Continuing from part #2 of my response to a comment under my "Shroud News-January 2008." The commenter's words are bold.
[Above: How a soudarion (Latin sudarium) was placed over the head of a deceased Jewish person and then removed before he was enveloped by a linen shroud in his tomb. 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.118.]
[...]
But clearly the believers in the shroud are also believers in the bible as an accurate gospel of God and Jesus Christ, etc. I have seen a few bible quotes in the debate about the shroud, but I rarely, if ever, see one in particular that I offer here. How can the Shroud of Turin possibly be authentic when the bible reads thusly: John 20:
3 Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. 4 So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. 5 And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. 6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, 7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.The scripture clearly states that there were two pieces, with a separate piece around Jesus' head, and from what I understand common practice of the time. No, while the "napkin" (Gk. soudarion) in John 20:7 is singular and therefore one "piece" of graveclothes, the "linen clothes" (Gk. othonia, othonion) in John 20:5-7 are plural, that is more than one "piece" of graveclothes:
"... othonia is to be understood as a `collective singular,' just like the English word `clothes' could refer to one article of clothing, or two or three or four" (Ruffin, 1999, pp.46-47).Note: I no longer claim that the othonia seen by Peter and John in the empty tomb on resurrection Sunday [Lk 24:12; Jn 20:4-8] was a "collective singular" for all Jesus' linen burial cloths. That is because all my New Testament Greek lexicons state that othonion (singular) is a diminutive of othone a linen cloth, hence othonia (plural) are small linen cloths. Therefore othonia is correctly translated "strips of linen" as in Lk 24:12; Jn 19:40 and 20:5-7 (NIV) and Mounce Interlinear. I therefore maintain that the Shroud (sindon) was no longer in the Tomb when Peter and John entered it, Jesus having taken it with Him out of the Tomb. See my 2014 "Servant of the priest" series and my posts of 08May18 & 16Aug22.
"... othonia refers to all the grave clothes associated with Jesus' burial-the large sindon (the shroud), as well as the smaller strips of linen that bound the jaw, the hands, and the feet." Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.48-49).
"John mentions no shroud, but speaks in the plural of linen cloths (othonia) ...and also of a soudarion - `the napkin, which had been on his head ... " (Wenham, 1984, p.66).
"... othonia means cloths in general, which could incorporate shroud and bands." (Wilson, 1978, p.41).
Here is what all the gospel accounts say in the NIV, with the underlying Greek key words added :
Mt 27:59-60 NIV "59 Joseph took the body, wrapped [enetulizen] it in a clean linen cloth [sindoni], 60 and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away."As can be seen, the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke focus on the main large sindon or linen burial cloth in which the body of Jesus was wrapped (i.e. enfolded, not bandaged like a mummy) (Guerrera, 2000, p.31; Ruffin, 1999, pp.46-47; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.48-49; Wenham, 1984, pp.66-67).
Mk 15:46 NIV "So Joseph [of Arimathea] bought some linen cloth [sindona], took down the body, wrapped [eneilesen] it in the linen [sindoni], and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb."
Lk 23:52-53; 24:12 NIV "52 Going to Pilate, he [Joseph of Arimathea] asked for Jesus' body. 53 Then he took it down, wrapped [enetulizen] it in linen cloth [sindoni] and placed it in a tomb cut in the rock, one in which no one had yet been laid. ... 12 Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen [othonia] lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened."
Jn 19:40; 20:5-8 NIV "40 Taking Jesus' body, the two of them [Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus] wrapped [edesan] it, with the spices, in strips of linen [othoniois]. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs. ... 5 He [John] bent over and looked in at the strips of linen [othonia] lying there but did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen [othonia] lying there, 7 as well as the burial cloth [soudarion] that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up [entetuligmenon] by itself, separate from the linen [othonion] . 8 Finally the other disciple [John], who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed."
The gospel of John focuses in more detail on the soudarion or head-cloth, and collectively referring to the other graveclothes, including the Shroud, as othonia (Guerrera, 2000, p.31; Ruffin, 1999, pp.46-47; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.49-50). That the sindon was included in the othonia is evident in that Luke above mentions both the sindon at the burial of Jesus and the othonia in the empty tomb (Ruffin, 1999, pp.46-47; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.49-50).
