aberrations. If this is said about the
everyday life of people in the Middle Ages,
as Wesselow did, what can be said about
the construction of that man’s religious
foundations, expressed in his dogmas and
myths?
It is worth noting, however, that the
same author demonstrates that he is aware
of this when he states, albeit ironically and
because the past is his object of study: “to
understand the past, we need to take
seriously the strange fantasies of the
people who participate in them.”
(WESSELOW, 2012, p. 209, emphasis
mine); or again: “To understand the past,
we need to get inside the heads of other
people – generally very different from
ours.” (WESSELOW, 2012, p. 209, our
emphasis)
Wesselow makes the primary mistake
of wanting to treat the objective and the
real on the same level as the subjective
and the mythical: sheer nonsense, trying
LUMEN ET VIRTUS
REVISTA INTERDISCIPLINAR
DE CULTURA E IMAGEM
V O L . X I I I N º 3 4 J U L H O - D E Z E M B R O / 2 0 2 2
I S S N 2 1 7 7 - 2 7 8 9
Página 143
to see these two realities from the same
perspective, be it the metaphysical world
from the physical or employ the scientific
sense to try to explain faith, as Vaz (1995)
explored so well.
The German critic Erich Auerbach
(2013) shows us not only the question of
the readings that can be made of
extemporaneous texts by putting Homer
and the Elohist who wrote part of the
Tanakh (Old Testament) side by side but
also the significant difference in focus on
both texts, whose differential is the
purpose intended by their authors: one
aims at reality; the other, the truth:
[…] so long as we are reading or
hearing the poems, it does not matter
whether we know that all this is only
legend, "make-believe." [...] Homer [...]
does not need to base his story on
historical reality, his reality is powerful
enough in itself [...]. the Homeric
poems conceal nothing, they contain
no teaching and no secret second
meaning. Homer can [...] but he cannot
be interpreted.
[...]
It is all very different in the Biblical
stories. [...] their religious intent
involves an absolute claim to historical
truth. The story of Abraham and Isaac
is not better established than the story
of Odysseus, Penelope, and Euryclea;
both are legendary. But the Biblical
narrator, the Elohist, had to believe in
the objective truth of the story of
Abraham's sacrifice-the existence of
the sacred ordinances of life rested
upon the truth of this and similar
stories. (AUERBACH, 2013, p. 13-14,
our emphasis)
In this way, Auerbach (2013, p. 11) tells
us that the biblical writer exactly
The Biblical narrator was obliged to
write exactly what his belief in the truth
of the tradition (or, from the
rationalistic standpoint, his interest in
the truth of it) demanded of him-in
either case, his freedom in creative or
representative imagination was severely
limited.
Nevertheless, of course, this is always
subject to the literary genre in which it is
inserted, which does not mean that the
reality of one fits in another context.
Perhaps that was Wesselow’s lack of
knowledge when he criticized specific
biblical passages rather than paying
attention, as an art historian would
presumably, to the correlations between
the Shroud and the work of medieval art,
for example.
Levi-Strauss (1987), when speaking of
the abyss established between scientific
and mythical thought from the 17th
century onwards, demonstrates that such
an action was necessary at that moment so
that scientific study could be grounded
and built; but that today the tendency is
for a more significant confluence between
this knowledge. That is because one feels
that modern science, in its evolution, is
not simply moving away from these lost
subjects; on the contrary, he tries more
and more to reintegrate them into his field
of explanation (LEVI-STRAUSS, 1987, p.
13).
Today there are more significant data
and foundations within science itself that
can lead to the understanding of “a large
number of things present in mythological
thought and that, in the past, we were
quick to put aside as something lacking in
meaning and absurd” (LEVI-STRAUSS,
1987, p. 37). After all, the science being
LUMEN ET VIRTUS
REVISTA INTERDISCIPLINAR
DE CULTURA E IMAGEM
V O L . X I I I N º 3 4 J U L H O - D E Z E M B R O / 2 0 2 2
I S S N 2 1 7 7 - 2 7 8 9
Página 144
constructed today has propitiated
arguments to unravel its myths without
despising them as meaningless.
In this way, Wesselow’s pretension of
just attacking one of the aspects used in
elaborating a doctrine (I insist on this
question!) leads him to lose himself since
he enters into sectarianism. Thus, as an art
historian, he should not despise the
construction of any thoughts or doctrines,
much less the art that surrounds them, on
the contrary. From the art produced in a
given historical time, we could trace those
people’s values and aspirations, which
tend to show us much more than mere
“strange fantasies.”
Wesselow, at a particular time, explains
the creation of the concept of
Resurrection by the Hebrew people,
whose start was the vision of Ezekiel (Ez
37, 1-10). Then, the English author
sarcastically criticizes the Christians by
saying that the prophet “would have he
would have been astonished if he had
known that his allegory would later be
taken literally” (WESSELOW, 2012, p.
52).
Such unscientific attitudes, as they only
aim at interfering with the mythical,
undermine his credibility as a serious
researcher and interfere with his line of
reasoning. That is because his subjectivity,
allied to the absence of any partiality in his
speech, tends to demonstrate slight
effectiveness. Not denying, criticizing, or
destroying ends the mythical since human
beings carry it in their unconscious.
Jung (1978, p. 39) expresses himself in
this regard:
Our modern mentality looks with
disdain at the darkness of superstition
and medieval or primitive credulity,
completely forgetting that we carry all
the past within us, hidden in the lofts of
the skyscrapers of our rational
conscience. Without these lower strata,
our spirit would be suspended in mid-
air. It should not surprise us that in
such a situation, one becomes nervous.
The true history of the soul is not
preserved in books but in each
individual’s living, psychic organism.
Still building his doctrine, Wesselow
employs several other examples of
deconstruction in his work. One of them
is that of the Apostle Peter, “a character
who almost disappears under layers of
Christian legends” (WESSELOW, 2012,
p. 74, our emphasis), who should “be
much less exuberant than his legend”
(WESSELOW, 2012, p. 74, our emphasis),
whose “end of his life is rather obscure,”
since “according to a dubious tradition,
he ended up in Rome, where he was
crucified in the reign of Nero”
(WESSELOW, 2012, p. 74, our emphasis);
“the vile figure of Peter [...] pointed out
[...] concerning his infamous denial of
Jesus” (WESSELOW, 2012, p. 293, our
emphasis). Or still that the apostles, after
the crucifixion, were a “bunch of obtuse
and irresponsible parasites, transformed
into a fraternity of sagacious heroes – a
transformation symbolized, above all, by
the figure of Peter” (WESSELOW, 2012,
p. 77, our emphasis); or again, after his
Resurrection and appearance to the
Twelve (Mk 16, 14), that this “text focuses
on the spiritual delinquency of the
disciples.” (WESSELOW, 2012, p. 292,
our emphasis)
Another point on which the English
researcher insists is to affirm the probable
LUMEN ET VIRTUS
REVISTA INTERDISCIPLINAR
DE CULTURA E IMAGEM
V O L . X I I I N º 3 4 J U L H O - D E Z E M B R O / 2 0 2 2
I S S N 2 1 7 7 - 2 7 8 9
Página 145
rivalry that existed between Peter and
Mary Magdalene. There is a significant
passage where there is an apparent
inconsistency in the author’s text:
Indications suggest that Mary was
Peter’s essential rival, which explains
her relative obscurity in the canonical
Gospels and her later defamation.
Nevertheless, this rivalry and Mary’s
role in early Christianity remains
unclear. (WESSELOW, 2012, p. 256,
our emphasis)
If Jesus’ disciple, Mary Magdalene,
“was an important rival” of Peter, as the
author states, even if only through
“indications,” why address this if one
cannot prove it through historical
evidence? Why argue with mere
speculation if such “rivalry and role [...]
remain unclear”?
Peter himself will only be necessary to
Wesselow as a possible author of the
(apocryphal) Gospel of Peter, whose
fragment was found in Egypt in 1886.
However, this text will be used several
times by the English historian who needs
to coin something new, explosive, and
eye-catching, hence the use of non-
canonical works, as we said earlier.
