Sunday, November 23, 2014

Servant of the priest (3): Turin Shroud Encyclopedia

Turin Shroud Encyclopedia
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

Servant of the priest (3)

This is entry #9, part 3, of my "Turin Shroud Encyclopedia," about

[Above: The Apostle John, depicted in the Book of Kells, c. 800[2]. It is my proposal in this post that the Apostle John was "the servant of the priest" to whom the risen Jesus gave His burial shroud [sindon], which is the Shroud of Turin.]

the term "servant of the priest," preserved in a fragment by St. Jerome (c.347–420), from the late first/early second century, "Gospel of the Hebrews," that "the Lord [Jesus] had given the linen cloth [sindon][3] to the servant of the priest":

"The Gospel that is called `according to the Hebrews,' which I have recently translated into both Greek and Latin, a Gospel that Origen frequently used, records the following after the Savior's resurrection: `But when the Lord had given the linen cloth to the servant of the priest, he went and appeared to James.' (Jerome, Illustrious Men, 2)"[4].

It is a continuation of entry #9(2), "Servant of the priest (2)" in which, by way of introduction I stated:

"Several early Christian writings recorded that the resurrected Jesus gave His shroud to different individuals. The earliest and most highly regarded of these writings, the late first/early second century The Gospel of the Hebrews, recorded that after His resurrection Jesus gave his shroud [sindon] to "the servant of the priest." Since it seems unlikely that the risen Jesus would give His shroud indirectly to the High Priest, Caiaphas (r. 18–36), , who was the driving force behind Jesus' crucifixion (Mt 26:3-5,57-66; Jn 11:49-53), other explanations have been sought. It has been suggested that the original text had "Peter" but it had become corrupted by a copyist's error. Another possibility is that he was Malchus, `the servant of the High Priest,' who was in the party sent to arrest Jesus, and whose right ear Peter had cut off but Jesus had miraculously healed it (Mt 26:51; Mk 14:47; Lk 22:50-51; Jn 18:10), and so Malchus became a Christian. But both these possibilities have major problems."

Because of its length I had to split that entry into three parts. This is the first installment of this entry. For more information about this Encyclopedia series, see the Main Index "A-Z", and sub-indexes "S", "C," and "D."

[Main index] [Previous #9 (2)] [Next #10]


Introduction. A third possibility, which seems not to have been previously considered, is that "the servant of the priest" was the Apostle John, of whom there is historical and Biblical evidence that he was a priest and that he may have even been a servant in the High Priest's household. This latter possibility, that Jesus took His Shroud with Him out of the empty tomb and later gave it to the Apostle John, seems the most likely.

The "servant of the priest" was the Apostle John?

There is historical evidence that the Apostle John was a Jewish priest. Early Church historian Eusebius (c. 260-340) quoted from a letter by Polycrates (c.130–196), a Bishop of Ephesus, who wrote that "John, who rested upon the bosom of our Lord; who also was a priest, and bore the sacerdotal plate (petalon)":

"THE bishops, however, of Asia, persevering in observing the custom handed down to them from their fathers, were headed by Polycrates. He, indeed, had also set forth the tradition handed down to them, in a letter which he addressed to Victor and the church of Rome. `We,' said he, `therefore, observe the genuine day; neither adding thereto nor taking therefrom. For in Asia great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again in the day of the Lord's appearing, in which he will come with glory from heaven, and will raise up all the saints; Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who sleeps in Hierapolis, and his two aged virgin daughters. His other daughter, also, who having lived under the influence of the Holy Ghost, now likewise rests in Ephesus. Moreover, John, who rested upon the bosom of our Lord; who also was a priest, and bore the sacerdotal plate (petalon), both a martyr and teacher. He is buried in Ephesus; also Polycarp of Smyrna, both bishop and martyr'"[5]

New Testament scholar Leon Morris (1914-2006), commenting on Jn 18:15-16, that John "was known to the high priest," considers this historical evidence (and Biblical evidence that John came from a priestly family) as supporting "that John was a priest":

"John seems to have come of a priestly family. The woman Salome, who stood by the cross of Jesus, appears to have been his mother, as a comparison of Mark 15:40 and Matt. 27:56 shows. John does not mention Salome, nor his own mother specifically, but he does speak of the Virgin Mary's sister (John 19:25) in such a way as to lead to the conclusion that she is Salome. Now Mary was related to Elizabeth (Luke 1:36) who is called one `of the daughters of Aaron' (Luke 1:5). Salome thus had priestly connections. The conclusion is that John was of a priestly family and could well have come in contact with the high priest in connection with his priestly duties. This is supported by the passage in the letter of Polycrates (c. 190 A.D.) which says that John `was a priest wearing to petalon (Eusebius HE, III. xxxi, 3). ... Polycrates certainly supports the view that John was a priest"[6]

There would surely be no contradiction in the first century by a priest being also a fisherman. After the settlement of Canaan in the 13th century BC[7], provision was made for priests to supplement support for themselves and their families by agriculture:

"Provision for support. - This consisted - 1. Of one tenth of the tithes which the people paid to the Levites, i. e. one per cent. on the whole produce of the country. Num. 18:26-28. 2. Of a special tithe every third year. Deut. 14:28; 26:12. 3. Of the redemption money, paid at the fixed rate of five shekels a head, for the first-born of man or beast. Num. 18:14-19. 4. Of the redemption money paid in like manner for men or things specially dedicated to the Lord. Lev. 27. 5. Of spoil, captives, cattle and the like, taken in war. Num. 31:25-47. 6. Of the shewbread, the flesh of the burnt offerings, peace offerings, trespass offerings, Lev. 6:26, 29; 7:6-10; Num. 18:8-14, and in particular the heave-shoulder and the wave-breast. Lev. 10:12-15. 7. Of an undefined amount of the first-fruits of corn, wine and oil. Ex. 23:19; Lev. 2:14; Deut. 26:1-10. 8. On their settlement in Canaan the priestly families had thirteen cities assigned them, with `suburbs' or pasture-grounds for their flocks. Josh. 21:13-19. These provisions were obviously intended to secure the religion of Israel against the dangers of a caste of pauper priests, needy and dependent, and unable to bear their witness to the true faith"[8].

However by the first century, not only the huge growth in the number of priests in proportion to the population of Israel:

"Numbers. - If we may accept the numbers given by Jewish writers as at all trustworthy, the proportion of the priesthood to the population of Palestine, during the last century of their existence as an order, must have been far greater than that of the clergy has ever been in any Christian nation. Over and above those that were scattered in the country and took their turn, there were not fewer than 24,000 stationed permanently at Jerusalem, and 12,000 at Jericho"[9],

but also that Israel had been under Roman occupation since 63 BC with the Jews since then having been forced to pay heavy taxes to Rome[10], would surely mean that most priests in Jesus' day would have needed to work in secular occupations in order to survive.

To be continued with the second installment of this entry #9 (3).

Notes
1. This post is copyright. No one may copy from it or any of my posts on this my The Shroud of Turin blog without them first asking and receiving my written permission. Except that I grant permission, without having to ask me, for anyone to copy the title and one paragraph only (including one graphic) of any of my posts, provided that they include a reference to the title of, and a hyperlink to, that post from which it came. [return]
2. "John the Apostle," Wikipedia, 12 November 2014. [return]
3. Green, M., 1969, "Enshrouded in Silence: In search of the First Millennium of the Holy Shroud," Ampleforth Journal, Vol. 74, Autumn, pp.319-345. [return]
4. Ehrman B.D., 2003, "Lost Scriptures: Books that Did not Make It into the New Testament," Oxford University Press: New York NY, p.16. [return]
5. Eusebius, "The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus," Cruse, C.F., transl., 1955, Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Fourth printing, 1966, Book V, Chapter xxiv, p.208. [return]
6. Morris, L.L., 1971, "The Gospel According to John," The New International Commentary on the New Testament," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, Reprinted, 1984, p.752. [return]
7. Holden, J.M. & Geisler, N., 2013, "The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible," Harvest House Publishers: Eugene OR, p.192. [return]
8. Peloubet, F.N. & M.A., eds, 1990, "Smith's Bible Dictionary," [1863], Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, 1987, Revised, p.533. [return]
9. Ibid. [return]
10. "Siege of Jerusalem (63 BC)," Wikipedia, 7 November 2014. [return]

Updated: 23 November, 2014.

Saturday, November 15, 2014

Servant of the priest (2): Turin Shroud Encyclopedia

Turin Shroud Encyclopedia
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

Servant of the priest (2)

This is entry #9, part (2), of my "Turin Shroud Encyclopedia," about

[Above: "Apostle Peter striking the High Priests' servant Malchus with a sword in the Garden of Gethsemane," Giuseppe Cesari (1568–1640), c. 1597][2]]

the term "servant of the priest," preserved in a fragment by St. Jerome (c.347–420), from the late first/early second century, "Gospel of the Hebrews," that "the Lord [Jesus] had given the linen cloth [sindon][3] to the servant of the priest":

"The Gospel that is called `according to the Hebrews,' which I have recently translated into both Greek and Latin, a Gospel that Origen frequently used, records the following after the Savior's resurrection: `But when the Lord had given the linen cloth to the servant of the priest, he went and appeared to James.' (Jerome, Illustrious Men, 2)"[4].

It is a continuation of entry #9, "Servant of the priest (1)" in which, by way of introduction I stated:

"The Gospels don't record that Jesus' burial shroud [sindon] was in the empty tomb. Indeed, despite the desire by most Shroud pro-authenticists to place the Shroud in the empty tomb, included among the othonia, or even as the soudarion, both mentioned in Jn 20:5-7, the evidence is that sindon wasn't there. What Peter and John saw in the empty tomb, as recorded in Luke 24:12 and John 20:5-7, was the linen strips [othonia] which had bound [edesan] Jesus' hands and feet and the spices (Jn 19:40), as well as the sweat-cloth [soudarion] (the Sudarium of Oviedo) which had been on [epi] Jesus head, but no Shroud [sindon]. From seeing this arrangement of the othonia and soudarion but no sindon, John believed that Jesus had risen from the dead (Jn 20:6-9). A reconstruction of Jesus' resurrection and its immediate aftermath in the tomb is proposed."

Because of its length I have had to split that entry into three parts, entry #9(1), this entry #9(2) and next entry #9(3). For more information about this Encyclopedia series, see the Main Index "A-Z", and sub-indexes "S", "C," and "D."

[Main index] [Previous #9(1)] [Next #9(3)]


Introduction. Several early Christian writings recorded that the resurrected Jesus gave His shroud to different individuals. The earliest and most highly regarded of these writings, the late first/early second century The Gospel of the Hebrews, recorded that after His resurrection Jesus gave his shroud [sindon] to "the servant of the priest." Since it seems unlikely that the risen Jesus would give His shroud indirectly to the High Priest, Caiaphas (r. 18–36), , who was the driving force behind Jesus' crucifixion (Mt 26:3-5,57-66; Jn 11:49-53), other explanations have been sought. It has been suggested that the original text had "Peter" but it had become corrupted by a copyist's error. Another possibility is that he was Malchus, "the servant of the High Priest," who was in the party sent to arrest Jesus, and whose right ear Peter had cut off but Jesus had miraculously healed it (Mt 26:51; Mk 14:47; Lk 22:50-51; Jn 18:10), and so Malchus became a Christian. But both these possibilities have major problems. A third possibility, that "the servant of the priest" was the Apostle John, will be considered next in entry #11, part (3).

