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 the

[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.]

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].

This entry #9(3) 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 #9 into three parts. For more information about this Encyclopedia series, see the Main Index "A-Z", and sub-indexes "S", "C," and "D."

[Servant of the priest: (1) & (2)]

[Main index] [Entry 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 had been a servant in the High Priest's household. The High Priest was commonly called simply "the Priest." There is further Biblical evidence that John had been a servant of the High Priest. Jesus appeared to the Apostle John before He appeared to James, Jesus' brother. Therefore, this third 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.

• There is Biblical evidence that the Apostle John was a Jewish priest. As we saw above there is Biblical evidence that the Apostle John came from a Jewish priestly family. A comparison of the Gospels' lists of women disciples standing near the Cross reveals that Jesus' "mother's sister" was "Salome," who was "the mother of the sons of Zebedee," i.e. John's mother (Mk 3:17; 10:35; Lk 5:10):

Jn 19:25	Mk 15:40	Mt 27:55-56
"... standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene."	"... women looking on ... Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome."	"...women ... looking on ... Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedee."

Mark and Mathew evidently record the three prominent women disciples standing by the Cross after Mary, the mother of Jesus, had been taken by the Apostle John (Jn 19:26-27), her nephew (see below), to his home[11]. That the remaining three women mentioned are the same group in each account is shown by Mark listing "Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome" as the women who went to the tomb in the early morning after the sabbath to anoint Jesus' body (Mk 16:1).

That means that Jesus and Apostle John were first cousins:

"To the casual reader Matthew's `other Mary' [Mt 27:61; 28:1], Mark's `Salome' [Mk 15:40; 16:1] and John's `Clopas' [Jn 19:25] seem obscure and rather unimportant figures. To the careful student, however, they prove exceptionally interesting. A key to their identification is to be found in the descriptions of the women at the crucifixion given by Matthew, Mark and John. Matthew and Mark ... identify three women watching at a distance, while John mentions Jesus' mother and three other women standing by the cross. It is natural to suppose that the same three women are referred to in each case and that they came forward with the Lord's mother to support her in the final farewell. If the women are the same in each case, we get the following descriptions: 1. Mary Magdalene - so called in all three gospels. 2. One called by Matthew: `the mother of the sons of Zebedee' [Mt 27:56] by Mark: `Salome' [Mk 15:40] by John: `Jesus' mother's sister' [Jn 19:25]; 3. Mary, called by Matthew: `the mother of James and Joseph' [Mt 27:56] ... or `the other Mary'. [Mt 27:61] by Mark: `the mother of James the younger and of Joses' [Mk 15:40] or `the mother of Joses' [Mk 15:47] or `the mother of James' [Mk 16:1] by John: `the wife of Clopas' [Jn 19:25]. ... This means that Salome is, on the one hand, the sister of the Lord's mother - that is to say, Jesus' aunt; and, on the other hand, mother of the two leading disciples, James and John. This makes John first cousin to Jesus"[12].

Mary was also a "kinswoman" of Elisabeth, the mother of John the Baptist (Lk 1:36 YLT)[13]. The Greek word for "kinswoman," sungenis, is simply the female of sungenes "a kinsman" (Mk 6:4; Lk 1:58; 2:44; 14:12; 21:16; Jn 18:26; Ac 10:24) including "of tribal kinship" (Rom 9:3; 16:7,11,21)[14]. Elizabeth was one of the "daughters of Aaron" (Lk 1:5), that is, she was of priestly descent and the daughter of a priest[15]. Therefore Mary, and Salome her sister, were descended from David (Lk 1:32) and so were of the tribe of Judah (Mt 1:1-6; Lk 3:30-31) and also they were descended from Aaron, and so were of the tribe of Levi (Ex 6:16-20). There is no contradiction in this, as while a priest had to be a descendent of Aaron, he was not required to take a wife from the descendants of Aaron but the only requirement was that she was an Israelite virgin (Lev 21:1,7,14)[16]. The conditions of Jesus' descent from David (Mt 1:1; Rom 1:3; 2Tim 2:8; Rev 22:16) are satisfied if at least one of Mary's parents were of Davidic decent[17].

Therefore, for the Apostle John, the son of Salome, to be a priest, it was only necessary that his father, Zebedee (Mt 4:21; 10:2; Mk 1:19; 3:17; 10:35; Lk 5:10), was of Aaronic descent and therefore was a priest[18]. And that would have been so if Mary (and Salome's) father, Heli (Lk 3:23)[19], i.e. "Eli" - a priestly name (1Sam 1:9; 2:11; 14:3), was a descendant of Aaron and therefore a priest[20]. And that would have been the case, if the father of Elisabeth, who was Mary's and Salome's kinswoman, was a brother of Zebedee, John's father. Further Biblical confirmation that John was a priest is found in Jn 20:4-8, where John reached the empty tomb first but did not enter it until after Peter went in and confirmed that Jesus' body was not there. It was forbidden for a priest to enter a tomb[21] where he might make contact with a dead body and so become "unclean" (Lev 21:1-3)[22].