What is most surprising, however, is
that the doctrine the researcher constructs
manages to be as implausible as the one he
tries to refute, as we will see. That
becomes clear when we get to chapter 15
of the book, “The animated shroud,” and
the author begins to show what he intends
on the following pages: to prove that the
linen sheet – more than a possible material
proof of the Resurrection of Jesus,
propagated for two millennia – is Christ
transformed into cloth. Faced with this
estrangement effect, the author himself
says, “Confusing the figure on the Shroud
with a person can be a sign of madness,
but I had not suffered an attack of
insanity” (WESSELOW, 2012, p. 209).
Whether or not the question is insanity
becomes as inconceivable as believing, for
example, that any man can get out of the
tomb on his own two feet. Once again, the
author confuses the sacred and the
profane spheres since believing or not
believing is a matter of faith that
transcends ratio. Therefore, it does not
need any other support, not even the
support of this or that ploy. “The shroud
is an artifact; an interesting and fascinating
artifact” (HELLER, 1986, p. 219) which
most Christians have always dispensed
with and will continue to dispense with,
despite what Wesselow wants to
demonstrate.
The Englishman even goes so far as to
state that the first Christians, therefore
Jewish-Christians, could dispense with the
second commandment in order, even in
the 1st century, to be able to venerate the
cloth:
However, it can be argued that most
Jews undoubtedly respected the second
commandment, the divine injunction
against making and worshiping “graven
images.” Wouldn’t that have stopped
Jesus’ followers from taking an interest
in the Shroud? No, because they
would have deemed the second
commandment irrelevant. Early
Jewish opponents of Christianity may
well have considered the Shroud an
idol, but for Christians themselves to
venerate it would have been perfectly
LUMEN ET VIRTUS
REVISTA INTERDISCIPLINAR
DE CULTURA E IMAGEM
V O L . X I I I N º 3 4 J U L H O - D E Z E M B R O / 2 0 2 2
I S S N 2 1 7 7 - 2 7 8 9
Página 146
innocent. (WESSELOW, 2012, p. 214,
our emphasis)
Something absurd to think about
because even the Christians from
paganism did not use any representation
of Christ, sticking only to his words
spoken through the apostles and disciples
that followed. In the pagan world – still
based on iconic figuration – other symbols
were used to designate him, not to
mention that its first representations date
from the 3rd century.
Even more absurd is the assertion that
“there is no reason to doubt that, if known
in 1st century Judea, the figure on the
Shroud would have been regarded as a
living presence!” (WESSELOW, 2012, p.
215). Where does the author get such a
statement if the resistance of primitive
Christianity against the idols of polytheism
was more than notorious?
It would be wrong to think that
Christianity seamlessly assumed the
ancient pictorial tradition, especially
considering it rejected the religious
image initially with all the
consequences. (BELTING, 2009, p.
193)
4
In addition, the Jewish tradition of
which the first Christians were also a part
was extremely
logotic
; that is, it revolved
around the lógos (λόγος) inherent in the
4
“Sería erróneo pensar que el cristianismo asumió sin
fisuras la antigua tradición pictórica, sobre todo teniendo en
cuenta que en un primer momento rechazó la imagen
religiosa con todas las consecuencias”. (BELTING, 2009,
p. 193)
5
“Aún no se había olvidado que el Yahvé invisible sólo se
hallaba presente en la palabra escrita de la Revelación, que
veneraba en el rollo de la Torá como su símbolo y su legado
[…]. En este caso,
el icono de Dios lo constituyen
Torah, the only imagetic presence of
Yahweh that was accepted:
It had not yet been forgotten that the
invisible Yahweh was present only in
the written word of Revelation, which
he revered in the Torah scroll as his
symbol and legacy […]. In this case, the
icon of God is constituted by the
Holy Scriptures and his place of
worship, the tabernacle of the Torah. A
visible image could not satisfy the
concept of God. The image of Yahweh
could not correspond to that of a
human being. Otherwise, it could have
been confused with the idols of
polytheism. Monotheism has always
tended towards aniconism of the one
and universal God. (BELTING, 2009,
p. 63, our emphasis)
5
Suppose, hypothetically, those men
knew the “image” that the author talks
about so much. In that case, it is very likely
that this would remain in the collective
memory of the Jewish-Christians
community as part of its
iconophotological collection and would
be, for example, reproduced on the walls
of the domus ecclesiae of Dura-Europos (fig.
1). However, the representation that is
seen there is very different from what is
known today.
Page after page, Wesselow makes a
series of unsubstantiated claims from his
las Sagradas Escrituras
, y su lugar de culto, el
tabernáculo de la Torá. Una imagen visible no podía
satisfacer el concepto de Dios. La imagen de Yahvé no podía
corresponder a la de un ser humano, pues de lo contrario
habría podido ser confundido con los ídolos del politeísmo.
El monoteísmo siempre ha tendido al aniconismo del Dios
único y universal.” (BELTING, 2009, 2009, p. 63, our
emphasis)
LUMEN ET VIRTUS
REVISTA INTERDISCIPLINAR
DE CULTURA E IMAGEM
V O L . X I I I N º 3 4 J U L H O - D E Z E M B R O / 2 0 2 2
I S S N 2 1 7 7 - 2 7 8 9
Página 147
prophet-researcher mind. He tries, for
example, to compare peoples with entirely
different traditions, such as the Hindu
people, confronting them with Jewish-
Christians, as if that were possible. For
these, the imagetic reality was not a fact of
simple acceptance or not since their
iconoclasm was a solid and present
unifying element of their culture, part of
their national identity, very different from
that for which the images of the gods are
their own cultural identity and a millennial
reality.
Wesselow himself (2012, p. 43-44)
demonstrates this obstinacy of the Jewish
people regarding the zeal that kept them
away from the images when he quotes the
historian Flavius Josephus who reported
the reaction of the Jewish people to the
insult of Pontius Pilate in introducing the
banners with the image of the emperor in
Jerusalem, considered offensive to the
custom of the region and the holy city:
Pilate, governor of Judea, sent from the
winter quarters of Caesarea to
Jerusalem troops bearing the
emperor’s image on their standards,
which is so contrary to our laws that no
other governor before him had done
so. The troops entered at night, so it
was only noticed the next day.
Immediately the Jews went in great
numbers to Pilate at Caesarea and, for
several days, begged him to remove
those standards. He denied the request,
Figure 1
Jesus, the Good Shepherd, Dura Europos
LUMEN ET VIRTUS
REVISTA INTERDISCIPLINAR
DE CULTURA E IMAGEM
V O L . X I I I N º 3 4 J U L H O - D E Z E M B R O / 2 0 2 2
I S S N 2 1 7 7 - 2 7 8 9
Página 148
saying he could not do so without
offending the emperor. (JOSEFO,
2004, p. 836, our emphasis)
The governor believed only
intimidation would be enough for those
men to defeat his will. The force of
pressure, however, was not enough for
that, so
He ordered his soldiers [...] to keep
their arms secret and then went up to
the courthouse he had purposely
erected in the place of public exercises
because it was the most suitable place
to hide them.
The Jews, however, insisted on the
request. He then gave the signal to the
soldiers, who immediately surrounded
them and threatened to have them
killed if they continued to press and did
not return soon, each one to his home.
At these words, they all threw
themselves to the ground and
presented him with their throats
uncovered to show that the
observance of his laws was much
dearer to them than life itself.
(JOSEFO, 2004, p. 836, our
emphasis)
Faced with such a feeling of zeal for the
observation of their laws, especially the
one that refers to the imagery issue, as
Wesselow tries to allude that this would
not be important for the first Christians,
weren’t they also Jews? Unless there lies,
once again, the issue of prejudice raised
earlier when the same author had already
said about the Disciples of Christ that they
were nothing more than a “bunch of
obtuse and irresponsible parasites.”
In this way, the author, in the
construction of his doctrine, tries not to
see – or even ignore – in those Jewish-
Christians their sociocultural origin,
strong enough to have led some of its
members to create Judaizing sects within
the very bosom of primitive Christianity,
also itself a sect of the Mosaic Law, of
which we can single out the Ebionites who
admitted
God created the world, but about the
Lord [in this case, Jesus], they think in
the same way as Cerinthus and
Carpocrates. They use only the Gospel
according to Matthew and reject the
Apostle Paul as an apostate from the
Law. [...] practice circumcision,
continue observing the Law and
Jewish customs of life and even
worship Jerusalem as if it were the
house of God. (IRINEU DE LION,
1995, p. 108, our emphasis)
Despite being Christians, the
Ebionists considered Jesus,
the simple, vulgar, just man, justified by
progress in virtue, generated by the
union of a man and Mary. They
thought they had to observe the Law
because, in their opinion, they would
not be saved by faith in Christ alone
and a life according to the same faith.