Several early Christian writings recorded that the resurrected Jesus gave His shroud to different individuals. In the second century several early Christian writings stated that Jesus' shroud had been saved from the tomb and was given to different individuals. These texts "show us that second century writers knew about the Shroud in their day. They disagree about who saved it from the tomb, but they agree that it had been saved":

"In the second century (about 100-200 A.D.), several accounts were written about the life of Christ. These biographies are similar to the Gospel accounts in the Bible. For various reasons the early Church Fathers did not include them among the `official' texts of the Bible. Some of these writings contain incorrect religious teachings; some are just copies of the Gospels with a few additions. Hence we have called them `unofficial.' The usual word for these books is `apocryphal' or `hidden' books. But because they were excluded from the Bible does not mean that they are utterly false. They agree with the Gospels on many points. As books actually written in the second century, they are valuable source materials for that time. Most importantly, these texts say that Jesus' shroud was removed from the tomb and saved. Writers of the second century, therefore, knew of the existence of this sheet in their own day. The first of these apocryphal books is called the Gospel of the Hebrews. The author is anonymous (unknown) as is the case with all these apocryphal books. We have only fragments from it, for most of it has been lost over the centuries. One key surviving passage says, `After the Lord gave his shroud to the servant of the priest [or of Peter; the actual word is not clear], he appeared to James:' The Acts of Pilate is another apocryphal book of the second century. It states that Pilate and his wife preserved the shroud of Jesus. It suggests that they were sorry for their part in his death and were now Christians. These two books, along with the Gospel of Peter, The Acts of Nicodemus, and The Gospel of Gamaliel, show us that second century writers knew about the Shroud in their day. They disagree about who saved it from the tomb, but they agree that it had been saved. The silence of the `official' Biblical stories about the preservation of the shroud is countered by these books"[5].

The Gospel of the Hebrews recorded that after His resurrection Jesus gave his shroud [sindon] to "the servant of the priest." As we saw above, St. Jerome in the fourth century quoted from the now lost, The Gospel of the Hebrews, that Jesus after His resurrection gave His shroud [sindon] to "the servant of the priest." This Gospel of the Hebrews stemmed from very early Judeo-Christian circles, at the end of the first, or the beginning of the second, century[6]. The gospel was originally written in Hebrew letters but its language was Aramaic[7], which was the language of Jesus[8] and the earliest Church (Jn 5:2; 19:13,17,20; 20:16). The early Church Father, St. Ignatius, who died in 107, cited a passage about the resurrection that might have been from a Greek translation of this gospel[9]. Quotations from other early Christian writings prove that the Gospel of the Hebrews definitely existed in the middle of the second century (c. 150), and therefore it is possible that it originated even earlier[10]. Since the four canonical gospels do not say what happened to Jesus' burial cloths at or after their discovery by Peter and John in the otherwise empty tomb (Lk 24:12; Jn 20:4-9), this reference in the Gospel of the Hebrews is the earliest to Jesus' shroud having been saved[11]. Many of the Church Fathers held that the Gospel of the Hebrews was the original Hebrew version of Matthew's Gospel[12]. Great authority was attributed to this gospel among the Christians of the earliest centuries, and so it was the common early belief that Jesus' shroud had been preserved[13]. Even if it is unclear who "the servant of the priest" was, this account is evidence that in very early Jewish-Christian circles, it was known that Jesus' sindon was saved from the tomb by Jesus[14].

As it is unlikely the risen Jesus would give His shroud indirectly to the High Priest, other explanations have been sought. Since it seems unlikely that the risen Jesus would give His shroud indirectly to the High Priest, Caiaphas, who was the driving force behind Jesus' crucifixion (Mt 26:3-5,57-66; Jn 11:49-53), other explanations have been sought[15].

The "servant of the priest" was the Apostle Peter? Oxford barrister John Theodore Dodd (1848-1934)[16] in 1931[17] conjectured that the original text of the Gospel of the Hebrews had Petro ("Peter") but a copyist mistook it for puero "servant" in Latin[18]. The original reading would then have been "the Lord had given the linen cloth to Peter"[19] but the copyist mistakenly copied it as, "the Lord had given the linen cloth to the servant." Then another copyist assumed that by "the servant ," the "servant of the High Priest" in Mark 14:47 was meant, so he added "of the priest" after "servant""[20], thus arriving at the "Lord had given the linen cloth to the servant of the priest." To support his conjecture, Dodd appealed to a Latin translation of the Bible, Codex Bobiensis, which had the shorter ending of Mark[21]:

"8 But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation"[22]
and in that passage a copyist had mistakenly translated Petros ("Peter") as puero ("servant")[23].

But while Dodd's conjecture is superficially attractive because 1Cor 15:5-7 & Lk 24:33-34 record an appearance of the risen Jesus to Peter before He appeared to James[24], it is highly unlikely, if not impossible[25]. First, in Mark 14:47 and its parallel passages Mt 26:51; Lk 22:50 & Jn 18:10 the title is "the servant of the high priest." If Dodd's conjecture were true, the second copyist would have added not just "servant of" before first copyist's error "priest" but "servant of the high." Second, Mark's gospel was written in Greek but the Gospel of the Hebrews was written in Aramaic with Hebrew letters, but Codex Bobiensis is a Latin translation[26]. What Dodd needed to show was a plausible way to get from, "the Lord had given the linen cloth to Peter" to, "the Lord had given the linen cloth to the servant of the [high] priest" in Aramaic/Hebrew. That would require one copyist substituting "Kepha" ("Peter") with "ebed" ("servant") and then another copyist adding "[of the] cohen ("priest")[27]. But as can be seen, this fails at the first substitution because "Kepha" looks and sounds nothing like "ebed"[28]. After an exhaustive linguistic analysis of Dodd's conjecture, Diana Fulbright concluded:

"There are so many obvious problems with this spurious `solution' that it is difficult to understand why anyone would ever have taken it seriously, but it is still cited, after almost eighty years"[29]

The "servant of the priest" was Malchus, "the servant of the High Priest"? Another possibility is that "the servant of the priest" was Malchus, "the servant of the High Priest," who was in the party sent to arrest Jesus, and whose right ear Peter had cut off but Jesus had miraculously healed it (Mt 26:51; Mk 14:47; Lk 22:50-51; Jn 18:10). I am not aware that anyone else had proposed this and I am only presenting it for completeness, not because I believe it to be true. This gets around the original objection that it would be unlikely that the risen Jesus would give His shroud indirectly to the High Priest, by the addition of the claim of leading New Testament scholar Richard Bauckham that Malchus became a Christian[30]. It could then be argued that Malchus would not pass on Jesus' shroud to the High Priest, but to one of the Apostles, such as Peter or John. Here are the relevant quotes from Bauckham's "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony" (2006). Bauckham asks, "Why should" insignificant persons such as "Simon of Cyrene be named?" Why did "John alone" identify "the man who cut off the ear of the high priest's slave as Peter, and the slave himself as Malchus":

"There is one phenomenon in the Gospels that has never been satisfactorily explained. It concerns names. Many characters in the Gospels are unnamed, but others are named. I want to suggest now the possibility that many of these named characters were eyewitnesses who not only originated the traditions to which their names are attached but also continued to tell these stories as authoritative guarantors of their traditions. In some cases the Evangelists may well have known them. ... Public persons ... would have been known apart from the story of Jesus (John the Baptist, Herod, Herodias, Caiaphas, Pilate, presumably Barabbas) are usually named. The beneficiaries in stories of Jesus' healings and exorcisms are usually unnamed. Persons who encounter Jesus on one occasion and do not become disciples are usually unnamed. Some of the unnamed persons are so insignificant in the narratives that we would not normally expect them to be named. ... Why should one of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus be named (Cleopas) and the other not? ... Why should Simon of Cyrene be named? There are also cases where a person who is anonymous in one Gospel is named in another. For example, John alone identifies the woman who anoints Jesus as Mary of Bethany, the man who cut off the ear of the high priest's slave as Peter, and the slave himself as Malchus."[31].

Bauckham anticipates a possible objection that the naming of previously unnamed characters was "a novelistic tendency" citing "the case of Malchus":

"Finally, John names four characters who do not appear at all in the Synoptics (Nathanael, Nicodemus, Lazarus, and Mary of Clopas) and also gives a name to one character who is anonymous in the other Gospels, the high priest's slave Malchus. Even if we add that John identifies who cut off Malchus's ear, anonymous in the Synoptics, with Peter, and the woman who anointed Jesus, unnamed in the other Gospels, with Mary of Bethany (12:3), herself known also in Luke, this does not provide strong evidence of a counter-tendency to invent names for characters who had been anonymous at earlier stages of the tradition. After all, John still has quite a number of unnamed characters. Why should he have been influenced by a novelistic tendency to name unnamed characters in the case of Malchus but not in the cases of the Samaritan woman, the paralyzed man, or the man born blind, all of whom are much more prominent characters than Malchus?"[32].

Bauckham proposed "an explanation that could account for [almost] all the names" which was "that all these people" including Malchus "joined the early Christian movement and were well known":

"The phenomena described in Table 5 have never been satisfactorily explained as a whole, but an explanation that could account for all the names there except for Jesus' father Joseph and the names in Luke's birth and infancy narratives is that all these people joined the early Christian movement and were well known at least in the circles in which these traditions were first transmitted. This explanation has occasionally been suggested for some of the names, such as Bartimaeus, Simon of Cyrene and his sons ... Mary Magdalene and the sisters Martha and Mary. But these piecemeal uses of the explanation can well be superseded by the proposal that this explanation provides a comprehensive hypothesis to account for all or most of these names. ... In fact, they comprise just the range of people we should expect to have formed these earliest Christian groups: some who had been healed by Jesus (Bartimaeus, the women in Luke 8:2-3, perhaps Malchus) ... It is striking how many of these people can be localized in or near Jerusalem ... this would also be true of Bartimaeus, Malchus, Simon of Cyrene and his sons, Zacchaeus, and (after the resurrection) Jesus' brother James and probably other relatives. So they would have been known in the Jerusalem church where stories in which they are named were first told"[33].

However, while this is evidence that Malchus did become a Christian, presumably by the experience of having had his severed ear healed by Jesus (see above), this does not explain why Jesus would give His shroud to Malchus, for him to presumably pass it on to one of Jesus' Apostles, such as Peter or John, rather than Jesus simply give it to one of His Apostles direct (see next). But as we shall see, the previous objection that Malchus' title was "the servant of the high priest" but the Gospel of the Hebrews stated that Jesus had given His shroud to "the servant of the priest" does not apply to this or the next possibility. Because unlike the first possibility, Dodd's conjecture, it is not the case of copyists altering a text to make it conform to the Gospels' "the servant of the High Priest" (see above). And the Jewish High Priest was commonly called "the Priest" for short.