That being the case, the image of Jesus' face would not be on the Turin shroud, or would at least appear differently from the rest of the fabric. This would only be true if the soudarion remained "on the face under the Shroud, as this would have prevented the image from being formed on the Shroud, and it would presumably have caused it to be formed on the sudarium." (Guscin, 1998, p.34). But the gospels in John 20:7 only says that "the burial cloth ... had been around Jesus' head, without specifying when" (Guscin, 1998, p.33).
As historian Mark Guscin explains:
"the sudarium was used to cover Jesus' face before he was buried, from the moment when he died to the moment he was laid out in the tomb. ... then ... the sudarium was taken off his face, folded up and put to one side, and the clean linen cloth was used to quickly wrap the body before the sun went down and the Sabbath started. This coincides with Jewish custom and ritual. ... that if the face of the dead person was any way disfigured, it should be covered with a cloth ... The sudarium must have been placed over his face before his body had been taken down from the cross, left there while it was being transported to the tomb and there taken off, folded up and left to one side, when the body was placed in the larger linen cloth." (Guscin, 1998, p.35).See also Shroud Report Interview with Mark Guscin for a video on how the soudarion (Latin. Sudarium) would have been placed over the head of Jesus on the cross and then removed in the tomb before He was enfolded in the Shroud.
And the absense of folds, voids, and displacements in the image that would occur had the fabric been wrapped around a body further support the Shroud, not so much an intentional hoax, but a medieval work of art. See parts #1 and #2 for the Shroud not being "a ... work of art." Even Prof. Christopher Ramsey, the Director of the Oxford University Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, the same laboratory which in 1988-89, radiocarbon-dated the Shroud and declared it to be "medieval", has admitted:
"There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow ... there needs to be a coherent history of the Shroud which takes into account and explains all of the available scientific and historical information" (Ramsey, ORAU, 2008).Clearly Prof. Ramsay would not be investigating whether the Shroud's "medieval" radiocarbon-date was wrong, would not be doing that if the Shroud had been conclusively proved to be "a medieval work of art." And if the Shroud was a "work of art," whether "medieval" or not, considering that:
"`With the radiocarbon measurements and with all of the other evidence which we have about the Shroud, there does seem to be a conflict in the interpretation of the different evidence,' Professor Ramsey tells the BBC." (Omaar, BBC, 2008).
"Ramsey also acknowledged the need to reconcile radiocarbon-dating results with other forensic and historical evidence, which indicate the shroud is much older than 600 to 700 years old." (Draper, Chicago Tribune, 2008).
"The Shroud of Turin is now the most intensively studied artifact in the history of the world. Somewhere between 100,000 and 150,000 scientific man-hours have been spent on it, with the best analytical tools available." (Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, p.219).science would have long ago proved the Shroud to be a "work of art."
Also, the Shroud was not "wrapped around a body" like an Egyptian mummy. In first century Jewish burials, the body was enfolded in a linen shroud, as the Shroud of Turin is:
"Jewish burial customs do not support the idea that John's othonia refers to the wrappings of a mummy. Jews did not wrap up their dead like mummies, but laid them in shrouds, as indicated by the Gospel of John, the Essene burial procedures, and the Code of Jewish Law." (Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.48).See quotes below hyperlinked to references above (emphasis italics original, emphasis bold mine, my transliteration).
"John's use of othonia has led to a widely held belief that Jesus was wrapped like an Egyptian mummy. But such a procedure doesn't conform to what is known of first-century normal Jewish burial ritual. ... John used the word edesan, which is translated wound in the KJV but literally means `enfolded.' Enfolded would also match the burial custom. Being wrapped with strips of cloth would not." (Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, pp.149-150).
Posted 26 June 2008. Updated 21 August 2022.