(EUSEBIO DE CESAREIA, 2000, p.
150)
In this way, it appears that it should not
have been so simple, as Wesselow tries to
demonstrate, nor a possible acceptance of
LUMEN ET VIRTUS
REVISTA INTERDISCIPLINAR
DE CULTURA E IMAGEM
V O L . X I I I N º 3 4 J U L H O - D E Z E M B R O / 2 0 2 2
I S S N 2 1 7 7 - 2 7 8 9
Página 149
the image of Christ, even if it was
acheiropoietos
6
(χειροποίητος), much less that
it came from an impure source, as the
probable Christ’s mortuary sheet:
The first Christians would have seen
the figure of the Shroud, therefore, as
a form of Jesus himself; she would
have shared his identity, and he would
have shared her supposed vivacity. In
their understanding, the Shroud would
not represent Jesus dead and buried
but present a living Jesus – a
resurrected Jesus. In other words, if the
Shroud appeared in 1st century Judea, it
would have been interpreted as some
resurrection. (WESSELOW, 2012, p.
219, our emphasis)
Eusebius of Caesarea, when writing his
work Ecclesiastical history around the 4th
century, cites a fascinating passage about
Caesarea Philippi (or Philip) in his Seventh
Book in which he claims that there is an
image of Jesus in front of a house. This
fact is interesting, as the region was not
only inhabited by Jews but by pagans who
always used images:
In front of the doors of the house
stands a bronze female statue. She has
her knees bent, her hands extended
forward, in a supplicating attitude. In
front of her is another statue of the
same material, representing a man
standing, dressed in a double cloak,
who extends his hand [...].
It was assured that the statue is the
image of Jesus; it still exists today, so we
saw it when we visited the city.
No wonder once pagans benefited
from our Savior, they erected it [...].
6
Not made by human hands.
(EUSEBIO DE CESAREIA, 2000, p.
363)
According to the tradition suggested by
Eusebius, the house in which this image
was found was probably that of the
bleeding woman who had been healed by
touching Jesus’ mantle and who must have
been a pagan.
It can be assumed that when reading
the words of the author of Ecclesiastical
History, he favored employment and
image worship. Something, in a way,
admissible since its origin should be
Greek. The reality, however, turned out to
be quite different: Eusebius showed
himself to be an obstinate iconoclast (as
well as an Arianist), hence the peculiarity
of this passage, since even though it was in
the 4th century and not of Jewish origin, it
was contrary to the use of imagery by
Christianity.
That becomes clearer when one reads
the supposed letter that Eusebius of
Caesarea sent to Emperor Constantine’s
sister, Constance, who had asked him for
an image of Jesus:
What image of Christ are you looking
for clearly? Is it the true and immutable
one, the one that naturally possesses its
characteristics or the one that (Christ)
assumed for us when he clothed the
figure (schema) in the form of a servant?
[...] Because he possesses both forms
(morphon), but I do not conceive it that
you ask for an image of the divine
semblance; for Christ himself taught
that no one knows the Father except
the Son and that no one has been
LUMEN ET VIRTUS
REVISTA INTERDISCIPLINAR
DE CULTURA E IMAGEM
V O L . X I I I N º 3 4 J U L H O - D E Z E M B R O / 2 0 2 2
I S S N 2 1 7 7 - 2 7 8 9
Página 150
worthy of knowing the Son except the
Father who begot him; therefore, I
must think that what you ask is (the
image) of the form of a servant and of
the flesh that he assumed for us.
7
(EUSEBIO DE CESAREIA apud
BESANÇON, 2003, p. 151)
In this way, it can be inferred that
imagery construction was not a simple and
easy process, not even its immediate
acceptance. Its assimilation by Christianity
was slow and full of mishaps; moreover, it
came from practices very different from
the Jewish ones or even from a possible
knowledge of the Shroud of Turin, as
Wesselow tries to assume.
As for its non-acceptance, we can
highlight two more examples in addition
to the one already pointed out by Eusebius
of Caesarea. On the one hand, we have
Bishop Epiphanius of Salamis (310-403
AD), who said, “Put up images, and I will
see how the customs of the pagans do the
rest” (BELTING, 2009, p. 195) because
he saw in their use a danger to the
Christian faith. On the other hand, we
have the example of a regional council,
held around the first quarter of the 4th
century, in Elvira
8
, on the Iberian
Peninsula, whose canon 36 established the
7
“¿Qué imagen de Cristo estás buscando? ¿Es la verdadera
e inmutable, la que posee por naturaleza sus características
propias o la que (Cristo) asumió para nosotros cuando
revistió la figura (skhema) de la forma de siervo?... Porque
él posee las dos formas (morphon), pero no lo concibo que tú
pidas una imagen de la forma divina; porque Cristo mismo
enseño que nadie conoce al Padre, sino el Hijo, y que nadie
ha sido digno de conocer al Hijo, salvo al Padre que lo
engendró; así pues, debo pensar que lo que pides es (la
imagen) de la forma de siervo y de la carne que asumió para
prohibition of images in churches: “It has
been decided that pictorial representations
must not be made in the church so that
what is venerated and adored is not
painted on the walls.”
9
(BARREDA.
VILLELA, 2006, p. 369)
Not to mention that the very image of
Jesus was being built over the centuries,
but it took many clashes, councils, and
synods. At no time was this use watertight
and unique, much less in the first centuries
of Christianity, as the English author
suggests when he states, “the Shroud [...]
would make present [...] a reviving Jesus.
In [...] a kind of resurrection”
(WESSELOW, 2012, p. 219-220).
Unjustifiable, however, especially for a
researcher, is what the author says next:
As I was formulating this thought, I
saw that it would lead to a new sphere
of investigation and religious
controversy. However, despite its
profound implications, it struck me as
straightforward enough, almost like a
routine research result. This time I did
not bother to jump out and consult the
Gospels; he knew instinctively that the
idea was solid. I was already familiar
with the tendency of devout Christians
to see Jesus as alive and present in his
image. Just as a figurine can be
mistaken for the most desirable of girls,
icons of Jesus tend to be identified with
nosotros.” (EUSÉBIO DE CESAREIA apud
BESANÇON, 2003, p. 151)
8
Scholars are unsure of the correct date of the
council. Some claim it dates from around 303 to
320 AD.
9
“Se ha decidido que no debe haber representaciones
pictóricas en la iglesia, para que no se pinte en las paredes
lo que se venera y adora.”
LUMEN ET VIRTUS
REVISTA INTERDISCIPLINAR
DE CULTURA E IMAGEM
V O L . X I I I N º 3 4 J U L H O - D E Z E M B R O / 2 0 2 2
I S S N 2 1 7 7 - 2 7 8 9
Página 151
the living Christ. (WESSELOW, 2012,
p. 220, our emphasis)
Suppose a researcher says that a mere
hypothesis can be considered the result
of research without subjecting it to
confirmation. In that case, it demonstrates
that there was either lousy faith, mere
sensationalism, or even a lack of a
coherent research project other than
just refuting what is not denied, in this
case, a dogma of faith, such as the
Resurrection.
Given Wesselow’s assertion, this
becomes clear when the author states that
he “knew, by instinct, that the idea [that
the shroud as a cloth was, effectively, a
resurrection for Christians] was solid.” Of
course, nobody denies that feeling can be
the start of any research, but to say that the
researcher’s instinct alone is enough is to
go against everything that exists in science
and enter into that presumption.
Umberto Eco (1991), when talking
about the issue of scientificity, states that
“scientific importance is measured by the
degree of indispensability that the
contribution establishes” (ECO, 1991, p.
22). Nevertheless, of course, this
presupposes that the work has to be
helpful for the academic community and
“provide elements for verifying and
contesting the hypotheses presented”
(ECO, 1991, p. 23). However, what about
the theorist who uses his instinct to verify
the soundness, or otherwise, of his finding
if such instinct is not measurable? The
Italian theorist also states that there are
“people who gain fame as tireless
researchers by bringing to light similar
trifles” (ECO, 1991, p. 23), that is, who are
concerned with such superficial aspects of
the life of a biography, for example, that
“they lack any scientific value” (ECO,
1991, p. 23). Something that, it seems to
us, Wesselow was very good at doing.