Concluded in entry #9, part (3).

Notes
1. This post is copyright. No one may copy from it or any of my posts on this my The Shroud of Turin blog without them first asking and receiving my written permission. Except that I grant permission, without having to ask me, for anyone to copy the title and one paragraph only (including one graphic) of any of my posts, provided that they include a reference to the title of, and a hyperlink to, that post from which it came. [return]
2. "Saint Peter," Wikipedia, 12 November 2014. [return]
3. Green, M., 1969, "Enshrouded in Silence: In search of the First Millennium of the Holy Shroud," Ampleforth Journal, Vol. 74, Autumn, pp.319-345. [return]
4. Ehrman B.D., 2003, "Lost Scriptures: Books that Did not Make It into the New Testament," Oxford University Press: New York NY, p.16. [return]
5. Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.74. [return]
6. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, pp.87, 142 n206a. [return]
7. Guscin, M., 2004, "The History of the Sudarium of Oviedo: How It Came from Jerusalem to Northern Spain in the Seventh Century A.D., Edwin Mellen Press: Lewiston NY, p.17. Also Guscin, M., 2012, "The History of the Shroud: Part One – Before the Thirteenth Century," 1st International Congress on the Holy Shroud in Spain - Valencia," Centro Español de Sindonologia (CES), April 28-30, 2012, Valencia, Spain. [return]
8. Dickinson, I., 1990, "The Shroud and the Cubit Measure," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 24, January, p.10. [return]
9. Guscin, 2004, p.17 & Guscin, 2012. [return]
10. Ibid. [return]
11. Ibid. [return]
12. Schonfield, H., 1932, "Historical Supplement," in Proszynski, K. & Schonfield, H., ed., "The Authentic Photograph of Christ: His Face, and Whole Figure as Marvellously Appearing on the Shroud which was Thrown Over His Body after the Crucifixion," The Search Publishing Co Ltd: London, p.54. [return]
13. Savio, P., 1982, "Sindonological Prospectus," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 5, December, pp.11-21, p.11. [return]
14. Bulst, 1957, p.142 n206a. [return]
15. Fulbright, D., 2010, "Did Jesus give his Shroud to `the servant of Peter'?," Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Scientific approach to the Acheiropoietos Images, ENEA Frascati, Italy, 4-6 May 2010. [return]
16. Fulbright, 2010. Not leading New Testament scholar C.H. (Charles Harold) Dodd (1884–1973) as assumed by Guscin, 2004, p.18 & 2012, following Green (1969), who was in turn following Schonfield's (1932, p.55) inadequate reference of just "Dodd." [return]
17. Dodd, J.T., 1931, "The Appearance of Jesus to 'The Priest's Servant,' as Recorded in the Gospel of the Hebrews and 'The Holy Shroud,'" The Commonwealth, October, pp.189-194; in Fulbright, 2010. [return]
18. Guscin, 2004, p.18 & Guscin, 2012. [return]
19. Schonfield, 1932, p.55. [return]
20. Ibid. [return]
21. Ibid. [return]
22. "Mark 16," Wikipedia, 30 October 20142. [return]
23. Schonfield, 1932, p.55. [return]
24. Ibid. [return]
25. Guscin, 2004, p.18 & Guscin, 2012. [return]
26. Guscin, 2004, pp.18-19 & Guscin, 2012. [return]
27. Fulbright, 2010. [return]
28. Ibid. [return]
29. Fulbright, 2010. [return]
30. Bauckham, R.J., 2006, "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, pp.46-47. [return]
31. Bauckham, 2006, pp.38-40. [return]
32. Bauckham, 2006, p.43. [return]
33. Bauckham, 2006, pp.45-46. [return]

Updated: 23 November, 2014.

Thursday, November 6, 2014

Servant of the priest (1): Turin Shroud Encyclopedia

Turin Shroud Encyclopedia
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

Servant of the priest (1)

This is entry #9(1), of my "Turin Shroud Encyclopedia," about the term "servant of the priest" (part 1). It is a continuation of what I wrote in my last post in this series, entry #8:

"I will present the evidence in my next post in this series, entry #9(2), that Jesus did in fact give His sindon to "the servant of the priest," as preserved in this very early account in The Gospel of the Hebrews."

Because of its length I have had to split this entry #9 into three parts, this entry (1), and also (2) and (3). For more information about this series, see the Main Index "A-Z", and sub-indexes "S", "C," and "D."

[Main index] [Previous #8] [Next #9(2)]

[Above: "Jesus Heals Malchus, the High Priest's Servant":

"50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. 51 But Jesus answered, `No more of this!' And he touched the man's ear and healed him." Luke 22:50-51[2].]


Introduction. The Gospels don't record that Jesus' burial shroud [sindon] was in the empty tomb. Indeed, despite the desire by most Shroud pro-authenticists to place the Shroud in the empty tomb, included among the othonia, or even as the soudarion, both mentioned in Jn 20:5-7, the evidence is that sindon wasn't there. What Peter and John saw in the empty tomb, as recorded in Luke 24:12 and John 20:5-7, was the linen strips [othonia] which had bound [edesan] Jesus' hands and feet and the spices (Jn 19:40), as well as the sweat-cloth [soudarion] (the Sudarium of Oviedo) which had been on [epi] Jesus head, but no Shroud [sindon]. From seeing this arrangement of the othonia and soudarion but no sindon, John believed that Jesus had risen from the dead (Jn 20:6-9). A reconstruction of Jesus' resurrection and its immediate aftermath in the tomb is proposed.

The Gospels don't record that Jesus' shroud [sindon] was in the empty tomb. The Gospels do not record that Jesus' shroud [sindon] was found in His empty tomb[3], nor that it was saved[4]. As Beecher[5] rightly pointed out, "After the resurrection there is no mention of the Sindon as having been found in the tomb":

"The three Synoptic Evangelists, Saints Matthew, Mark and Luke, tell us that Joseph of Arimathea wrapped the body of Our Lord in a Sindon (Matt. xxvii. 59; Mark xv. 46; Luke xxiii. 53). The Sindon was a large white linen sheet that covered the entire body. The Evangelists carefully distinguish between it and the sudarium (napkin), which latter was in shape and size like a handkerchief, and was used for the head. In addition, as we know from St. John (xix. 40), linen cloths (ta othonia) were used, with spices, according to Jewish custom. After the resurrection there is no mention of the Sindon as having been found in the tomb. St. John tells us that Peter `saw the linen cloths lying, and the napkin that had been about his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but apart, wrapped up into one place' (xx. 6,7). And St. Luke tells us that `Peter rising up, ran to the sepulchre, and stooping down, he saw the linen cloths laid by themselves' (xxiv. 12)"[6].

The evidence is that the Shroud [sindon] was not in the empty tomb. Despite the understandable desire by most Shroud pro-authenticists to place the Shroud [sindon] in the empty tomb, the evidence is that it wasn't there. The only two gospel passages which describe what Peter and John found in the empty tomb don't mention the sindon:

Lk 24:12. "But Peter rose and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths [othonia] by themselves; and he went home marveling at what had happened"[7]

Jn 20:5-7. "5 And stooping to look in, he [John] saw the linen cloths [othonia] lying there, but he did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths [othonia] lying there, 7 and the face cloth [soudarion], which had been on [epi] Jesus' head, not lying with the linen cloths [othonia] but folded up [entetuligmenon] in a place by itself"[8]

Despite it being by far the largest of Jesus' graveclothes, John does not mention a sindon at all, either in his account of the raising of Lazarus in (Jn 11:41-44), or in his accounts of Jesus' burial (Jn 19:38-42) and the discovery of Jesus' graveclothes in the empty tomb (Jn 20:3-10)[9]. This omission cannot be accidental, because John goes out of his way to provide details of the different cloths in both the raising of Lazarus and in their arrangement in Jesus' empty tomb[10].

Luke had previously mentioned Jesus' body had been taken down from the cross by Joseph of Arimathea and wrapped in a linen shroud:

Lk 23:53. "Then he took it down and wrapped [enetulixen] it in a linen shroud [sindoni] and laid him in a tomb cut in stone, where no one had ever yet been laid"[11].

As Beecher further points out, that Luke in 24:12 does not mention the sindon being present in the empty tomb after Jesus' resurrection, despite having previously mentioned it in 23:53 as being present in the tomb at Jesus' burial, indicates that the sindon was not in the empty tomb:

"What became of the Sindon? Saints Matthew and Mark are silent and make no reference to any cloths in the tomb. St. John still speaks of bandages and of the napkin. His silence about the Sindon would have no special significance, inasmuch as he did not refer to it before. But the fact that St. Luke does not now mention the Sindon, which had occupied his attention previously [Lk 23:53], but speaks of cloths [othonia] [12] ... instead [Lk 24:12], would indicate that the Sindon was not in the tomb"[13]

The sindon was not included in the othonia mentioned in Jn 20:5-7. The conventional pro-authenticist assumption is that the sindon was included in the othonia ("linen cloths") mentioned in John 20:5-7[14]. That is, they interpret othonia, which is plural, as a "collective singular," like the English word "clothes," which could refer to one or more articles of clothing[15]. But Greek lexicons give the primary meaning of othonia as a plural of othonion, which in turn is a diminutive of othone [16, 17, 18]. And othone is a large piece of cloth of unspecified material, e.g. the "sheet" (othone) in Acts 10:11; 11:5)[19]. Hence, according to the lexicons, othonion (singular) primarily means "a smaller linen cloth," "a linen bandage"[20,21] and othonia (plural) in Lk 24:12 and Jn 19:40; 20:5-7 means "strips of linen cloth"[22, 23, 24], or "bandage(s)"[25].

This is supported by commentaries which translate the othonia in Jn 19:40 and Jn 20:5-7 as "strips of linen":

[Jn 19:40] "Taking Jesus' body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. Joseph and Nicodemus wrapped Jesus' body with strips of linen, applying the mixture of spices as they did so. ... [Jn 20:5-7]. "... On arrival, the other disciple bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. Jesus' body had been wrapped in strips of linen by Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus (19:40) and placed in the tomb. When the other disciple looked in, all he could see was the strips of linen, but no body. ... Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there ... (italics original)"[26],

"linen bandages"[27], or "bandage-like strips"[28].

Moreover, assuming that the othonia includes the sindon creates insoluble problems. John in 19:40 states that:

"So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths [edesan auto othoniois] with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews."

As can be seen above, the Greek word translated "bound" is edesan. It is based on the root verb deo which means "to tie, bind, fasten"[29, 30, 31, 32], and not "to swathe" or "wrap"[33]. This is evident from the New Testament usage: "binds [dese] the strong man" (Mt 12:29; Mk 3:27); "no one could bind [desai] him ... not even with a chain" (Mk 5:3); "Herod ... seized John and bound [edesen] him in prison" (Mk 6:17); and the binding of Jesus at His arrest, "the officers of the Jews arrested Jesus and bound [edesan auto] him" (Jn 18:12)[34]. In fact the latter binding of Jesus at His arrest is the identical verb form, edesan auto, as in the binding of Jesus' body with othoniois ("strips of linen") in Jn 19:40[35]!