"Ramsey also acknowledged the need to reconcile radiocarbon-dating results with other forensic and historical evidence, which indicate the shroud is much older than 600 to 700 years old. Scientists must arrive at a coherent story about the enigmatic shroud, Ramsey said. The shroud is either authentic or a hoax so ingenious that state-of-the-art scientific analysis has yet to explain how it was done, said David Rolfe, director of a new documentary, `Shroud of Turin.' `The shroud is brilliant and unfathomable,' Rolfe said." (Draper, E., 2008, "Lab agrees to test Shroud of Turin for new theory," Chicago Tribune, May 20).
"As for the image itself, what meets the eye is intelligible, but how it was formed is a matter of vigorous debate. We shall need to review, although necessarily in a superficial way, the scientific analyses of the Shroud's image (detailed discussions, by writers competent in these matters, are available elsewhere). The battery of sophisticated and expensive tests conducted in 1978 by the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) has yielded a few significant conclusions, and these have been admirably presented by L. A. Schwalbe and R. N. Rogers. [Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., `Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary of the 1978 Investigation,' Reprinted from Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, 1982, pp.3-49] ... But although much remains unclear, considerably more is known now than was known when the Shroud was shown on television in 1973. Most important, perhaps, is the consensus that the image was not painted on the cloth. This is now conceded by virtually every observer, even those who believe that the image is somehow the result of human artifice. Painters outline a figure before painting it, but there is no tell-tale outline on the Shroud. Nor is there a hint of the directionality that brush-marks would produce. Finally, there is no clear evidence of any pigment on the Shroud .... The STURP team, using microscopic, chemical laser microprobes, concluded that the Shroud shows no trace of `any of the expected dyes, stains, pigments, or painting media.' [Ibid, p.27]" (Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, pp.16-17).
"WE know from the Gospels that after the body of Jesus was taken down from the Cross, it was wrapped in a linen cloth. The Synoptic Gospels use the Greek word sindon to describe this Shroud (cf. Matt. 27:59; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53). The Fourth Gospel, on the other hand, uses the word soudarion to refer to the cloth which covered the head of Jesus (John 20:7) and the plural othonia (John 19:40), often interpreted to mean `strips of linen,' `wrappings' or `linen bandages:' An entry in a biblical dictionary, however, states: `Nowhere in the account of Christ's burial is mention made of keiriai, strips of cloth, bandages, such as bound the hands and feet of Lazarus in the tomb' [Hartman, L.R., "Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible," McGraw-Hill: New York, 1963, p.287] (John 11:44). ... In the Old Testament the sindon was used for a variety of purposes other than for burial. Samson promised his companions `thirty linen tunics, [Hebrew: sedhinim, Greek: sindonas] and as many coats' if they would solve a riddle for him (Jdg. 14:12). Interestingly, the Latin manuscript Codex Vaticanus, in lieu of sindonas, uses the word othonia, thereby indicating that the words were considered synonymous. The book of Proverbs speaks of the ideal wife who makes fine linen (sindonas) and sells it (Prov. 31:24). The word sindon is also used in the New Testament to refer to the cloth worn by the young man who followed Jesus from a distance after His arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane. `There was a young man following him, who was covered by nothing but a linen cloth. As they seized him he left the cloth behind and ran off naked' (Mark 14:51-52)." (Guerrera, V., "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, 2000, pp.31-32).
"The only biblical reference to the sudarium is the one already discussed, in the gospel of John. We are told that this cloth had been over Jesus' head, and the seemingly natural conclusion from this is that it was over Jesus' head at the same time as the Shroud, when Jesus was buried. However, John does not exactly say this, he simply says that the sudarium had been over his head, without specifying when. There are various reasons that make it impossible for the sudarium to have covered the dead body of Jesus in the tomb." (Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, p.33).