Another statement used by the English
historian sounds, to say the least, strange
for those who seek to know and
understand the concept of imagery in
Christianity, as well as its use in its first
millennium: “I was already familiar with
the tendency of devout Christians to see
Jesus as alive and present in his image”
(WESSELOW, 2012, p. 220, our
emphasis).
Such words reveal a certain strangeness
because even if there was (and there is),
especially in the East, a touch of
sacredness in the act of painting icons –
unlike what was practiced in the West – to
the point that the painter had to prepare
himself through purification’s prayers
(BESANÇON, 2003, p. 194). It should
not be assumed that both the artist and the
devotee saw in the icons or other images
the living presence of Jesus, but a mere
instrument at the service of salvation: this
constituted a means, never an end:
therefore, the representation is venerated
not for itself, but for the person it
represents.
Another critical point to raise is that, in
the first five centuries, it was necessary to
build a whole theology of the image,
without which its use would not be
possible, since Christianity, since its origin,
was a religion based on lógos:
LUMEN ET VIRTUS
REVISTA INTERDISCIPLINAR
DE CULTURA E IMAGEM
V O L . X I I I N º 3 4 J U L H O - D E Z E M B R O / 2 0 2 2
I S S N 2 1 7 7 - 2 7 8 9
Página 152
The sacred text was the only support of
Revelation, the authentic word of God.
Christianity began as a written religion.
As a redemptive religion, it united
salvation, that is, redemption, with
Revelation. Only through the word of
God does salvation happen; to this
sentence was added: salvation also
occurs through the mediation of the
image of God. (BELTING, 2009, p.
205)
10
Nevertheless, first, the Church needed
to understand the essence of Christ, his
nature, so that only then could it accept
or deny the transformation, through a
painter or artist, of an inert matter – be it
wood, stone, or colors –, in the
representation of the nature of God.
God is only represented in the figure of
the Son of Man. Christ, the man,
represents God at the same time, on the
one hand, because he is similar to God
in the divine nature and, on the other,
because in God, he became visible as a
man. Christ behaves towards God in
the same way that his image does. His
reproduction, therefore, includes the
reproduction of God. (BELTING,
2009, p. 208)
11
It is possible, through a few more
examples, to demonstrate that, unlike
what Wesselow suggests, Christians did
not see an image only as the inherent and
10
“El texto sagrado era el único soporte de la revelación, la
palabra auténtica de Dios. El cristianismo comenzó como
una religión escrita. Como religión redentora, unía la
salvación, es decir, la redención, con la Revelación. Sólo
mediante la palabra de Dios acontece la salvación; a esta
sentencia se le añadía ahora: la salvación también acontece
por mediación de la imagen de Dios.” (BELTING, 2009,
p. 205)
living concreteness of Jesus, nor as his
living presence through image support;
this would be idolatry (εδωλον + λατρεία),
i.e., mere image worship. It is not because
of what the image can represent but
because of what it becomes the pure and
straightforward reification of a presence
or just a receptacle for housing the divine
spirit.
The such complexion was highly
significant to some primitive societies that
saw particular objects, such as stones or
even animals, as more than mere beings
or objects of nature. Still, they are the
abode of spirits or gods, which is why they
are used in tombstones, landmarks, or
things of religious veneration (JAFFÉ,
2008, p. 317): more than the abode of the
god; these objects became the god himself.
It was against this employment, against
this deification of the res, that the Mosaic
prohibition against idols existed. The
absence of divine materiality gave the
Hebrew people a particular cultural and
religious unity, differentiating them from
the surrounding peoples: they believed in
a non-visible God, not imprisoned in a
specific object, but in a creator of
everything that existed. Saint John
Damascene (675-749 AD) says in this
regard, “Who can make a copy in the
image of God invisible, incorporeal,
unlimited and lacking in form? […] That is
why the use of images is extraneous in the
11
“Dios sólo se representa en la figura del Hijo del Hombre.
Cristo, el hombre, representa al mismo tiempo a Dios, por
un lado, porque es semejante a Dios en la naturaleza divina
y, por otro, porque en el Dios se hizo visible como hombre.
Cristo se comporta respecto a Dios del mismo modo que lo
hace su imagen. Su reproducción comprende, por tanto, la
reproducción de Dios.” (BELTING, 2009, p. 208)
LUMEN ET VIRTUS
REVISTA INTERDISCIPLINAR
DE CULTURA E IMAGEM
V O L . X I I I N º 3 4 J U L H O - D E Z E M B R O / 2 0 2 2
I S S N 2 1 7 7 - 2 7 8 9
Página 153
Old Testament”. (BELTING, 2009, p.
663)
This difference between image and
idol is explained in the following way in
the
Libri Carolini
(ca. 790 AD), during
the iconoclastic revolt that broke out in
the East:
[The iconoclasts] do not know that the
image is a widespread genus (genus),
while the idol is a particular type
(species), and that the one cannot be
related to the other. Namely, almost
every idol is an image, but not every
image is an idol. An idol responds to
a completely different definition from
that of an image. The images exist for
the ornament [of the churches] and the
demonstration of the history of
salvation, idols only to seduce the
unfortunate and induce them to a sinful
rite and a hollow superstition. The
image points to something else, the
idol, “as has been said,” only to itself.
(BELTING, 2009, p. 697, our
emphasis)
12
For the Carolingians and a large part of
the Western Church, the difference
between image and idol was prominent:
the latter always refers to itself; it is not the
representation of a god but the god
itself. The former, on the contrary, always
serves as a bridge between the actual
reality and its reproduction.
12
“No saben [los iconoclastas] que la imagen es un género
(genus) general, mientras que el ídolo es un tipo (species)
particular, y que no se puede poner en relación la una con el
otro. A saber,
casi todo ídolo es un imagen
, mas
no toda imagen es un ídolo
. Un ídolo responde a
una definición completamente distinta a la de una imagen.
Las imágenes existen para el ornamento [de las iglesias] y
para la demonstración de la historia de la salvación; los
Something very different was seen with
a primitive man who, when dressing up as
a particular animal in religious rites –
which a mask would later replace – did not
only think of representing it, looking like
it, or even having its identity and strength:
believed to become the animal itself,
appropriating its essence and spirit:
A primitive chief does not just disguise
himself as an animal; when he appears
at initiation rites fully dressed in animal
clothing, he is the animal. Even more,
he is the spirit of the animal, a terrifying
demon who practices circumcision. On
these occasions, he incarnates or
represents the ancestor of the tribe
and clan, the original god himself. He
represents and is the animal totem.
(JAFFÉ, 2008, p. 317, our emphasis)
It should be noted that the word idol
comes from the Greek εδωλον (eidolon),
which, among other meanings, refers to
“The silhouettes of the dead because they
lack the essence itself.
13
” (PAPE, 2005, p.
25329), we could then say that it does not
go beyond an image of spirits or a
ghostly apparition in its ipisis litteris sense,
a set of fantastic or even inexplicable
visions.
In the Odyssey, Homer gives us an
example of εδωλον when he shows us
Odysseus entering Hades to speak with
ídolos sólo para seducir a los infelices e inducirlos a un rito
sacrílego y una huera superstición.
La imagen apunta
a otra cosa
,
el ídolo
, ‘como queda dicho’,
sólo a sí
mismo
.” (BELTING, 2009, p. 697, grifos meus)
13
“Die Schattenbilder der Gestorbenen, denn es fehlt
ihnen das Wesen selbst.”
LUMEN ET VIRTUS
REVISTA INTERDISCIPLINAR
DE CULTURA E IMAGEM
V O L . X I I I N º 3 4 J U L H O - D E Z E M B R O / 2 0 2 2
I S S N 2 1 7 7 - 2 7 8 9
Página 154
the bard Tiresias and the approach of
“bloodless apparitions” (HOMERO,
2012, trans. VIEIRA, p. 321), or when the
hero, seeing the lifeless specter of his
mother, he tries to embrace her: “Three
times I launched myself (urged the heart),
three times like a shadow or a dream, it
evolved from my hands” (p. 331). Finally,
the hero says, in the face
It differs, in this way, from εκών
(eikon), which corresponds to the image in
English and which refers to “image
resembling an object; thought image,
imagination; painting; comparison,
parable
14
” (PAPE, 2005, p. 25459), that is,
the representation of what we have before
the world through paintings, statues,
photographs, as well as our mental images.