Therefore the claim that edesan means "enfolded"[36] is wrong, and is not supported by Greek lexicons. As we saw in Lk 23:53, there already is a word which means "wrap," namely entulisso, to "wrap up," "roll in," "fold up"[37, 38, 39], from en "in," and tulisso "to twist, roll up or wrap around"[40]. This word also appears in Matthew's account of Jesus' burial: Mt 27:59. "And Joseph took the body and wrapped it [entulixen] in a clean linen shroud;" and in John's account of the "face cloth" [soudarion] which was "folded up [entetuligmenon] in a place by itself" in the empty tomb (Jn 20:7)[41]. Mark in 15:46 uses eneilese for "wrapped": "And Joseph ... taking him down, wrapped [eneilese] him in the linen shroud [sindoni] and laid him in a tomb ..."[42], The root is eneileo, to "roll in," "wrap in"[43, 44, 45, 46]. Both entulisso and eneileo are synonyms and mean "to wrap, wind, roll in"[47].

The "burial custom of the Jews" (Jn 19:40) was not to bind their dead in strips of linen as with Egyptian mummies[48], but to be dressed in their best clothes[49], unless they had died a bloody death (as Jesus had), in which case they were to be buried in an all-enveloping single sheet called a sovev[50]. The burial of Lazarus recorded in Jn 11:43-44:

"43 When he [Jesus] had said these things, he cried out with a loud voice, `Lazarus, come out.' 44 The man who had died came out, his hands and feet bound [dedemenos] with linen strips [keiriais], and his face wrapped with a cloth [soudario]. Jesus said to them, `Unbind [lusate] him, and let him go.'"[51].

must have been in accordance with then current Jewish burial customs[52]. But as can be seen above, only the "hands and feet" are mentioned, and they are not wrapped but bound[53] with keiriais, which were thongs made of twisted rushes[54]. These must be the equivalent of the othonia which would therefore also have bound Jesus' hands and feet[55]. Also, as we saw above in Jn 19:40, Jesus' body was bound [edesan] in [othoniois] ("linen strips," "bandages") with the spices, which the preceding verse, Jn 19:39, tells us was "a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds [~34 kgs[56] in weight." But clearly it would be very difficult (if not impossible) to bind such a large amount of spices to Jesus' body held in place with only strips of linen[57], let alone do it in the very short time before sundown when the Jewish sabbath began (Lk 23:54)[58]. Wilson, following Bulst[59], solves the difficulty by assuming the spices were packed around the enshrouded body[60], but this is to tacitly admit that the sindon is not included in the othonia in Jn 19:40. In which case there would be no reason to assume that the sindon was among the othonia found by Peter and John in the empty tomb (Lk 24:12; Jn 20:5-7).

And nor can the soudarion have been the sindon in Jn 20:5-7. Realising that the othonia cannot be the sindon in Jn 20:5-7 for reasons above, Shroud pro-authenticists such as Vignon[61], Wuenschel[62], Wilson[63] and Guerrera[64] have assumed that the soudarion must be the sindon, otherwise there would be no Shroud in the empty tomb. Here is Vignon's fallacious reasoning:

"Let us re-read the seventh verse [Jn 20:7]. The narrator, an eye-witness, marks the distinction between the cloths left in the tomb. First, the othonia ... signifies in general `small pieces of linen,' more particularly `small bandages' - bands, strips. Second, the soudarion, or Shroud; and that is all. The first lay on the ground in disorder; there is no difficulty about them. As for the word soudarion, it has generally been considered to indicate the small handkerchief placed on the head of the corpse, but we, as we have said, are unable to accept this interpretation. Indeed, if `the napkin' of St. John were the face-kerchief, where would have been the Shroud (sindon)? St. John would not have made mention of it"[65].

The fallacy is that of the "false dilemma ... in which only limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option"[66]. In this case the fallacy is the assumption that, since the Shroud [sindon] must have been there in the empty tomb when Peter and John entered it, and there are only two alternatives, the othonia and the soudarion, but it cannot have been the othonia because that means "linen strips," therefore the soudarion must have been the sindon, even though soudarion means "the small handkerchief" that in this case was "placed on the head of the corpse." Or its opposite that the othonia must have included the sindon despite their respective primary meanings. But there is at least one other option (which Vignon realised but refused to accept), apart from the sindon being there but both Luke (Lk 24:12) and John (John 20:5-7) simply failed to mention it (which is Bult's position[67], but see next for why that too is untenable). And that is the risen Jesus took His sindon with Him out of the empty tomb, as Beecher concluded:

"But the fact that St. Luke does not now mention the Sindon, which had occupied his attention previously, but speaks of cloths [othonia] instead, would indicate that the Sindon was not in the tomb. And this is very significant in connection with what St. Jerome tells us, on the authority of the Gospel to the Hebrews (a work from which he often quotes), namely, that Our Lord kept His Sindon with Him when He arose from the dead"[68].

That the soudarion in Jn 20:5-7 was not the sindon in the empty tomb is evident from the following. New Testament Greek lexicons never give the meaning of soudarion as a large sheet but only small cloths, such as: "a handkerchief" (Lk 19:20, Acts 19:12); "a head covering for the dead" (Jn 11:44; 20:7)[69]; a Greek loan word borrowed from the Latin sudarium[70], which in turn is from the Latin sudor, "sweat," hence a "sweat-cloth," "a handkerchief, napkin"[71]; "a cloth for wiping the perspiration from the face," and "also used in swathing the head of a corpse"[72]. The two words sindon and soudarion are never given as synonyms in any Greek lexicon[73].

The dimensions of a sindon were such that in one the body of Jesus was wrapped (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53) and another covered the body of a young man (Mk 14:51-52)[74]. The dimensions of a soudarion were such that one was wrapped around [peri][75] the face of Lazarus (Jn 11:44) and another was on [epi][76] the head of Jesus (Jn 20:7)[77]. A soudarion's dimensions were sufficient to keep in it a coin (Lk 19:20), and for them to be carried away from Paul to heal the sick (Acts 19:12). Clearly a large body-size sheet would not be used as a face-cloth, be wrapped around or placed on a head, nor used to keep coins in, or to be carried away from St Paul to heal the sick[78]. Therefore it can safely be concluded that a soudarion would never be large enough to wrap a human body, and that sindon was a completely different cloth[79].

Any ambiguity as to whether the soudarion in Jn 20:7 refers to the sindon in Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53 has been resolved by studies since the mid-1960s on the ~86 x 53 cm (~34 x 21 inch)[80] linen cloth known as the "Sudarium of Oviedo"[81]. In 1965 Turin priest and Shroud scholar Guilio Ricci (c.1913-95) travelled to Oviedo, Spain, to compare the then little-known Sudarium Domini ("Cloth of the Lord")[82] with a life-size photograph of the Shroud[83]. He found "a perfect correspondence in the measurements" of the Sudarium and the Shroud:

"From the ninth century, a sudarium ... brought from the East, has been kept uninterruptedly and venerated at Oviedo in Spain; it is jealously guarded in the treasury of the Cathedral as its most precious relic. It is said to be the funeral cloth placed on the head of Jesus (already wrapped in the Shroud), and in some way to have retained imprints of the features of the Lord's face. In fact, tradition venerates it as el Sagrado Rostro or the `Sacred Face'. In 1965, while I was examining the relic closely, I was struck by the presence of several characteristic marks of serous blood, that I had found only on the face of the Holy Shroud of Turin. When I compared the relic with a life-size photograph of the Shroud, I found a perfect correspondence in the measurements"[84].

[Above: "There is a nearly identical match between the stains of blood on the Shroud [left] with those on the Sudarium [right] keeping in mind that there is a lateral displacement on the Shroud"[85].

Subsequent studies have confirmed Ricci's findings, for example, "all the stains" (blood, serum and lung fluid) on the Sudarium" coincide exactly with the face of the image on the Turin Shroud":

"The most striking thing about all the stains is that they coincide exactly with the face of the image on the Turin Shroud"[86].

Clearly if the ~86 x 53 cm Sudarium of Oviedo is the soudarion of Jn 20:7, as the evidence overwhelmingly indicates, it cannot have been the 437 x 111 cm sindon which is the Turin Shroud[87]!

What Peter and John saw in the empty tomb was the linen strips [othonia] and the face-cloth [soudarion] but NO Shroud [sindon]. From the above, what Peter and John saw in the empty tomb, was:

• The othonia (linen strips) that had bound [edesan] Jesus' hands and feet as well as the spices (Jn 19:40; c.f. 11:44). These othonia were "lying there" (repeated twice for emphasis in Jn 20:5,6), "by themselves" (Lk 24:12). There was no body (Lk 24:3). These othonia must have been "lying there" where Jesus' body had been because, as we shall see, only the soudarion is recorded as having been moved. There was no sindon because if it had been there it could not fail to have been mentioned, it being such a large linen sheet, relative to the narrow strips. And if the sindon had been "lying there" where Jesus' body had been and it had not been moved it would have all but covered the linen strips in the narrow space of the tomb;

• The "face cloth" [soudarion "which had been on [epi] Jesus' head, not lying with the linen cloths [othonia] but folded up [entetuligmenon] in a place by itself"(Jn 20:7). This soudarion or small linen cloth (see above) had been moved from where it had been "on [epi] Jesus' head" to "a place by itself." And what's more, it had been "folded up" [entetuligmenon] neatly. That is, the soudarion had either been on Jesus' head under the sindon (the literal meaning of "had been on Jesus' head" and most likely so as to enclose Jesus' "life-blood"[88]) or it had been over that part of the sindon which had covered Jesus' head. Most Shroud scholars have assumed that the soudarion must have been moved and folded up during Jesus burial before His head and body were covered by the Shroud, because otherwise no image of Jesus' face would be on the Shroud (or at best a fainter one)[89], and there would be an image of Jesus' face on the Sudarium of Oviedo, if that is the soudarion[90], again as the evidence overwhelmingly indicates. But then why would John have even mentioned it if it had nothing to do with John's seeing and believing from the from the evidence of the othonia "linen strips" and soudarion "face cloth" that Jesus had risen from the dead" (see next)? And as Bulst rightly pointed out over a half-century ago, the soudarion could have been on the very top (crown) of Jesus' head, where there is no image:

"Still more interesting, there is no imprint of the crown of the head between the forehead and the dorsal view. If the sweat cloth was tied above, no imprint could be formed there on the Shroud. The space between the frontal and dorsal view is wide enough to allow for the sweat cloth, especially if we suppose that the Shroud was not loosely laid, but drawn quite taut over the head"[91].

From seeing this arrangement of the othonia and soudarion but no sindon, John believed that Jesus had risen from the dead (Jn 20:6-9) :

"6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths [othonia] lying there, 7 and the face cloth [soudarion], which had been on [epi] Jesus' head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up [entetuligmenon] in a place by itself. 8 Then the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; 9 for as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead."