"One of the greatest mysteries about the Shroud is how the image was formed - and this mystery has not been solved. We know how it was not formed. It was definitely not painted, as there are absolutely no traces of any kind of paint, (except for tiny particles left by painted copies when they were pressed to the Shroud in order to `sanctify' the copy) and there is no direction in the outline, which is impossible on a painting. Also, nobody could have painted a perfect negative before negatives and photography were even known about. Various people have thought that the image was created by a mixture of body heat (another reason why they need Jesus to be alive in the tomb), gases and the spices which were present. However, all their attempts to reproduce the image using these methods have either resulted in total failure or in grotesque caricatures of the volunteer under the linen. Nobody has been able to reproduce anything even remotely similar to the image on the Shroud. What we do know about the image is that it appears to have been scorched into only the top few fibres in each thread, has no direction and its intensity was directly dependent on how far from the actual body the cloth was. This is why the throat is not shown on the image-the cloth would have been stretched from the chin to the chest, not tucked into every fold of the body." (Guscin, 1998, pp.33-34).
"This eliminates the possibility of the sudarium being on the face under the Shroud, as this would have prevented the image from being formed on the Shroud, and it would presumably have caused it to be formed on the sudarium. As the face image on the Shroud is just as clear as the rest of the body, and as there is no image, only blood, on the sudarium, we can confidently state that the smaller cloth was not placed between the face and the larger cloth in the tomb. Could it have been placed over the Shroud while the dead body was in the tomb? ... This does not seem probable, however, as John clearly states that the sudarium in the empty tomb was lying separate from the linen wrappings. No matter how the body came out of the tomb, there is no reason why anybody should fold up the sudarium and put it in a separate place, if it had been with the Shroud over the body. Some have tried to see a theological meaning in the fact that the sudarium was lying separate from the linen cloths. ... It is true that there is a high symbolic content in John's gospel, but at this point it looks much more like an exact detail remembered by an eyewitness than a passage with a symbolic meaning. Even if the sudarium was placed on Jesus' head on top of the Shroud, the blood stains are definitely from before this." (Guscin, 1998, p.34).
"All this points to one thing - the sudarium was used to cover Jesus' face before he was buried, from the moment when he died to the moment he was laid out in the tomb. It was probably then that the sudarium was taken off his face, folded up and put to one side, and the clean linen cloth was used to quickly wrap the body before the sun went down and the Sabbath started. This coincides with Jewish custom and ritual. One of the rules of the Sanhedrin for the burial of the dead was that if the face of the dead person was any way disfigured, it should be covered with a cloth to avoid people seeing the unpleasant sight. This would certainly have been the case with Jesus, whose face was covered in blood from the crown of thorns and swollen from falling and being struckThe cloth was placed on Jesus' face, then folded over itself, although not in the middle. This is why there are four groups of the same stains. The cloth was then wrapped round the left side of Jesus' head, and fastened to his hair at the back with some kind of hairpin. This is evident from the blood stains which coincide with the blood on the nape of the neck on the Shroud. The cloth was only wrapped around the left-hand side of the head because Jesus' right cheek was almost touching his right shoulder. This suggests that the cloth was placed over the face when the body was still on the cross. The experiments with the stains show that the body was then left on the cross for about one hour before being taken down. It was then laid on the ground a further forty-five minutes before being carried to the tomb. The chronology of the two cloths is thus clear: the smaller linen cloth was only in contact with Jesus' face for the short period of time from the death on the cross until the body was placed in the larger cloth and left in the tomb." (Guscin, 1998, pp.35-38).