Wesselow seeks to infer that the image
that was instituted of Christ has, in a way,
been the result of a possible construction
resulting from the visualization (worship?)
of his Shroud by the apostles. However,
we insist that today’s need – our
iconotropism – was not the same as in
the 1st century of our era. That was
restricted to a small portion of the
Christian population in whose lives the
impregnation of images was intrinsic to
them, as was the case with pagans, not
with a large number of Church leaders.
For many of them, as we see in
Eusebius of Caesarea, such employment
14
“Bild, welches einem Gegenstande gleicht; Gedankenbild,
Vorstellung; Gemälde; Vergleichung, Gleichniß.”
15
“Una cosa es adorar una pintura, y otra cosa muy
distinta es aprender mediante una escena representada en
una pintura qué es lo que debemos adorar. Porque lo que un
escrito procura a quienes lo leen, la pintura ofrece a los
was unnecessary, if not dangerous, even in
later centuries, when Christianity was
already beginning to dominate what was
left of the old Western Roman Empire. In
the East, despite the imagery root being
embedded in its culture through icons, the
region went through the iconoclastic
turmoil that would last for centuries.
However, around 600 AD in the West,
the Bishop of Marseille, for example, had
ordered the destruction of images in his
diocese. That fact led Pope Gregory the
Great to write to him, showing the
importance of imagery for the propagation
of Christian doctrine:
It is one thing to adore a painting and
quite another thing to learn from a
scene depicted in an image what we
should adore. Because what writing
offers to those who read it, painting
offers to the illiterate (idiots) who look
at it, so that these ignorant people see
what they should imitate; the images are
the reading of those who do not know
the alphabet, so they act as reading [...].
(BESANÇON, 2003, p. 191)
15
Saint John Damascene, the great
theologian of the image of the East, will
say, “by contemplating the image of the
Crucifixion, of the Redeeming Passion,
and prostrating ourselves and adoring it,
but not the matter [of the image], but what
is represented in it.” (BELTING, 2009, p.
663)
analfabetos (idiotis) que la miran, para que estos ignorantes
vean lo que deben imitar; las pinturas son la lectura de
quienes no conocen el alfabeto, de modo que hacen la veces de
lectura [...].” (BESANÇON, 2003, p. 191)
LUMEN ET VIRTUS
REVISTA INTERDISCIPLINAR
DE CULTURA E IMAGEM
V O L . X I I I N º 3 4 J U L H O - D E Z E M B R O / 2 0 2 2
I S S N 2 1 7 7 - 2 7 8 9
Página 155
However, Wesselow states that,
probably because he was unaware of the
use of Christian imagery, Saint Francis of
Assisi, when entering and praying in front
of the well-known Cross of Saint Damian,
the Crucifix[...] became the living Jesus.
The image spoke, but it did so by
reflecting itself as if it were Christ; his
person was located inside the Crucifix,
transforming him into a kind of
substitute body. (WESSELOW, 2012,
p. 220)
With such a statement, the English
author denies the entire trajectory and
construction of a theory and even an
imagetic theology within Christianity; after
all that, he claims would be the
deification of inert matter into divinity,
something that the Church has always
rejected.
Then, continuing with the
construction of his doctrine, he states, “If
a medieval saint could see Jesus alive on a
crucifix with nothing special, the
apostles could certainly have seen him
alive on the stupendous Shroud”
(WESSELOW, 2012, p. 220, our
emphasis). Wesselow, it is evident forgot
Saint Francis lived in the 13th century when
there was already an entire tradition of
imagery in the heart of Christendom for
almost a thousand years. This fact is
unacceptable in Roman Judea of the 1st
century and problematic to assimilate by
those men alien to such a signal system.
As for the crucifix “not having
anything special,” it should always be
remembered that for those who have faith,
the meaning is different than for those
who do not, not to mention the question
of anachronism, because “if one
contemplates the crucifix today in the
Byzantine style of the Church of San
Damiano, in Assisi, without the eyes of a
devotee, one is probably not moved to
emotion.” (BRANDÃO, 2010a, p. 17)
One has the impression that the English
researcher is not a great connoisseur of the
Middle Ages; after all, his readings of the
period are always contemporary, since not
only does he make a point of not
demonstrating the due temporal distance,
but also makes no point of maintaining
“due respect” (FRALE, 2010, p. 159) with
the past, as we said earlier:
It is inferred, therefore, that today’s
mimetic reality – as a mere copy and
simulacrum of the real – could not reach
medieval man: his look was not
encoded to see the world in perspective
through the window, after all, the
medieval ratio was transcendent, it was
not linked to the phenomenological
world, nor to the Renaissance
rationalism that would replace it.
(BRANDÃO, 2010a, p. 18)
That should have been clear to
Wesselow, who tries, in various ways, to
deconstruct what is known about the
Jewish people in the Roman period, when
he states that “Jewish aversion to images is
often exaggerated” (WESSELOW, 2012,
p. 220, p. 215), citing the following the
example of the city of Dura Europos. In
this synagogue, there were many figures
on the walls. However, this was an isolated
case, in addition to being inserted in the 3rd
LUMEN ET VIRTUS
REVISTA INTERDISCIPLINAR
DE CULTURA E IMAGEM
V O L . X I I I N º 3 4 J U L H O - D E Z E M B R O / 2 0 2 2
I S S N 2 1 7 7 - 2 7 8 9
Página 156
century, two centuries of the period he
intends to portray after the Diaspora.
The Jewish tradition resided,
effectively, in the non-acceptance of the
use of imagery – with few exceptions –
especially that of the embodiment of
divinity, a fact built over centuries that
made them unique compared to
neighboring peoples. It is not, however,
what Wesselow says:
If I were right, the Shroud would have
forcibly spawned the idea of the
posthumously living Jesus. At one level,
this notion would have been an
inevitable consequence of the
animistic perception of the Shroud:
when they “come to life,” the images
are identified with whomever they
represent, whoever that may be.
However, on another level, the
reincarnation of Jesus on the Shroud
would need to be understood
intellectually as a miraculous,
metaphysical process. (WESSELOW,
2012, p. 220)
Based on his surprising hypothetical
finding, the “animist perception of the
Shroud,” the author will try to build his
doctrine. Still, his first task would be “to
try to understand how a group of Jews
from the 1st century would have
understood and rationalized their animist
perception of the Shroud”.
(WESSELOW, 2012, p. 221, our
emphasis). For this to be possible, it would
have to raise and find elements that
transited in the Jewish culture, through the
Greco-Roman, without forgetting the
incipient Christian.
It turns out, however, that when he
uses them, he does so in a separate and
out-of-context way, without going into
depth, in addition to employing strange
statements based solely on his
assumptions. When referring to
Christianity, he seeks to establish himself
on unorthodox theories – hence the
persistent use of apocryphal texts
abandoned by the official Church –
disregarding all those that seek orthodoxy,
regardless of whether they were built over
time.
The author, when basing his thought,
uses the concept of shadow (σκιά) so that
he can trace a relationship between it and
the appearance of the Shroud of Turin to
lead his reader to accept a possible
connection between the syndonic image
and the one that appears – constructed,
logotically, from the world of the dead. He
cites, in this process, the Greek Hades
(δ) and its possible Hebrew counterpart,
Sheol ( ).
However, when speaking of the Greeks
and employing the Homeric view, he
assumes that those men in Roman Judea
fully know this in the 1st century of our era.
It does not matter to Wesselow to
consider the fact that such a concept was
already, in a way, in disgrace for centuries.
It belonged to the archaic Greek period,
around the 8th or 7th century BC, and that
probably should be rejected by the Jews
due to the total humanization of the divine
pleiad.