Christian writers have correctly pointed out that grave-robbers would not have bothered to undo the linen strips othonia nor fold up the face cloth [soudarion], but they would have taken Jesus' body and His graveclothes together:

"Early Christian writers, such as Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem and John Chrysostom attribute John's believing on seeing the cloths to his realisation that if the cloths were still there, the body could not have been stolen, as no robbers would have taken the time and trouble to unwrap the corpse and leave the cloths folded or wrapped up, each in its own place"[92].

Or even more likely, since it was only Jesus' sindon that was of any value, they would have taken the sindon and left Jesus' body there.

But while this is true, it is only negative evidence that Jesus' body was not taken by grave-robbers. It is not positive evidence that Jesus had been resurrected. Such positive evidence "that Christ had risen from the dead ... would have been to find these cloths each in its proper place: the binding strips looped together and knotted exactly as they had bound the hands and the feet":

"From his account of the finding of the cloths on Easter morning it is fairly obvious that something in the arrangement of both the sweat cloth and the binding strips assures him [John] that the body could not possibly have been stolen, but that Christ had risen from the dead. The simplest clue to this startling information would have been to find these cloths each in its proper place: the binding strips looped together and knotted exactly as they had bound the hands and the feet; the sweat cloth `not together with the binding strips' but `in a place by itself' ... In the state of glory, the risen body has no need of first untying knots. ... This in no way superfluously postulates a special miracle. Rather, it fits in perfectly with the Risen Lord's new mode of being. Consider how Jesus passed through the bolted door of the Cenacle [Upper Room] to show Himself to His disciples (Jn. 20:19, 26; Lk. 24:36)"[93]

And this is supported by no less than leading theologian N.T. Wright, in his magisterial ~850 page "The Resurrection of the Son of God" (2003), that John "came to his new belief ... not simply on the basis of the emptiness of the tomb ... but on the basis of what he deduced both from the fact that the grave-clothes had been left behind and from the position in which they were lying ... they had not been unwrapped, but that the body had somehow passed through them":

"An apparent and striking counter-example to this proposal is found in John 20.8. The beloved disciple goes into the empty tomb, sees what Peter had seen a moment before (the grave-clothes lying, separate from the head-cloth), and believes. Could it be that in his case, or at least in the mind of the evangelist writing this, the empty tomb by itself was sufficient for the rise of his faith? The answer suggested by the text is 'No'. The grave-clothes seem to be understood as a sign of what had happened to Jesus, a sign which would be the functional equivalent of the actual appearances of Jesus (John 20.19-23). The beloved disciple came to his new belief, the text wants us to understand, not simply on the basis of the emptiness of the tomb (which had been explained by Mary in verse 2 in terms of the removal of the body to an unknown location), but on the basis of what he deduced both from the fact that the grave-clothes had been left behind and from the position in which they were lying. He, like Thomas at the end of the chapter, saw something which elicited faith. The fact that the grave-clothes were left behind showed that the body had not been carried off, whether by foes, friends or indeed a gardener (verse 15). Their positioning, carefully described in verse 7, suggests that they had not been unwrapped, but that the body had somehow passed through them, much as, later on, it would appear and disappear through locked doors (verse 19). The conclusion holds, then: an empty tomb, by itself, could not have functioned as a sufficient condition of early Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection"[94]

This is consistent with John Jackson's "Cloth Collapse" theory[ 95] which best explains all the major features of the Shroud image, by positing that the Shroud image formed by some type of radiation as the half of the Shroud which was over Jesus' body fell through the space where His resurrected body had been:

"Dr. John Jackson 'Is the image on the Shroud due to a process heretofore unknown to modern science?'[ 96] After setting out the various image characteristics which must be explained simultaneously by any successful theory of the Shroud's image formation, Jackson goes on to develop the hypothesis that the image is the result of the cloth collapsing into and through an underlying human body at a time of that body emitting radiation from all points within and on its surface. In Jackson's words 'As the top part of the Shroud fell into the mechanically transparent body, the radiation began to interact with the cloth so as to produce a time integrated record of the cloth's passage through the body region. This time record is what is commonly referred to as the `body image'"[ 97].

A reconstruction of Jesus' resurrection, the formation of the Shroud image and the immediate aftermath in the tomb is proposed. From the above, the following reconstruction of of Jesus' resurrection, the formation of the Shroud image and the immediate aftermath in the tomb, is proposed. At the instant [atomo = indivisible unit of time[ 98] (1Cor 15:52)[ 99] of Jesus' resurrection[100], His changed (1Cor 15:51-52) glorified body (Php 3:21) became "mechanically `transparent'"[101] to the Shroud [sindon] that had covered His body, to the linen strips [othonia] which had bound His hands and feet, and also to the face cloth [soudarion] which was on [epi] the top of His head, under the Shroud to enclose Jesus' life-blood[102]. So as to provide irrefutable proof to his disciples that He had been resurrected, starting with Peter and John (Lk 24:12; Jn 20:4-9), the risen Jesus carefully took out the soudarion from within the sindon where it had been on [epi] the top of His head, folded it up, and placed it in the tomb, apart from the other graveclothes, where it could seen, but where it not have been, unless the risen Jesus had moved it there. Jesus then took up His sindon, taking care to put back the still looped and knotted linen strips [othonia,] that had bound [edesan] His hands and feet, where they had been inside the sindon. Then, dressed in a robe of light like the angels at the tomb (Mt 28:2-3; Mk 16:5; Lk 24:4; Jn 20:12)[103], and having summonsed an angel to roll back (Mt 28:2; Mk 16:4; Lk 24:2; Jn 20:1) the large stone that had been placed at its entrance (Mt 27:60; Mk 15:46; 16:3-4), Jesus walked out of the tomb[104] taking His sindon with Him, to later give it to "the servant of the priest"[105], who was most likely the Apostle John (as we shall see in part 2, entry #10).

Continued in in entry #9, part 2.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. No one may copy from it or any of my posts on this my The Shroud of Turin blog without them first asking and receiving my written permission. Except that I grant permission, without having to ask me, for anyone to copy the title and one paragraph only (including one graphic) of any of my posts, provided that they include a reference to the title of, and a hyperlink to, that post from which it came. [return]
2. Painting by James Jacques Tissot (1836-1902), in Brooklyn Museum, New York: Joyful Heart Renewal Ministries. [return]
3. Wilson, I. 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.57-58. [return]
4. Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, p.80. [return]
5. Patrick A. Beecher (c.1870-1940), Professor of Pastoral Theology and Sacred Eloquence, St. Patrick's College, Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland. [return]
6. Beecher, P.A., 1928, "The Holy Shroud: Reply to the Rev. Herbert Thurston, S.J.," M.H. Gill & Son: Dublin, p.16. [return]
7. Green, J.P., Sr., ed., 1986, "The Interlinear Bible: One Volume Edition," [1976], Hendrickson Publishers: Peabody MA., Second edition, p.816. [return]
8. Green, 1986, p.839. [return]
9. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, p.83. [return]
10. Bulst, 1957, pp.83-84. [return]
11. Green, 1986, p.816. [return]
12. Beecher has "(linteamina)" which is the Latin Vulgate's translation of othonia in Jn 20:5-7. Feuillet, A., 1982, "The Identification & Disposition of the Funerary Linens of Jesus' Burial According to the Fourth Gospel," Shroud Spectrum International, Issue #4, September, pp.13-23, p.16. [return]
13. Beecher, 1928, pp.16-17. [return]
14. Ruffin, C.B., 1999, "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, p.47. [return]
15. Ruffin, 1999, pp.46-47. [return]
16. Abbott-Smith, G., 1937, "A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament," [1921], T. & T. Clark: Edinburgh, Third edition, Reprinted, 1956, p.311. [return]
17. Bauer, W., Arndt, W.F., Gingrich, F.W. & Danker, F.W., 1979, "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature," University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Second edition, p.555. [return]
18. Zodhiates, S., 1992, "The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament," AMG Publishers: Chattanooga TN, Third printing, 1994, p.1028. [return]
19. Bulst, 1957, p.85. [return]
20. Zodhiates, 1992, p.1028. [return]
21. Thayer, J.H., 1901, "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm's Wilke's Clovis Novi Testamenti Translated Revised and Enlarged," T & T. Clark: Edinburgh, Fourth edition, Reprinted, 1961, p.439. [return]
22. Thayer, 1901, p.439. [return]
23. Vine, W.E., 1940, "An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words: With Their Precise Meanings for English Readers," Oliphants: London, Nineteenth impression, 1969, Vol. II., p.346. [return]
24. Zodhiates, 1992, p.855. [return]
25. Bauer, et al., 1979, p.555. [return]
26. Kruse, C.G., 2003, "The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction and Commentary," The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, pp.374-376. [return]
27. Hendriksen, W., 1964, "A Commentary on the Gospel of John: Two Volumes Complete and Unabridged in One," [1959], Banner of Truth: London, Third Edition, Vol. II, pp.441-442; 449-450. [return]
28. Morris, L.L., 1971, "The Gospel According to John," The New International Commentary on the New Testament," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, Reprinted, 1984, p.826. [return]
29. Abbott-Smith, 1937, p.193. [return]
30. Bauer, 1979, pp.177-178. [return]
31. Thayer, 1901, p.131. [return]
32. Zodhiates, 1992, pp.410-411. [return]
33. Bulst, 1957, p.91. [return]
34. Green, 1986, q.v. [return]
35. Bulst, 1957, pp.91,139-140 n188. [return]
36. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, p.48; and Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, p.150. [return]
37. Abbott-Smith, 1937, p.157. [return]
38. Bauer, et al., 1979, p.270. [return]
39. Thayer, 1901, p.219. [return]
40. Zodhiates, 1992, pp.595-596. [return]
41. Green, 1986, pp.766, 839. [return]
42. Green, 1986, p.785. [return]
43. Abbott-Smith, 1937, p.153. [return]
44. Bauer, et al., 1979, p.270. [return]
45. Thayer, 1901, p.215. [return]
46. Zodhiates, 1992, p.588. [return]
47. Robertson, A.T., 1930, "Word Pictures in the New Testament: Volume I: The Gospel According to Mark," Broadman Press: Nashville TN, pp.398. [return]
48. Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.37. [return]
49. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.44. [return]
50. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, pp.54-55. [return]
51. Green, 1986, p.831. [return]
52. Bulst, 1957, p.91. [return]
53. Ibid. [return]
54. Robinson, J.A.T., "The Shroud of Turin and the Grave-Clothes of the Gospels," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., 1977, "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, p.26. [return]
55. Bulst, 1957, pp.84-85. [return]
56. Based on 1 lb = ~0.454 kg. "Metric Conversion: pounds to kg," 5 Oct 2014. [return]
57. Bulst, 1957, pp.94, 141 n198. [return]
58. Robinson, 1977, pp.24-25. [return]
59. Bulst, 1957, pp.96-97. [return]
60. Wilson, 1979, pp.56-57. [return]
61. Vignon, P., 1902, "The Shroud of Christ," University Books: New York NY, Reprinted, 1970, pp.50-51. [return]
62. Wuenschel, E.A., "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, 1954, Third printing, 1961, p.48. [return]
63. Wilson, 1979, p.58, 60-61; Wilson, 1998, p.55; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.45; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.51-52. [return]
64. Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, pp.31-32. [return]
65. Vignon, 1902, pp.49-50. [return]
66. "False dilemma," Wikipedia, 3 November 2014. [return]
67. Bulst, 1957, pp.96,99-100. [return]
68. Beecher, 1928, p.17. [return]
69. Abbott-Smith, 1937, p.411. [return]
70. Bauer, et al, 1979, p.759. [return]
71. Zodhiates, 1992, p.1300. [return]
72. Thayer, 1901, p.581. [return]
73. Bennett, J., 2001, "Sacred Blood, Sacred Image: The Sudarium of Oviedo: New Evidence for the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin," Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA, p.146. [return]
74. Bennett, 2001, p.147. [return]
75. periededeto. Green, 1986, p.831. [return]
76. Green, 1986, p.839. [return]
77. Bennett, 2001, p.147. [return]
78. Ibid. [return]
79. Ibid. [return]
80. Bennett, 2001, p.13. [return]
81. Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, p.321. [return]
82. Moreno, G.H., Blanco, J-D.V, Almenar, J-M.R. & Guscin, M., 1998, "Comparative Study of the Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud of Turin," III Congresso Internazionale di Studi Sulla Sindone Turin, 5th to 7th June 1998," Centro Español de Sindonologìa. [return]
83. Bennett, 2001, pp.13,17. [return]
84. Ricci, G., 1981, "The Holy Shroud," Center for the Study of the Passion of Christ and the Holy Shroud: Milwaukee WI, p.137. Typo "1955" corrected to "1965". [return]
85. Bennett, 2001, p.86, plate 20. [return]
86. Guscin, 1998, p.27. [return]
87. Wilson, I., 2000, "`The Turin Shroud – past, present and future', Turin, 2-5 March, 2000 – probably the best-ever Shroud Symposium," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 51, June. [return]
88. Wilson, 1998, p.55. [return]
89. Bennett, 2001, p.150. [return]
90. Guscin, 1998, p.34. [return]
91. Bulst, 1957, pp.95-96. [94. Wright, N.T., 2003, "The Resurrection of the Son of God," Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 3, Fortress Press: Minneapolis MN, p.689. [return]
92. Guscin, 1998, pp.10-11. [return]
93. Bulst, 1957, pp.98, 142 n206. [return]
94. Wright, N.T., 2003, "The Resurrection of the Son of God," Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 3, Fortress Press: Minneapolis MN, p.689. [return]
95. Jackson, J.P., 1991, "An Unconventional Hypothesis to Explain all Image Characteristics Found on the Shroud Image," in Berard, A., ed., 1991, "History, Science, Theology and the Shroud," Symposium Proceedings, St. Louis Missouri, June 22-23, The Man in the Shroud Committee of Amarillo, Texas: Amarillo TX, pp.325-344. [return]
96. Jackson, J.P., 1990, "Is the Image on the Shroud Due to a Process Heretofore Unknown to Modern Science?," Shroud Spectrum International, Issue #34, March 1990, pp.3-29. [return]
97. Wilson, I., ed., 1990, "Recent Publications," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 26, September/October, p.13. [return]
98. Robertson, A.T., 1931, "Word Pictures in the New Testament: Volume IV: The Epistles of Paul," Broadman Press: Nashville TN, p.198. [return]
99. Green, 1986, p.894. [return]
100. "[1Th ]4.14 is, in fact, a succinct summary of virtually the whole of 1 Corinthians 15. The fact that Paul carefully models the resurrection of presently dead Christians on the resurrection of Jesus himself (`in the same way', 4.14)". Wright, 2003, p.218. [return]
101. Jackson, 1991, p.339. [return]
102. Wilson, 1998, p.55. [return]
103. Robinson, 1977, p.29. [return]
104. Ibid. [return]
105. Ehrman B.D., 2003, "Lost Scriptures: Books that Did not Make It into the New Testament," Oxford University Press: New York NY, p.16. [return]

