Another possible indirect reference to the post-resurrection shroud is in Acts 1:3.
Acts 1:3 (KJV)
To whom also he showed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
“Infallible proof” is tekmērion (τεκμήριον).
The word is used only once in the Bible.
Definition of tekmērion:
– that from which something is surely and plainly known
– on indubitable evidence, a proof
Tekmērion – a necessarily valid sign. “On Rhetoric” 1.2.16: “In the case of signs [sēmeia], some are related as the particular to the universal, some as the universal to the particular. Of these, a necessary sign is a tekmērion”
A subset of signs (sēmeia), a tekmērion is necessary in forming a “[logically valid] syllogism” (Aristotle 43). It is an irrefutable sign and relates the universal to the particular (whereas sēmeia inversely relate the particular to the universal, and therefore are refutable); for example, “if someone were to state that there is a sign that someone is sick, for he has a fever, or that a woman has given birth, for she has milk, that is a necessary sign” (Aristotle 43). And “to denote ‘proof’ Pernot groups tekmērion with the other Greek pistis, eikos, and sēmeion.” To chart the semantic transfer of terms, he notes that Latin uses “argumentum, probabile, signum [to denote proof] without precisely matching one Latin word to one Greek word, but bringing into play resources proper to the Latin language.” Moreover, he states that Latin words “often took over the meanings of the Greek they were matching … [and] it was from Latin that the rhetorical terminology of modern Western languages mostly derived” (103–104).
“many” is polys (πολύς).
It can be translated as many, much, great, large, strong.
Words that start with poly:
Other translations of the passage:
To them also He showed Himself alive after His passion (His suffering in the garden and on the cross) by [a series of] many convincing demonstrations [unquestionable evidences and infallible proofs], appearing to them during forty days and talking [to them] about the things of the kingdom of God.
To them he presented himself alive after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.
To whom also He presented Himself alive after His suffering by many irrefutable proofs, appearing to them through [a period of] forty days and speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God.
By many proofs he revealed himself to these men as still alive after his sufferings; for he was seen by them for forty days and spoke of things relating to the kingdom of God.
After he had suffered and died on the cross, he became alive again. As he appeared to them often during the next forty days, the apostles saw him many times. He proved to them in many ways that he was alive again. He talked with them about how God would rule [MET] the lives of people who accepted him as their king.
So, what are the many infallible proofs?
The most obvious candidate are the eyewitness accounts of seeing Jesus again after he died. But this is just one line of evidence, unless you consider the multitude of eyewitnesses as multiple lines of evidence.
Another way to interpret the passage is the risen Jesus did many things to prove he was alive and was not just a hallucination (eg he could eat, he could be touched). But, this would only apply to those who witnessed it.
I think there could be more to it than these. With the shroud, it could be the additional proof. It is evidence for people who did not see the risen Jesus.
The passage hints there was a general skepticism of Jesus being alive again, even by the disciples. It required “many infallible proofs” to be demonstrated. People in the first century knew that dead people don’t come back to life, especially after a brutal torture and crucifixion. Would hearing the testimony from someone else that they saw Jesus alive be convincing? Obviously in all the debates we hear about the resurrection of Jesus, skeptics today do not readily accept this. Why should people in the past be any different? For many, unless they see something with their own eyes, it can be difficult to accept. The shroud would be something they could see with their own eyes.