It is possible, however, that Platonic
philosophy was known to the upper
classes and that the concept of the
LUMEN ET VIRTUS
REVISTA INTERDISCIPLINAR
DE CULTURA E IMAGEM
V O L . X I I I N º 3 4 J U L H O - D E Z E M B R O / 2 0 2 2
I S S N 2 1 7 7 - 2 7 8 9
Página 157
“Kingdom of the Dead,” the Greek
Hades, not only entered the post-Hellenic
Jewish world in the Septuagint version but
was already part of the effective use of the
collective images of the majority of the
population.
As for Sheol, it should be noted that it
was only the place of the dead, the tomb,
the grave, not necessarily a predetermined
place like the Greek Hades or the
Christian Paradise (as well as Purgatory
and Hell), as the English researcher tries
to impose. That becomes clear, for
example, when we read in Ecclesiastes,
“Remember your Creator in the days of
your youth before the days of sorrow
come [...]. Then the dust returns to the
earth from which it came, and the vital
breath (
16
) returns to God who gave it”
(Eccl 12, 1 and 7).
Thus, the human being, mere God’s
creature, receives from the divinity the
breath of life, his spirit; but, having
reached the end of its life, this ruach returns
to its origin, God; the creature returns to
what he always was, dust, and thus returns
to the place of his origin: the earth ( ).
Genesis also presents this idea:
Then Yahweh God formed man out of
clay from the ground, breathed the
breath of life into his nostrils, and man
became a living being (Gen 2:7).
It can be seen, therefore, that the
afterlife was not a recurring concern of the
16
The Hebrew (ruach) means wind, breath;
translated into Greek, it is πνεμα (pneuma), and
into Latin spiritus.
ancient Hebrews, as it was for the
Egyptians and the Greeks (especially in
the classical period), for example. Instead,
the dead were “reduced to mere shadows
of what they had been” (WESSELOW,
2012, p. 221), since more than appearance,
there would be nothing left for them but
just dust, in addition to the spirit ( –
ruach; πνεμα – pneuma) was not even a
being, but just a breath of life offered by
the divinity. Thus, more than a pale
memory of what was gone in life, or a
shadow in the Homeric model, one is
simply nothing anymore.
Still regarding this post-mortem concept,
even among the Greeks, Orphism and
Plato’s theories were necessary so that
what was known as the afterlife world
could be ordered, establishing the very
notion of the soul: this would no longer
be inserted in the mere world of εδωλον –
mere specters and shadows of what they
were in a limited space, Hades, to become
something like a proto-after-image.
Something similar happened with the
Hebrew concept of Sheol, which was also
built throughout the entire biblical
narrative. That becomes clear when one
verifies the various meanings that the term
has gained over the years: intense place
(Prov 9, 18; Is 57, 9); a place where even
the living can be thrown (Num 16, 33;
Prov 1, 12); place of darkness, where light
is darkness (Job 10, 21-22); a place where
there is neither action nor thought (Eccl 9,
10) and where absolute silence reigns (Ps
LUMEN ET VIRTUS
REVISTA INTERDISCIPLINAR
DE CULTURA E IMAGEM
V O L . X I I I N º 3 4 J U L H O - D E Z E M B R O / 2 0 2 2
I S S N 2 1 7 7 - 2 7 8 9
Página 158
94, 17; Ps 115, 17); though of him it was
said, “Like a cloud that passes away and is
dissolved, he who goes down to the
grave will never come up again; he will
never return to his home” (Job 7, 9-10, our
emphasis), or even “Do not forget: from
death there is no return.” (Sir 38, 21, our
emphasis), it might still be possible, in
exceptional cases, for him to return to
communicate with the living (1Sam 28,
15).
As previously suggested, the afterlife
was not part of the concern of the
Hebrews like other peoples, not in a
dogmatized way like the Egyptians or, in a
certain sense, philosophical like the
Greeks. That, however, begins to change
with the Hellenization of Judea and, in a
particular way, after the translation of the
Septuagint, when the term sheol itself was
translated by hades.
However, one could question whether
this Weltanschauung effectively influenced
those simple men of Galilee in the 1st
century, as suggested by Wesselow. Saint
Paul probably could have had more
effective contact with Platonic ideas since
he used certain Orphic expedients – also
used by Plato – in his letters. That
becomes obvious when, addressing the
Romans (7, 24), he says, “Woe is me! Who
will deliver me from this body of death?”
He was probably an exception among
those rough men from bellicose Galilee.
Just as the Apostle of Tarsus did,
Plato’s ideas will have relevance in
Patristics since many elements of his
thought, especially his theory of ideas and
the eternity of the soul, contributed to
Christians building not only their doctrinal
base, as well as his theology of image.
Wesselow, however, goes further: he
not only tries to subvert the dogma of the
Christian Resurrection but also tries to
transform it into transmigration, that is, a
kind of reincarnation: “If the physical
body is just a temporary place of residence
for the immaterial person, there is the
possibility that, under special
circumstances, the person migrates to
another appropriate place – to another
image.” (WESSELOW, 2012, p. 222)
Therefore, the English author found a
way to explain the possible Resurrection
of the man on the Shroud by saying that
there was a materialization of the image of
the dead man on the cloth. Thus, through
this act, the image of his body and spirit
was imprinted on the cloth. Therefore,
according to Wesselow’s considerations,
what Christians adore as the risen Christ
would be nothing more than the
representation of his image materialized
on the Shroud. That is, the Master of
Nazareth achieved a more extraordinary
prodigy than turning water into wine:
transforming himself in cloth: “The
wrapping of Jesus’ body by the Shroud
would have encouraged the idea of
transferring his soul from flesh to cloth”
(WESSELOW, 2012, p. 227). Would it be
something similar to the dogma of
transubstantiation for Catholics?
To corroborate his thesis, the
researcher uses the word shadow, trying to
approximate this concept to the fact that
the Shroud has a faint image whose
contours were not defined. “Even more
LUMEN ET VIRTUS
REVISTA INTERDISCIPLINAR
DE CULTURA E IMAGEM
V O L . X I I I N º 3 4 J U L H O - D E Z E M B R O / 2 0 2 2
I S S N 2 1 7 7 - 2 7 8 9
Página 159
suggestive, perhaps, is the similarity of the
figure [of the shroud] with a shadow”
(WESSELOW, 2012, p. 225). Later,
however, he denies this: “the figure on the
shroud was not a shadow: it was stable,
revealing characteristic features and
stains” (WESSELOW, 2012, p. 225).
As expected, the author makes one
more of his generalizations: “The belief
that one’s shadow embodies one’s soul or
vitality was widespread in pre-modern
societies and shared by ancient Jews.”
(WESSELOW, 2012, p. 225, our
emphasis) It is interesting to notice that if
we exclude the New Testament and stick
only to the Old Testament to try to trace a
vague idea of how the Hebrew people saw
the concept of the shadow
17
.
We will verify that in the more than
seventy times the word appears, in none of
them do we know the meaning proposed
by Wesselow, but that of shelter from the
sun provided by the canopy of trees (Isa
4,6; Isa 25, 4-5; Job 7,2; Sir 14, 27 ); divine
refuge and protection (Ps 16.8; Ps 35.8; Ps
56.2; Ps 60.5; Ps 62.8; Isa 25 4; Lam 4.20);
the transience of time – vanitas – (Ps 38,
7; Ps 101, 12; Ps 108, 23; Ps 143, 4; Wis
2,5); passage of death (Job 10, 22; Job
12,22, Job 16, 16; Ps 106, 10).
17
I based myself on a version of the Bible in
Portuguese, that of Editora Ave Maria, without
sticking to the Hebrew concept of shadow ().
In this way, to corroborate his
absurdities, the English researcher, in the
use of his generalizations and his lack of
commitment to the object of his study,
uses an image (Figure 1) that would
represent a “symbol as intelligible today as
it was two millennia ago” (WESSELOW,
2012, p. 225)
This statement is refuted, as it implicitly
assumes that there would not be a natural
mutability in the image, just as it occurs
in the language (SAUSSURE, 2006, p. 89).
Moreover, when making this statement,
the author forgets that the meaning of the
imagery itself is refracted since its
reference tends to change over a long time
(BRANDÃO, 2010b, p. 55).
Finally, regarding this engraving, the
English author says:
It is worth comparing the Shroud with
a more recent image, which suggests
the same kind of shadow metaphysics.