Updated: 23 November, 2014.

Sunday, October 26, 2014

Turin shroud was made for medieval Easter ritual, historian Charles Freeman says

"Turin shroud was made for medieval Easter ritual, historian says," The Guardian, Charlotte Higgins, 24 October 2014.

I have decided to interrupt my preparing of entry #9 of my Turin Shroud Encyclopedia: "The Servant of the Priest," which is unexpectedly turning out to be both very complex (and also very important), to respond to this news item. The words of the article are in bold to distinguish them from my words.

[Above: "Displaying the Shroud in Turin, 1613. Engraving by Antonio Tempesta. AKG Images / De Agostini Picture Library": "The Origins of the Shroud of Turin," Charles Freeman, History Today, Vol. 64, Issue 11, 24 October 2014. See a larger copy at Medievalists.net.]

Charles Freeman believes relic venerated as Jesus Christ's burial cloth dates from 14th century and was used as a prop As I pointed out in part #10 of my series, "My critique of Charles Freeman's `The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey,'" according to his entry in Wikipedia (which presumably he wrote), Freeman is a "freelance historian specializing in the history of ancient Greece and Rome" (not medieval art, nor the Shroud). According to that entry, Freeman has never held an actual historian position in any university, his highest listed history position being head of history at "St. Clare's, Oxford, an international school" (for "Ages 16–18+"):

"Charles P. Freeman is a scholar and freelance historian specializing in the history of ancient Greece and Rome ... He has taught courses on ancient history in Cambridge's Adult Education program and is Historical Consultant to the Blue Guides. He also leads cultural study tours to Italy, Greece, and Turkey ... In 1978 he was appointed head of history at St. Clare's, Oxford, an international school" ("Charles Freeman (historian)," Wikipedia, 3 August 2014).

This should be borne in mind when assessing the headline "... historian says."

Moreover, as I documented in part #1 of the above series, Freeman is evidently an atheist/agnostic having published papers critical of Christianity in the New Humanist online magazine, the subtitle

[Above (click to enlarge): Charles Freeman's page at New Humanist: Ideas for godless people listing his online papers, critical of Christianity, relics and the miraculous]

of which is "Ideas for godless people", and is "produced by the Rationalist Association ... dedicated to reason, science, secularism and humanism."

Freeman in his review of philosopher James Hannam's book, "God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science" (2009), describes Hannam as "a Catholic convert," in contrast to himself, "(I have passed the other way)":

"Hannam is a Catholic convert (I have passed the other way) and he presents himself as an apologist (in the old sense of the word as "defender") for the positive role of Christianity in Western society."
so presumably Freeman was once a Catholic but is now a non- (or even anti-) Christian. If so, then according to Freeman's presumed personal atheist/agnostic philosophy, there is no supernatural, so Christianity must be false, and the Shroud of Turin must be a fake.

Indeed, so prejudiced is Freeman against the Shroud, that on his own admission, in his book on medieval relics, Freeman left out the Shroud of Turin, on the preposterously false basis that it was "a cult of modern times, not a medieval one":

"When I was researching my book on medieval relics, Holy Bones, Holy Dust, I decided to leave out the Shroud of Turin. It is essentially a cult of modern times, not a medieval one." (Charles Freeman, "The pseudo-history of the Shroud of Turin," Yale Books Blog: Yale University Press London, May 25, 2012).
This also should be borne in mind when assessing Freeman's claims about the Shroud.

I hasten to add that I am a Protestant evangelical Christian and, unlike Freeman who needs the Shroud to be a fake to preserve his atheistic/agnostic worldview, I do not need the Shroud to be authentic to preserve my Christian worldview. As I have previously pointed out, I had been a Christian for nearly 40 years when in 2005 I was persuaded by the evidence that the Shroud of Turin was authentic. So if the Shroud was proven to be not authentic, I would still be the same Christian I have been all along.

As Shroud scholar Joe Marino pointed out, if the Shroud was proven to be authentic it would not affect a Christian's faith, but it would affect an atheist's faith!:

"It is usually stated, and with good reason, that the Shroud is not necessary in Christian faith. ... Skeptics who deny the authenticity of the Shroud are often atheists, and many of these atheists are in the forefront of Shroud opposition. They are not willing to acknowledge the possibility of the supernatural and find it safer to dismiss the Shroud as a forgery, even when it flies in the face of all the evidence. Quite simply, the reality of the Shroud and its possible ramifications scares them. They know that an authentic Shroud of Turin puts their atheism on shaky ground. A comment by a bishop to one such skeptic really puts the whole significance of the Shroud in perspective. The bishop told him, `If the Shroud turned out to be 2,000 years old, it wouldn't really affect my faith, but it might affect yours'. Thus in a real sense, the Shroud is more important for skeptics than it is for Christians. It penetrates to their deepest philosophical levels." (Marino, J.G , 2011, "Wrapped up in the Shroud," p.272).

When it is exhibited next year in Turin, for the first time in five years, 2 million people are expected to pour into the city to venerate a four-metre length of woven cloth as the shroud in which Jesus Christ was wrapped after his crucifixion, and on to which was transferred his ghostly image. Instead of the Shroud being "essentially a cult of modern times, not a medieval one," what Freeman should have written is that the Shroud is the only `medieval' relic which still attracts millions of modern people, including not only Roman Catholics and Orthodox, but also Protestants (like me) who have no other reason to be attracted to the Shroud except that the evidence for its authenticity is overwhelming.

Despite the fact that the cloth was radiocarbon-dated to the 14th century in 1988, an array of theories continue to be presented to support its authenticity – including, this year, the idea from scientists at the Politecnico di Torino that an earthquake in AD 33 may have caused a release of neutrons responsible for the formation of the image. See my post, "Shroud of Turin: Could Ancient Earthquake Explain Face of Jesus?" for the flaws in this "earthquake in AD 33" explanation.

The neutron flux argument has the major flaw that for it to convert a first-century shroud to not just any date, but 1260-1390, or 1325 ±65, which `just happens' to be 25-30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history in Lirey, France, in the 1350s, would be a miracle (and a deceptive one by God at that)! Such a miracle would even extend to the very part of the Shroud the radiocarbon dating sample was taken from:

"The same issue of Nature [as the carbon-dating of the Shroud-16 February 1989] carried the letter from T J Phillips, High Energy Laboratory, Harvard University, and a letter in reply (solicited by Nature) from Robert Hedges of Oxford. The two letters were headlined 'Shroud irradiated with neutrons?' Phillips' letter opened with, `If the shroud of Turin is in fact the burial cloth of Christ, contrary to its recent carbon-dated age of about 670 years, then according to the Bible it was present at a unique physical event: the resurrection of a dead body. ...' ... The neutrons could have been captured by carbon-13 (a stable isotope present with all the carbon in the shroud) to form carbon-14. This extra production of carbon-14 (radiocarbon) could give the shroud a much later radiocarbon age. He pointed out that this extra radiocarbon would vary in amount from place to place on the shroud. Presumably it would be greater closer to the image where this postulated production of neutrons occurred. ... But the most devastating argument against Phillips' idea was the fact that the samples were taken at just the right spot on the shroud to produce its historic date. A sample taken closer to the image would have produced an even more modern date-even a date into the future!" (Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," pp.301-302).