"Mr Jackson has developed a new hypothesis that could explain how a genuinely ancient piece of linen could produce a distorted younger date. I took this to Professor Christopher Ramsey, director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit. He agreed to collaborate with Mr Jackson in testing a series of linen samples that could determine if the case for the Shroud's authenticity could be re-opened. `With the radiocarbon measurements and with all of the other evidence which we have about the Shroud, there does seem to be a conflict in the interpretation of the different evidence,' Professor Ramsey tells the BBC. `And for that reason I think that everyone who has worked in this area, radiocarbon scientists and all of the other experts, need to have a critical look at the evidence that they've come up with in order for us to try to work out some kind of a coherent story that fits and tells us the truth of the history of this intriguing cloth." (Omaar, R., 2008, "Shroud mystery 'refuses to go away'," BBC, 21 March)
"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, "The Shroud of Turin," Version 77, Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, 23 March)
"At question is the exact meaning of the Greek word used for the linen in which Jesus' body was enfolded. Matthew tells us that Joseph of Arimathea took Jesus' body and wrapped it in a linen Shroud (see Mt 27:59-60). The Greek word usually translated as shroud is sindon. In the literature of the time, it usually refers to the type of winding sheet of which the Shroud of Turin is representative. The author of the first Gospel makes no mention as to what became of this cloth after the Resurrection. Mark, likewise, tells us that the body of Jesus was wrapped in a linen shroud, and again, the Greek word is sindon. Like Matthew, Mark does not mention the sindon after the Resurrection. Luke also records that Jesus' corpse was wrapped in a sindon. However, when Peter is described as finding the linen lying by itself after the Resurrection (see Lk 24:12), the word used is othonia, which is plural, and has occasioned nearly all translators to render it as `linen cloths' or `linen wraps.' John speaks of the body being wrapped also in othonia (see Jn 19:40). Then, when he recounts his arrival (or that of `the disciple whom Jesus loved') with Peter at the empty tomb, he says, `Then Simon Peter came, following [John], and went into the tomb; he saw the linen cloths lying, and the napkin, which had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place by itself' (Jn 20:6-7). The Greek word usually translated as `napkin' is sudarion. ... We have two problems. According to John, the grave clothing of Jesus is described in plural. John also specifies that the body of his Lord was wrapped in two types of graveclothes: the othonia (linen cloths) and the sudarion (napkin). Some have said that othonia refers to strips like those in which the Egyptians wrapped their mummies. Many artists throughout the years have pictured Jesus as being buried this way. Others have said that othonia is to be understood as a `collective singular,' just like the English word `clothes' could refer to one article of clothing, or two or three or four. Certainly Luke uses both the singular sindon and the plural othonia to refer, evidently, to the same thing. Victor Tunkel of the University of London described in a lecture in 1983 how Jewish victims of violent death were usually buried in one-piece shrouds. ... However, what is to be made of St. John's assertion that Jesus' burial clothing was in two parts? Most scholars think that othonia refers to what we now know as the Shroud, or something similar. The sudarion was most likely a smaller cloth put over the face or tied around it to keep the mouth from falling open. " (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, pp.46-47).
"The Grave Clothes. Another issue concerns the difference in the words chosen by the gospel writers to describe the grave clothes that Jesus was wrapped in. The synoptic evangelists say that he was wrapped in a sindon, a Greek word meaning a linen cloth which could be used for any purpose, including burial. John, on the other hand, says Jesus was wrapped in othonia, a plural Greek word of uncertain meaning. Othonia is sometimes translated as `strips of linen,' a meaning that would seem to be incompatible with a fourteen-foot-long shroud covering the front and back of the body. However, it is likely that othonia refers to all the grave clothes associated with Jesus' burial-the large sindon (the shroud), as well as the smaller strips of linen that bound the jaw, the hands, and the feet. This interpretation of othonia is supported by Luke's use of the word. He says (23:53) that Jesus was wrapped in a sindon, but later (24:12) that Peter saw the othonia lying in the tomb after Jesus' resurrection. Luke, then, uses othonia as a plural term for all the grave clothes, including the sindon. Furthermore, as seen earlier, Jewish burial customs do not support the idea that John's othonia refers to the wrappings of a mummy. Jews did not wrap up their dead like mummies, but laid them in shrouds, as indicated by the Gospel of John, the Essene burial procedures, and the Code of Jewish Law. John himself insists that Jewish customs were followed Jesus' case (19:40). Thus, there is good scriptural evidence that Jesus was laid in the tomb wrapped in a shroud. Therefore, the gospels refer to the grave clothes in both the singular and the plural. When a single cloth is spoken of, it is obviously the linen sheet itself. However, since Luke (or early tradition) had no difficulty in using the plural (24:12) to describe what he earlier referred to in the singular (23:53), the term `clothes' may still refer to a single piece of material. On the other hand, if more than one piece is meant, `clothes' is most probably a reference to both the sheet and the additional strips which were bound around the head, wrists, and feet, as indicated in John 11:44 (cf. John 19:40). Interestingly enough, bands in these same locations can be discerned on the Shroud of Turin. At any rate, it is a reasonable conclusion that at least one major linen sheet is being referred to in the gospels." (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, pp.48-49. Emphasis original).