When an anonymous 17th-century
engraver wanted to represent the
human soul, he could think of no better
symbol than a mottled silhouette
resting on—or veiled by—a white
sheet. The sign is as intelligible today as
it was two millennia ago.
(WESSELOW, 2012, p. 225, our
emphasis)
LUMEN ET VIRTUS
REVISTA INTERDISCIPLINAR
DE CULTURA E IMAGEM
V O L . X I I I N º 3 4 J U L H O - D E Z E M B R O / 2 0 2 2
I S S N 2 1 7 7 - 2 7 8 9
Página 160
Wesselow not only claims that the
image is intelligible even today – as if it
were, but it is not – but also does not cite
its source and author. Enough for him is,
once again (remember of amateur people,
never of a severe researcher!), to call the
great pedagogue and founder of modern
didactics Johannes Comenius, an
anonymous engraver.
Why ignore the importance of
Orbis
sensualium pictus
, from 1658 – from
which the figure XLII Anima Hominis used
by the English researcher was taken – if
the great Protestant pedagogue sought
with his work to adapt the books to the
need for concreteness and clarity, to
bring children to learn words in various
dead and living languages that through
pictures? (CAMBI, 1999, p. 306)
Perhaps what is intelligible today is the
importance we give to images, which we
do not want to do without them. We are
iconotropic beings; we need images, even
Figure 2
XLII, Anima Hominis, from the work Orbis sensualium pictus, by Comenius
LUMEN ET VIRTUS
REVISTA INTERDISCIPLINAR
DE CULTURA E IMAGEM
V O L . X I I I N º 3 4 J U L H O - D E Z E M B R O / 2 0 2 2
I S S N 2 1 7 7 - 2 7 8 9
Página 161
more so amid our technological society.
Still, to be possible, we need to adjust our
senses during the four or five centuries
that separate us from the Renaissance.
(BRANDÃO, 2009)
It is interesting to see that the English
researcher falls into his trap when – in his
anachronistic and constant criticisms – he
talks about how early Christianity used the
lógos to try to interpret what would be,
according to Wesselow, the imagery view
of the Shroud:
When people want to discover the
meaning of images, they invariably seek
to interpret them through texts, hoping
to replace enigmatic marks with actual
words. It is a risky strategy, and the
early Christian interpretation of the
Shroud through the Hebrew scriptures
represents perhaps the most varying
interpretation of an image in history.
(WESSELOW, 2012, p. 302, our
emphasis)
However, what did the English
researcher do countless times in his book
if not constantly interpreting images
irregularly? Once again, the ignorant
presumption is seen in these words. To
demonstrate this once more, we will go
back to the image Anima Hominis by
Comenius (fig. 1) and see how the author
tries to interpret it. By saying, “a mottled
silhouette resting on — or veiled by — a
white sheet” (WESSELOW, 2012, p. 225),
he demonstrates that he does not even
know the book from which he took the
image, using it probably differently from a
third source. If he knew the original, he
would see that the author did the same in
pictures XXXIX (Caput & Manus – head
and hand), XLII (Sensus externi & interni –
external and internal senses); in addition,
of course, to XLIII (Anima hominis –
human soul). The “sheet,” where the
represented “soul” rests or is veiled, is
nothing more than a resource to highlight
man’s constituent parts.
Not wanting to go on longer than
necessary, despite having already done so,
it should also be noted that the English
author seeks to induce his reader to see the
past through the eyes of the present, as if,
in that Hebrew society of the 1st century of
the Christian Era, it was possible for that
man to see what we see today.
I maintain, unlike Wesselow, that when
the apostles found him and removed the
supposed burial sheet of Christ from the
tomb, they would never see anything but
bloodstains. Hardly would they open it to
see the state of it! Therefore, his removal
from the grave was already a significant
violation of his precepts and culture!
Nevertheless, the researcher, despite
the clear signs of the impossibility of
sustaining his thesis, continues to affirm it,
despite the anachronistic implications of
his statements:
Imagine how Peter felt when, leaving
Jesus’ tomb, he tucked the Shroud
under his arm and hurried along the
cobbled path back to Jerusalem. He
must have been nervous, excited, and
bewildered all at the same time. He had
just witnessed the crucified body of his
beloved leader lying cold and dead, but
he had also found a mysterious figure
glowing in the Shroud, just as the
women had said. Recognizing the
LUMEN ET VIRTUS
REVISTA INTERDISCIPLINAR
DE CULTURA E IMAGEM
V O L . X I I I N º 3 4 J U L H O - D E Z E M B R O / 2 0 2 2
I S S N 2 1 7 7 - 2 7 8 9
Página 162
figure as a sign, a messenger from
beyond the grave, he decided to remove
it from the tomb. Then, as he lifted
the body to remove the cloth,
another figure appeared with its
back to him. (WESSELOW, 2012, p.
286, our emphasis)
It is possible to imagine the
phosphorescent Shroud inside the tomb if
placed this way. It is possible to imagine
the phosphorescent Shroud inside the
tomb, with its “mysterious figure” shining
within the cloth. Moreover, the Shroud
shined under the recumbent body of the
deceased, who should have been soft, not
in a cadaverous rigidity, despite having
been in the tomb for three days. If he were
not that, the disciple would have difficulty
raising the corpse alone. Furthermore, still
in his deconstruction of Peter, the disciple
“of the keys of Heaven,” Wesselow makes
us see the Apostle not as a disciple who
should pay homage to the dead master or
as a pious Jew but as a grave robber who
lives in the underworld, without any
moral, ethical or social limits.
If what the English researcher claims
were reality should, he would have known
that the apostles would never have seen
what we see today on the Shroud. If we
can see the shroud today so clearly, it was
due, in a particular way, to the
photographic negative of the shot taken
by Secondo Pia on May 25, 1898.
If we, accustomed to the Renaissance
unilocular mathematical vision, took so
long to see it, as the Does the Englishman
presume to say that those simple men and
women of the 1st century did so under
such adverse conditions?
Knowing his contradiction, he says:
The Shroud’s peculiar shape would
undoubtedly have created recognition
problems. As if we were looking at the
mediocre negative of a photo of
someone we know, those who knew
Jesus would have to struggle to capture
his features in the blurred image of
inverted tones on the Shroud. They
had to make an unprecedented
mental adjustment: they had to learn
to see the natural, three-dimensional
face of Jesus in the strange spectral
stain on the cloth. (WESSELOW,
2012, p. 266, our emphasis).
More than an “unprecedented mental
adjustment,” they would have had to have
managed to change their entire cognitive
perception, a fact that does not occur in
seconds nor hours, as the author must well
know; it is enough to think of the process
by which it was verified between the
medieval and the Renaissance
(BRANDÃO, 2010a), for example.
To be able to visualize the image of the
Shroud, it is necessary to be at least three
to four meters away, as the English
researcher himself had previously said:
“All the people who have examined the
Shroud closely agree that at a distance of a
little less than two meters, the image of the
body disappears entirely.” (WESSELOW,
2012, p. 112) Therefore, how could the
apostles have seen him “immediately, as a
miraculous sign and a kind of
metaphysical being linked to the dead
man” (WESSELOW, 2012, p. 229)? Or
have they felt “its luminous effect, its fixed
LUMEN ET VIRTUS
REVISTA INTERDISCIPLINAR
DE CULTURA E IMAGEM
V O L . X I I I N º 3 4 J U L H O - D E Z E M B R O / 2 0 2 2
I S S N 2 1 7 7 - 2 7 8 9
Página 163
eyes and its overwhelming presence”
(WESSELOW, 2012, p. 229)?
When one thinks that the researcher
has reached the limit with his eccentric
statements, others arise, such as using a
passage from the New Testament in which
Saint Paul says that more than five
hundred people saw the risen Jesus (1 Cor
15, 6). Trying to find an explanation for
what cannot be explained, Wesselow
states that this apparition was a “public
exhibition of the Shroud” that would have
taken place in “the precincts of the
Temple of Jerusalem” (WESSELOW,
2012, p. 319). Something so inconceivable
that, if it had happened, it is likely that we
would not be here talking about the relic.