But as I have shown in my post, "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #5," the 1989 Nature article, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," which claimed:

"Very small samples from the Shroud of Turin have been dated by accelerator mass spectrometry in laboratories at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich ... The results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390 ..."
is contradicted by Table 2 of the same Nature paper, which is accompanied by the fatal admission that:
"An initial inspection of Table 2 shows that the agreement among the three laboratories for samples 2, 3 and 4 [non-Shroud controls] is exceptionally good. The spread of the measurements for sample 1 [the Shroud] is somewhat greater than would be expected from the errors quoted" (my emphasis).

[Above (click to enlarge): Table 2 in the 1989 Nature paper showing that Sample 1 (the Shroud)'s average radiocarbon age for each laboratory was widely different, unlike the non-Shroud samples (2, 3 and 4). This is inexplicable if the Shroud samples' dates were real, because each dating run consisted of the Shroud and control samples all being on the same ~29 mm carousel wheel and rotated through a caesium beam in turn for 10 seconds each, the entire run taking a minute. But it is explicable if the Shroud sample dates were computer-generated. E.g. by a

[Right: Photograph of Linick and report that "He died at the age of forty-two on 4 June 1989, in very unclear circumstances, shortly after the campaign of the Italian press reporting our [Fr. Bruno Bonnet-Eymard's] accusations" (my emphasis).]

computer hacker, whom I have provided evidence in my soon to be completed series, "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker," was Arizona Radiocarbon Laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick (1946-89), aided by self-confessed KGB hacker Karl Koch (1965–89), who both died of suspected `suicide' within days of each other, presumably executed by the KGB to ensure their silence.]

But, according to research by British scholar and author Charles Freeman, to be published in the journal History Today, the truth is that the shroud is not only medieval, just as the radiocarbon dating suggests, but that it is likely to have been created for medieval Easter rituals – an explanation that flies in the face of what he called "intense and sometimes absurd speculation" that coalesces around it. Freeman simply ignores (and relies on most of his readers not knowing about) the large amount of historical, archaeological and artistic evidence for the Shroud having existed (much of the time as the Edessa Cloth folded in eight-see my "Tetradiplon and the Shroud of Turin") many centuries before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date (and indeed all the way back to the first century). Even Prof. Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Director of the Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory, and who as "C.R. Bronk" was a signatory to the 1989 Nature paper, has admitted, "There is a lot of other evidence that suggests ... that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow":

"There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow and so further research is certainly needed. It is important that we continue to test the accuracy of the original radiocarbon tests as we are already doing. It is equally important that experts assess and reinterpret some of the other evidence. Only by doing this will people be able to arrive at a coherent history of the Shroud which takes into account and explains all of the available scientific and historical information." (Ramsey, C.B., 2008, "Shroud of Turin," Version 77, Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, 23 March).

Freeman is a good (or bad) example of "the blind leading the blind" (Mt 15:14; Lk 6:39). He presents his ignorance of Shroud studies as a problem for the Shroud! For example, in his History Today article Freeman falsely states:

"No one appears to have investigated the kinds of loom, ancient or medieval, on which a cloth of this size may have been woven. Nor has anyone closely examined the many early depictions and descriptions of the Shroud that illustrate features now lost."

But in his 2010 book, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," pp.71-73, Ian Wilson discusses ancient textiles specialist Dr Flury-Lemberg's research on the type of loom which produced the Shroud (presented 14 years ago at the 2000 Shroud conference in Turin and reported in the online BSTS Newsletter, No. 51, June 2000, "News from Around the World"), including a drawing of its extra-wide woven linen sheet output (see below).

[Above: "Reconstruction of the likely size of the bolt of cloth of which the two lengths of the Shroud (shaded) formed part. This wider cloth was very expertly cut lengthwise, then the raw (i.e. non-selvedge) edges of the shaded segments joined together by a very professional seam to form the Shroud we know today." (Wilson, 2010, p.73).]

And as for Freeman's assertion that, "Nor has anyone closely examined the many early depictions and descriptions of the Shroud ...", in issues #12 and #13, September and December 1984, of Shroud Spectrum International, which are online, the late Shroud scholar Don Luigi Fossati (1920-2007), who was regarded "the greatest expert" on "the existing full-size copies" of the Shroud, wrote a two-part paper entitled: "Copies of the Holy Shroud: Part I" and "Copies of the Holy Shroud: Parts II & III." At the start of part I, Fossati wrote:

"Many aspects of Shroud history can be better understood by a study of the copies made in past centuries. Such a study can reveal precious information little known or insufficiently considered by modern researchers, justly concerned with the Object itself. The list of copies presented here is by no means complete, because of the difficulty at present to locate some of the examples. Even less complete is the gallery of illustrations, due to the difficulties of reproduction. Limiting our research to copies in natural size or of particular historical/artistic interest, we do not include the almost incalculable numbers of small-format copies, executed in every conceivable technic. This review is in three parts: Part I lists in chronological order the copies which carry a date upon them. Those which are not dated are listed in Part II in alphabetical order of the localities in which they are conserved. The information acquired in studying the copies can help to clarify particular aspects of the history of the Holy Shroud, and Part III gives a brief synthesis of that new knowledge."

Since these examples are online, readily found by a Google search, there is especially no excuse for such ignorance by Freeman if he purports to be a Shroud scholar. But like most (if not all) Internet Shroud sceptics, Freeman relies on his readers being as ignorant of the Shroud as he is ("the blind leading the blind").

Freeman, the author of Holy Bones, Holy Dust: How Relics Shaped the History of Medieval Europe, studied early descriptions and illustrations of the shroud. None predates 1355, the year of its first documented appearance in a chapel in Lirey near Troyes in France, before it was acquired by the House of Savoy in 1453 and "converted into a high-prestige relic" to shore up the power base of the insecure Alpine dukedom. See above that by his own admission, Freeman "... decided to leave out the Shroud of Turin" in his book Holy Bones, Holy Dust! By his "None predates 1355..." Freeman ignores the Hungarian Pray Codex (or Manuscript) which is dated 1192-95 and yet clearly is a depiction of the Shroud, at least 160 years before 1355.

[Above: "The Entombment" (top) and "The Visit to the Sepulchre" (bottom), "The Pray Manuscript," Berkovits, I., 1969, "Illuminated Manuscripts in Hungary, XI-XVI Centuries," plate III).]

The agnostic but pro-authenticist art historian, Thomas de Wesselow, after reviewing the similarities between the Pray Codex and the Shroud, concluded:

"We have now identified eight telling correspondences between the Shroud and the drawings on a single page of the Pray Codex. The first five, found in the scene of the Anointing, are sufficient on their own to indicate that the artist of the Pray Codex knew the Shroud. Conclusive proof is provided by the three correspondences in the lower scene: the stepped-pyramid pattern in the upper rectangle, evoking the distinctive herringbone weave of the Shroud; the folding of the object in two halves; and the small circle formations, which match the pattern of the poker-holes. It is inconceivable that all these detailed links with the Shroud, several of which are found nowhere else, could have occurred on a single manuscript page by chance. The only reasonable conclusion is that the artist of the Pray Codex was aware of the Shroud. The Shroud existed and was already damaged, then, by 1192-5, when the illustrations in the Pray Codex were drawn. Given the close links at the time between Hungary and Byzantium, it can hardly be doubted that the artist saw the relic in Constantinople. ... The Shroud of Turin, then, was once the Sindon of Constantinople."(de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," pp.180-181. My emphasis).

Leaving aside whether Freeman's pejorative claim that "the House of Savoy ... `converted [the Shroud] into a high-prestige relic' to shore up the power base of the insecure Alpine dukedom" is even true, it is irrelevant to the question of the Shroud's authenticity. But from what I have read the Savoy dukedom in the 15th century was anything but "shaky" and they were a genuinely devout and pious Catholic family. Besides, would they (not to mention the millions of modern-day people who queue to see the Shroud) be fooled by what Freeman claims is a "crude and limited" painting of the 14th century (see below)?

In particular, he turned up a little-known engraving by Antonio Tempesta, an artist attached to the Savoyard court, who made a meticulously detailed image of one of the ceremonial displays of the cloth to pilgrims in 1613. First, this is just an "engraving," not a full-size copy of the Shroud, of which there are at least 52 (see below). And it measures only 25 x 18 inches (see below), or about 64 x 46 cms, compared to the Shroud's 437 x 111 cms. So it seems that Freeman has `cherry-picked' the copy of the Shroud that best supports his argument and ignored all the rest which don't. If so, it is the very antithesis of scholarship.

It is also false that the engraving by Antonio Tempesta of the 1613 exhibition of the Shroud is "little known" in the sense that Shroud scholars are unaware of it. I have the following four mentions of Tempesta's 1613 exhibition engraving on my system which shows that they are well aware of it (my emphasis below):

"However one speaker totally new to me whose talk I did happen to hear and found particularly fascinating was Professor John Beldon Scott, head of the department of Art History at the University of Iowa. The title of his talk `Ostension of the Shroud. Architecture and ritual in Piazza Castello' might not sound world-beating stuff. However, by homing-in close-up on details from old prints depicting historic showings of the Shroud, Professor Scott explained aspects of the 16th and 17th century Shroud expositions that were certainly completely new to me. In particular, studying the Antonio Tempesta engraving of 1613 depicting the Shroud being exhibited in Turin's Piazza Castello, he explained how rosary-like strings of beads called `corona di Cristo' were thrown up to the bishops holding up the Shroud, in order that they should press these against the cloth, then throw them back down to their owners, the corona now being sanctified by direct contact with the Shroud." (Wilson, I., 1998, "The 3rd International Shroud Studies Congress, Turin, 5-7 June, 1998: Report by the Editor," BSTS Newsletter, No. 48, December).

La Sindone Nei Secoli nella Collezione di Umberto II, Palazzo Barolo, 18 aprile-14 giugno, Gribaudo, Turin, 1998, 224 A4 size pages, profusely illustrated throughout, several in full colour, softback. Published to accompany an exhibition of old prints and similar depicting historic showings of the Shroud and ancillary materials, as shown at Turin's Palazzo Barolo from 18 April to 14 June of this year, this superbly produced book includes excellent depictions of each print, and is an invaluable resource for the Shroud's history from its arrival in Turin in 1578, through to the age of photography. Only in the case of certain prints, such as the Tempesta engraving of 1613, is the original print so large and detailed that the small scale reproduction fails to do it justice." (Wilson, I., 1998, "Recent Publications," BSTS Newsletter, No. 48, December).