"Another apparent problem crops up in the descriptions of the grave clothes the disciples saw in the tomb on Easter morning. Both Luke and John describe grave clothes in the tomb. Luke says that Peter went inside the tomb and saw the othonia-the generic term for all the grave clothes, including the shroud and the smaller pieces used to bind the jaw, hands, and feet. John, however, gives a more detailed description of what he and Peter saw, and he introduces another term into the grave clothes listing. When they went into the tomb, they saw the othonia lying on the ground, but also the sudarion lying rolled up in a place by itself, apart from these othonia. John adds the detail that the sudarion had been `around the head' of Jesus. Sudarion means `napkin' or `sweat cloth.' It is, at any rate, a rather small piece of cloth. If it had been placed over the face of Jesus in the tomb, no image of Jesus' face would have appeared on the Shroud. Since the Shroud of Turin bears the image of a face, the reference to a sudarion seems to challenge the authenticity of the Shroud. Indeed, some Christians have pointed to this passage as evidence that the Shroud is incompatible with scripture. However, a number of scripture scholars do not think that the sudarion was a napkin or cloth placed over Jesus' face. ... Why did the Gospel of John include this detail about the sudarion? The author seems to attach great importance to it. He describes the burial cloth on the ground and the sudarion rolled up in a place by itself, and then adds that this discovery caused belief. It is not easy to tell from the Greek exactly what it was about the placement of the grave clothes that caused belief (John 20:9), but Robinson has a plausible interpretation of what is being described here. We are told that the disciples entered the tomb and saw the shroud and the other linen cloths lying flat. But the sudarion was apparently still in its twisted oval shape, the way it had been when tied tightly around Jesus' head to keep the jaw closed. Something about this scene convinced them that grave robbers could not have stolen the body, as Mary Magdalene had reported after she discovered that the stone had been moved away from the tomb. Until this moment, the gospel explains, the disciples had not understood that Jesus would rise from the dead. Now, looking at the grave clothes, they believed." (Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.49-51. Emphasis original).
"Many STURP scientists thought that the Shroud was simply a fake to be exposed by scientific testing. But in the 1981 meeting at New London, Connecticut, the scientists reported: `No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultraviolet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies.' ["Text," The Shroud of Turin Research Project, Press Release, 8 October 1981]. Ever since then, several STURP scientists have continued to report that forgery could not be the cause of the Shroud's image. [Murphy, C., "Shreds of Evidence," Harper's, November, 1981, pp.42-65, pp.61-62] Heller notes: `At the end of months of work, we had pretty well eliminated all paints, pigments, dyes, and stains.... the images were not the result of any colorant that had been added.' [Heller, 1983, p.198] Heller points out that fraud can be checked by at least two scientific methods - chemistry and physics. Concerning the first means, he said, `Adler and I had reached the conclusion that the image could not have been made by artistic endeavor.' [Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, p.207] The second method revealed no forgery either: `The conclusion of the physical scientists was that the Shroud could not be the result of eye/brain/hand.' [Ibid., p.209]" (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, pp.120-121).
"Q. Doesn't the Shroud conflict with Scripture? a) John 20:5-7 mentions linens and at the very least implies there were a minimum of two cloths. Many have suggested that the linens were `strips,' however the Shroud is merely one piece of cloth. ... A. All of the other scriptural issues were dealt with heavily in Verdict. The answers to these apparent discrepancies are as follows: First, the Gospels use the following words to describe the Shroud: Sindon-burial sheet, winding sheet, shroud; sudarion-sweat cloth, face cloth, handkerchief; othonia linens. ... John's use of othonia has led to a widely held belief that Jesus was wrapped like an Egyptian mummy. But such a procedure doesn't conform to what is known of first-century normal Jewish burial ritual. Nor does it match what was previously mentioned in the Word, to wit, that Joseph of Arimathea had purchased a winding sheet and wrapped Jesus in it (Mark 15:46). Even John used the word edesan, which is translated wound in the KJV but literally means `enfolded.' Enfolded would also match the burial custom. Being wrapped with strips of cloth would not. In other words, othonia in John should be understood to mean that Jesus' dead body was enveloped from head to feet in one burial cloth, not wrapped like a mummy with numerous strips of cloth." (Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, pp.149-150).