Even worse is that the continuation says
that this “scenario is perfectly plausible [...]
the only one that presents a coherent
historical explanation” (WESSELOW,
2012, p. 319)
Another point that the English
researcher evades: what would have been
done with the body of Jesus if it could not
have been separated from his Shroud filled
with his blood which, according to the
same author, was nothing more than “vital
blood” that
In Jewish thought, [is] blood flows
from someone dying (or shortly after
dying); it does not include the loss of
blood while the person is still alive. It
is vital to preserve it because, having
been essential to the body’s life at
the time of death, it will again be
necessary at the time of
resurrection. The blood that comes
out of the body when the person is still
alive does not need to be preserved,
even if it came from injuries that ended
up causing death, because it is not
essential for the person’s life.
(WESSELOW, 2012, p. 139, our
emphasis)
If one depends on the other – the
blood together with the body – for the
future Resurrection of the dead, as the
author states, what can be said about the
abandonment and disregard of Jesus’ body
in the tomb, without this essential and
indispensable part, for his future life?
When the resemblance to Jesus was
recognized, he almost certainly came to
be seen and interpreted as a newly
created vessel into which his person
was transferred, a successor to his
earthly, physical body, which was
returning to dust. (WESSELOW,
2012, p. 229)
Further, he says that the image may
have resulted from a chemical reaction
between the shroud and the decomposing
body (WESSELOW, 2012, p. 248). If the
decomposition process had started, it
would be difficult for the disciples to enter
the tomb since nothing else could have
been done: neither preparing the honors
due to the deceased nor touching the
body, much less removing the shroud that
covered it.
Next, the author contradicts the
statement by stating that.
The very existence of the Shroud is
proof that Jesus’ tomb was visited
shortly after his burial. However,
despite its intended function, the cloth
was not wrapped around the body:
someone removed it after only a short
LUMEN ET VIRTUS
REVISTA INTERDISCIPLINAR
DE CULTURA E IMAGEM
V O L . X I I I N º 3 4 J U L H O - D E Z E M B R O / 2 0 2 2
I S S N 2 1 7 7 - 2 7 8 9
Página 164
period, before the beginning of
decomposition. (WESSELOW, 2012,
p. 255)
Since there is no way to support his
argument as to the fate of the body, he
says, “There is no plausible explanation
for the supposed disappearance of Jesus’
body.” (WESSELOW, 2012, p. 259) That
presupposes the commonplace of the
police: “There is no body, there is no
crime,” so it would be easier to say that
Jesus was one more legend, among many
others, that arose in the East.
Probably anticipating such a challenge,
the researcher then states, “it is likely that
the body of Jesus had remained in the
tomb [...] it would have been shrouded
again and left [...] to decomposition.”
(WESSELOW, 2012, p. 260)
I have to ask the following question:
how would it be possible to see anything
on the cloth in a cramped tomb, without
light, beyond the bloodstains that must
have soaked through some parts of it if to
visualize the shroud, it is necessary to be
close to more than three meters from
where he is? Furthermore, why would they
defile the body by removing the Shroud
that should already be glued to it due to
the post-mortem blood coagulation that
gushed from the wounds? Moreover, if the
body decomposes as the same author had
suggested, parts of the skin will stick to the
cloth! If not all this were enough, how
would it be possible to carry out the entire
burial process without removing the body
from the tomb? To answer this, one more
reinterpretation of the author of the
Jewish-Christians doctrine when he states
that, for Saint Paul, the “flesh and blood
of Jesus did not play any role in the
Resurrection.” (WESSELOW, 2012, p.
260)
It is seen, therefore, that the researcher,
when trying to destroy the Christian
doctrine to build his own, employs a
practice that is not scientific; even for
science, certain limits cannot be crossed,
such as those imposed by faith, for
example. It is not up to me (nor is it my
intention in this essay) to try to prove or
not the integrity of the Shroud of Turin
since I am only armed with the tools
available in the Human Sciences, of which
I am a part, that is, I only have books and
images for that.
It is only up to me to look for clues that
can seek, at most, in the traces of what
history has relegated to us, and for this, the
history of art proves to be of great value.
It is not up to any researcher to make
frivolous and meaningless statements
using hypotheses that he cannot prove.
LUMEN ET VIRTUS
REVISTA INTERDISCIPLINAR
DE CULTURA E IMAGEM
V O L . X I I I N º 3 4 J U L H O - D E Z E M B R O / 2 0 2 2
I S S N 2 1 7 7 - 2 7 8 9
Página 165
BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES
AGOSTINHO, Santo. Confissões (Os pensadores). São Paulo: Nova Cultural, 1996.
________. O livre-arbítrio. São Paulo: Paulus, 1995.
ANTIOQUIA, Inácio de. Padres apostólicos
.
São Paulo: Paulus, 2013.
AUERBACH, Erich. Mimesis: the representation of reality in Western literature. Princeton
& London: Princeton University Press, 2013.
BARREDA, Pere-Enric. VILLELA, Josep. “¿Cánones del Concilio de Elvira o Cánones
Pseudoiliberritanos?”, in Augustinianum. Roma: Patristic Institut Augustinianum, 2006.
BELTING, Hans. Imagen y culto: una historia de la imagen anterior a la edad del arte.
Madrid: Akal, 2009.
BESANÇON, Alain. La imagen proihibida: una historia intelectual de la iconoclastia.
Madrid: Siruela, 2003.
BÍBLIA SAGRADA: Edição Pastoral. São Paulo: Paulinas, 1990.
BRANDÃO, Antônio Jackson S. “Aspectos da linguagem fotográfica: do Renascimento à
era digital”, in Travessias, v.3, Cascavel, 2009.
______. “Da iconologia à iconofotologia: uma mudança paradigmática”, in Ghrebh, v. 15,
São Paulo, 2010a.
_______. “Tränen des Vaterlandes: a guerra numa leitura iconofotológica”, in Lumen et
Virtus, v. 1, Embu-Guaçu, 2010b.
CAMBI, Franco. História da pedagogia. São Paulo: Editora da UNESP, 1999.
DAMON, P. E. et alii. “Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin”, in Nature (vol. 337,
nr. 6208), London, 1989.
ECO, Umberto. Como fazer uma tese. São Paulo: Perspectiva, 1991.
EUSÉBIO DE CESAREIA. História Eclesiástica. São Paulo: Paulus, 2000.
FRALE, Barbara. Os templários e o Sudário de Cristo. Lisboa: Edições 70, 2010
HELLER, John. O sudário de Turim. Rio de Janeiro: José Olympio, 1986.
HOMERO. Odisseia (tradução de Trajano Vieira). São Paulo: Editora 34, 2012.
LE GOFF, Jacques. História e memória. Campinas: Editora da Unicamp, 1990.
LEVI-STRAUSS, Claude. Mito e significado. Lisboa: Edições 70, 1987.
IRINEU DE LIÃO. Contra as heresias. São Paulo: Paulus, 1995.
JAFFÉ, Aniela. “O simbolismo nas artes plásticas”. In JUNG, Carl Gustav. O homem e
seus símbolos. Rio de Janeiro: Nova Fronteira, 2008.
JUNG, Carl Gustav. Psicologia e religião. Petrópolis: Vozes, 1978.
MORIN, Edgar. Ciência com consciência. Rio de Janeiro: Bertrand Brasil, 2013
PANOFSKY, Erwin. Significado nas artes visuais. São Paulo: Perspectiva. 2004.
PRAZ, Mário. Literatura e artes visuais. São Paulo: Cultrix, 1982.
SILVA NETO SOBRINHO, Paulo da. “Sudário: relíquia verdadeira ou falsificação
medieval?”, in Espiritismo & Ciência Especial (nº 51). São Paulo: Mythos, 2011.
LUMEN ET VIRTUS
REVISTA INTERDISCIPLINAR
DE CULTURA E IMAGEM
V O L . X I I I N º 3 4 J U L H O - D E Z E M B R O / 2 0 2 2
I S S N 2 1 7 7 - 2 7 8 9
Página 166
VAZ, Henrique C. de Lima. “Unidade e diferença: linguagem e verdade na ciência e na fé”.
In Revista magis: Cadernos de fé e cultura. Rio de Janeiro: PUC/Rio, 1995.
WESSELOW, Thomas de. O sinal: o santo sudário de o segredo da ressurreição. São Paulo:
Paralela, 2012.
WILSON, Ian. O Santo Sudário. São Paulo: Melhoramentos, 1979.
i