"In 1613, the engraver Antonio Tempesta produced an ambitious twenty-five-inch-by-eighteen-inch souvenir engraving that was the first properly to depict the sheer spectacle of these occasions (fig. 36). In the engraving, a sea of people can be seen filling every possible vantage point. Servants perch precariously on rooftops. Every balcony is filled to capacity, the one on the Castello, at the top centre of the picture, brimming with the leading ladies of the Savoy court. At the sides of the square, temporary 'corporate boxes' provide a high vantage point for those willing to pay for this privilege, while at ground level thousands of the humbler folk fill the square, surrounded by the ducal cavalry. In the foreground, in what seems to be the first of two separate moments that the artist has conflated into one, we see musketeers and halberdiers struggling to open a path for the procession of torchbearers who accompany the high square canopy beneath which the Shroud is being carried by mitred Church dignitaries. This procession leads our eye to the second moment the print encapsulates: the showing of the Shroud from a high platform that has been erected in the middle of the square. At a height that is comfortably beyond the crowd's reach, eight mitred bishops and archbishops hold out the Shroud to the populace. Below them, members of the crowd throw up corone di Cristo, rosary-like strings of beads, for the bishops to press against the Shroud then return duly sanctified to their owners. Behind the bishops can just be glimpsed the faces of Savoy's duke and duchess. In the sky above, a banner reads 'Happy House of Savoy, which, endowed by so great a pledge [i.e. to keep and protect the Shroud] is glorified by this sacred gift'." (Wilson, 2010, p.265).

"When in 1684 Charles Emmanuel II's son Victor Amadeus II married his first wife, Anna d'Orleans, a particularly lavish public showing of the Shroud was staged in the Piazza Castello. To supplement the usual souvenir prints, Dutch artist Pieter Bolckmann was commissioned to create a huge commemorative oil painting, which today hangs in Turin's Castello di Racconigi (pl. 31a). In the distance, beneath a large red canopy, the usual line of bishops and archbishops can be seen unfurling the Shroud's red silk cover to display the cloth to the crowds, which are even more extensive than in the Tempesta engraving of seven decades earlier, with every rooftop filled. And just behind the Royal Palace in the background can be seen the spire of Guarino Guarini's chapel showing that externally it was complete." (Wilson, 2010, p.270).

Indeed, Wilson has a two-pages `centrefold" photograph of Tempesta's engraving on pages 266-267 of his 2010 book!

"Astonishingly," he writes, "few researchers appear to have grasped that the shroud looked very different in the 16th and 17th centuries from the object we see today." What is truly astonishing, is that Freeman does not consider that the Shroud was the same all along, but artistic styles and abilities of the artists who copied the Shroud have varied!

By an amazing coincidence, this morning (25 October) I scanned and word-processed the following in my daily work of helping to put Shroud Spectrum International progressively online. As can be seen, in it Fossatti mentions that there are 52 full-sized copies of the Shroud, but "not one copy comes anywhere near a resemblance" of the Original:

"Based on the 52 copies [of the Shroud] located and catalogued, a few points should be emphasized: 1. Twenty-seven have the date written on the cloth. 2. All 52 show the frontal and dorsal imprints and are approximately the same dimensions as the Original. 3. The principal motive was to have a relic like the Original and for this reason the copy was laid in contact with the Shroud. 4. Some accompanying documents declare that the copy is "exactly equal" to the Original. 5. The copies do not show the characteristics of a true negative, proof that the artists did not understand negativity, even though it is often claimed that Byzantine iconographers were able to interpret the negative image. The copies confirm that the Shroud is an unicum inimitabile, a proof, even though indirect, of its authenticity. 6. A comparison of these copies with the Original eloquently refutes a manual production of the Shroud; not one copy comes anywhere near a resemblance."(Fossati, L., 1990, "The Shroud: from Object of Devotion to Object of Discussion," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 37, December, pp.9-19, p.16. My emphasis)

The Tempesta engraving, as well as a number of 15th- and 16th-century first-hand descriptions, emphasise a feature that is much less obvious now – that the figure was covered in blood and scourge marks, relating to Christ's flagellation.

This is fallacious. Working with only a 25 x 18 inch engraving, the thinnest flagellation mark would necessarily be much thicker relative to the whole body of the Man on the Shroud.

[Left: Extracted and vertically rotated copy of the Shroud in Tempesta's engraving found on Medievalists.net. Compare this with a positive photo of the Shroud on Shroud Scope and it can be seen there are a lot more, but thinner, flagellation marks on the 437 x 111 cm Shroud itself than on Tempesta's 64 x 46 cms engraving, where the flagellation marks are necessarily thicker but fewer.]

Looking at the close-up of Tempesta's engraving on the left, and making allowances for the differences in scale, it does not appear to be particularly more "bloody" than the Shroud itself. Indeed, it does not even show the major bloodstain of the spear-wound in the Man's side, which if Freeman's thesis that this engraving represents "a focus on blood in depictions of the crucifixion that emerged in the 14th century" (see below) it would surely depict it!

These extensive markings can be explicitly related, argues Freeman, to a focus on blood in depictions of the crucifixion that emerged in the 14th century – a "dramatic" change in iconography that sharply differentiates depictions of the crucified Christ from those of earlier centuries, and which reflects revelations of a bloody, wounded Christ reported by mystics such as Julian of Norwich in the 14th century. Apart from the Pray Manuscript (and a few other similar artworks) there were no Shroud-based depictions of the crucified Christ from earlier than the 14th century, after the Shroud was first publicly displayed in European history at Lirey, France in about 1355. Clearly it is no problem for the Shroud's authenticity, indeed the opposite, if there was "a focus on blood in depictions of the crucifixion that emerged in the 14th century"!

The original purpose of the shroud, argues Freeman, is likely to have been as a prop in a kind of medieval, theatrical ceremony that took place at Easter – the Quem quaeritis? or "whom do you seek?" "On Easter morning the gospel accounts of the resurrection would be re-enacted with `disciples' acting out a presentation in which they would enter a makeshift tomb and bring out the grave clothes to show that Christ had indeed risen," he said. This is mere idle speculation by Freeman, which is not even worth responding to. As I have previously written, with words to the effect:

`What Shroud anti-authenticists (like Freeman) need to do is propose a comprehensive and internally coherent Shroud anti-authenticist theory that plausibly: 1) Positively accounts for all the major features of the entire full-length, front and back, Shroud image (including photographic negativity, three-dimensionality, extreme superficiality, etc), with technology that was indisputably in use before the 1350s. Such an account should include a reproduction of the Shroud and its image that has all the major features of the entire Shroud, with that same pre-1350s technology. And 2) Negatively explains away all the historical, archaeological and artistic evidence for the Shroud having been in existence from the 14th century, all the way back to the first century. No such comprehensive and coherent Shroud anti-authenticity theory exists, which suggests that if anti-authenticists have attempted to propose one, they quietly gave up, because they realised the difficulties of such a theory!'

Freeman's idea was shored up by his study of the earliest illustration of the shroud – on a pilgrim badge of the 1350s found in the Seine in 1855. On it, two clerics hold up the shroud, and beneath is an empty tomb. Freeman's idea certainly needs all the shoring up it can get! But the Cluny Museum pilgrim's

[Above: A pilgrim's medallion made of lead, found in the mud of Paris' Seine River in 1855, and today held in Paris' Cluny Museum. The 4.5 cms high by 6.2 cms wide medallion has front and back images, head to head, of the Shroud, being held by two clergymen, as well as the coats of arms of the first recorded owners of the Shroud, the 14th century French Knight Geoffrey I de Charny (left) and his wife Jeanne de Vergy (right). It had probably been worn by a pilgrim to an exhibition of the Shroud at Geoffrey's church in Lirey, France in 1355, since he was killed in battle in 1356 and according to a memorandum by Bishop d'Arcis of nearby Troyes, Geoffrey was exhibiting the Shroud at Lirey, "thirty-four years or thereabouts" before 1389, in the time of his predecessor, Bishop Henri of Poitiers, who only arrived at Troyes in 1354: "A Souvenir from Lirey." See also my "The case for fraud in the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud #1: Introduction" for references.]

badge, is an item of evidence for the existence of the Shroud in the 1350s that all Shroud theories, pro- and anti-authenticity, must conform to. And again Freeman is seeking support for his position, not from the over 50 full-size copies of the Shroud, but from another miniature copy of the Shroud, this one even smaller at only 4.5 x 6.2 cms!

The church officially regards the shroud with an open mind: as a object to be venerated as a reminder of Christ's passion, rather than, necessarily, the physical imprint of his body. As I have stated before, the Vatican is dishonest in this. From its actions in spending the equivalent of millions of dollars preserving the Shroud and holding exhibitions for millions of people to see it, clearly the Vatican regards the Shroud as authentic. So presumably the reason it refuses to confirm or deny that the Shroud is authentic is that the Vatican would then have to say which of its other relics were authentic or fakes, and most of them would be the latter. It might be good church politics to suppress the truth in this matter but it is not Christian (Rom 1:18; 2Cor 4:2; 13:8; Eph 4:15, 25; 6:14).

Next year, millions of pilgrims will beg to disagree – as they will with Freeman's argument that places the shroud at the birth of northern European drama rather than at the dawn of Christianity, and that identifies the images on it as traces of a "crude and limited" painting of the 14th century. Well put! Freeman had actually claimed in his History Today article that the Shroud is a "painting" that is "crude and limited":

"What can we say about the painting on the Shroud? The images are crude and limited in tone. They show none of the expertise of the great painters of the 14th century, who, even on linen, were capable of mixing a variety of pigments into rich colours. The join of the head and the shoulders on the frontal image is particularly inept. Although the artist did try to reproduce images that might have touched a crucified body and left a mark, the two images are not even simultaneous representations of the same body. This can be seen from the arms as they are shown in the early depictions. If you lie on the ground and place your elbows in the same position as those on the back image of the Shroud, you can quickly see that it is impossible to hold the position of the crossed arms in the front. There is a difference of seven centimetres between the lengths of the two bodies. Then again the heads do not meet, suggesting that this was not a cloth that was ever folded over an actual head. A cloth laid on a body would pick up its contours, but there is no sign of this. Again, the hair of the body would have fallen back if the figure had been lying down but the blood is as if it is trickling down the hair of a standing figure. In short, it appears to be a painting made by an artist whose only concession to his subject is to imagine that this is a negative impression of the body (as shown by the wound on the chest being on the left of the image in contrast to the conventional right, as seen in the Holkham crucifixion scene) that had been transferred to the cloth."

But in this Freeman displays further ignorance of Shroud literature. One thing that STURP did show in 1978 and its aftermath is that the Shroud's image is NOT a painting, because "No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils" that make up the image (there are random spots of paint, pigment and dye on the Shroud from artists pressing their copies against the Shroud to `bless' them):
"After years of exhaustive study and evaluation of the data, STURP issued its Final Report in 1981. The following official summary of their conclusions was distributed at the press conference held after their final meeting in October 1981: `No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils [i.e. that make up the image]. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies. Computer image enhancement and analysis by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer show that the image has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it. Microchemical evaluation has indicated no evidence of any spices, oils, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or in death. It is clear that there has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood. However, while this type of contact might explain some of the features of the torso, it is totally incapable of explaining the image of the face with the high resolution that has been amply demonstrated by photography.'" ("A Summary of STURP's Conclusions," October 1981, Shroud.com. My emphasis).

And all the above objections have been fully answered in Shroud literature, of which (again) Freeman seems to be (presumably because he wants to be) ignorant. "There are none so blind as those who will not see!"