"The precise nature of the burial cloths has been the subject of much debate. The synoptists tell us that Joseph of Arimathea bought (Mark) a clean (Matthew) linen shroud or sheet (Greek - sindon) and wrapped Jesus in it (Matthew, Mark, Luke) [Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:50-56]. John mentions no shroud, but speaks in the plural of linen cloths (othonia) [Jn 19:40; 20:5-6] and also of a soudarion - `the napkin, which had been on his head ... rolled up in a place by itself.' [Jn 20:7] The disputed (but probably authentic) passage at Luke 24:12 makes no further reference to the sheet, but mentions othonia lying by themselves. Christian artists have commonly depicted the grave-clothes of Jesus as broad bandages wound round the limbs and the body, together with a turban-like towel around his head. Some writers have visualised the linen sheet being torn into strips and the spices being wound into the folds. It has then been supposed that at the resurrection the soudarion and othonia collapsed in situ to form two separate piles. As will be seen presently this does not in fact tally very well with what the evangelists say, but it illustrates the apparently rather imprecise and confusing picture which they seem to give. John gives us an account of a normal burial in a well-to-do home in his record of the raising of Lazarus: `The dead man came out, his hands and feet bound with bandages (keiriai), and his face wrapped with a cloth (soudarion). Jesus said to them, "Unbind him, and let him go."' [Jn 11:44] There is nothing in this account to suggest a winding of long bandages around arms and legs and other parts of the body; indeed just the opposite, for the resuscitated corpse was certainly not deprived of wrappings which left him standing there naked. Before burial he had been washed, anointed with perfumed ointments and dressed in his best clean garment. Short strips of cloth had apparently been tied round wrists and ankles to keep his arms and legs in position, and the soudarion kept the mouth from falling open. The hobbled Lazarus was able to shuffle to the entrance of the tomb, where he was set free by the untying of these three cloths. And now he stood there fully clothed." (Wenham, J.W., 1984, "Easter Enigma: Are the Resurrection Stories in Conflict?," Paternoster: Exeter UK, Reprinted, 1987, pp.66-67).
"As we have already mentioned, it was normal for Jews to be buried in clothing, more specifically the white garments they wore for festivals. In the case of Jesus we would not necessarily expect this, as we know his clothing was taken from him at the time of crucifixion. But many authors have pointed out. that we would certainly not expect the fourteen-foot sheet that we find preserved in Turin. Here again we are in a hornets' nest of controversy over gospel interpretation that exists quite independently of the Shroud. It all stems from apparent conflicts of information between the synoptic writers and St. John. The synoptics speak only of the sindon purchased by Joseph of Arimathea (Mt. 7:59; Mk. 15:46; Lk. 23:53). This is often translated as shroud, although it should be pointed out that it does not have a specifically sepulchral meaning. St. Mark, for instance, used the same word to describe the garment lost by the young man at Gethsemane who fled at the arrest of Jesus (Mk. 14:51, 52). St. John, on the other hand, does not use the word sindon, but instead says the body of Jesus was wrapped in othonia. And in his account of the discovery of the linens in the empty tomb again he uses the word othonia (which he describes as lying at the scene), and refers also cryptically to a mysterious soudarion, rolled up and lying in a place by itself (Jn. 20:7) . The precise meanings of othonia and sindon in their gospel context have been hotly debated. Some have contended that othonia (which is a plural form) means linen bands and that Joseph must have torn up the sindon into strips to wind Jesus mummy-style. Quite neutral exegetes such as Pere Benoit have pointed out that it would surely have been easier for Joseph to purchase ready-made bandages rather than tearing up a large sheet for this purpose. The most balanced modern view is that othonia means cloths in general, which could incorporate shroud and bands." (Wilson, I., 1978, "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, pp.41-42).
Posts