• There is Biblical evidence that John had been a servant in the High Priest's household John, the "other disciple" (Jn 20:2-4,8[23, 24, 25]), twice mentioned that he was "known to the High Priest" in Jn 18:15-16:

"Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Since that disciple was known to the high priest, he entered with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest, but Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the servant girl who kept watch at the door, and brought Peter in."

The Greek word for "known" here "denotes ... personal knowledge and friendship":

"The word 'known' (gnostos ) denotes not just acquaintance but personal knowledge and friendship (cf. Luke 2:44; 23:49). The 'other disciple' must have known the high priest well to gain immediate unchallenged access to the courtyard. It was to Annas' house (and not the temple) that Jesus was taken, and the 'courtyard' would be the atrium of his house. This is confirmed by the description of the doorkeeper as 'the girl on duty' (16), rather than a temple official. If the other disciple was the beloved disciple, and if the beloved disciple is identified as John the son of Zebedee, how do we account for him, as a Galilean fisherman, being 'known' to the high priest?"[26].

The person so described, John, "was a member of the High Priest's circle, possibly a kinsman and himself of priestly birth...":

"It is now generally recognized that gnostos implies something more than mere acquaintance. It means that the person so described was a member of the High Priest's circle, possibly a kinsman and himself of priestly birth, or at any rate one who stood in intimate relations with the governing high priestly family"[27].

The "High Priest" was Annas (Jn 18:13), a previous High Priest (AD 6–15), who although he had been deposed by the Roman governor in AD 15, was still regarded by the Jews as still the only legitimate High Priest[28] (Lk 3:2; Ac 4:6), and continued to be effectively the High Priest through his five sons and son-in-law Caiaphas (Jn 18:13) as puppet High Priests[29]. So John was admitted into the courtyard of Annas' house (Jn 18:15) and not only that, after speaking with the servant girl doorkeeper, John was able to bring Peter into the courtyard (Jn 18:16). That the servant girl knew John was a follower of Jesus is evident in her question to Peter, "You also are not one of this man's disciples, are you?" (my emphasis) (Jn 18:17)[30]. John knew the name of the "servant of the High Priest" whose ear Peter had cut off was "Malchus" (Jn 18:10). John also knew that another servant of the High Priest was a relative of Malchus (Jn 18:26).

Commentators admit that, "How it was that Annas ... knew John remains a mystery"[31] and John's "acquaintance with the high priest is difficult to explain"[32]. The explanation that John knew the High Priest from selling him fish(!)[33] clearly is inadequate. Morris, however, notes that:

"It is possible to account for it, however. One line of argument is that John seems to have come of a priestly family ..."[34]

followed by the quote above. Theologian William Sanday (1843–1920) observed that:

"The account of what happened to Peter might well seem to be told from the point of view of the servants' hall" (my emphasis)[35].

So a likely explanation of all the above, perhaps the only explanation, is that John was a priest and had been a servant of the High Priest.

The High Priest was commonly called simply "the Priest" The High Priest was commonly called "the Priest":

"The High Priest (Heb. ... kohen gadol) was the chief religious official of Israelite religion and of classical Judaism from the rise of the Israelite nation until the destruction of the Second Temple of Jerusalem. The high priests belonged to the Jewish priestly families that trace their paternal line back to Aaron, the first high priest and elder brother of Moses. ... Aaron, though he is but rarely called "the great priest", being generally simply designated as `ha-kohen' (the priest), was the first incumbent of the office, to which he was appointed by God (Book of Exodus 28:1–2; 29:4–5)."[36]

Examples include: "Hilkiah the high priest" (2Ki 22:4,8; 23:4; 2Chr 34:9) is called simply "Hilkiah the priest" (2Ki 22:10,12,14; 23:24; 2Chr 34:14); and "Eliashib the high priest" (Neh 3:1,20; 13:28) is called "Eliashib the priest" (Neh 13:4). It was the norm that the High Priest, was not called "High Priest" in the Old Testament, but simply "the Priest." Examples of this, among a great many, include: "Aaron the priest" (Ex 31:10; Lev 1:7; Num 3:6; Josh 21:4); "Eleazar the priest" (Num 16:39; Josh 14:1); and "Phinehas the priest" (Josh 22:30). So a servant of the High Priest could be called simply a "servant of the Priest." In particular, if John had been a servant of Annas the High Priest, he could have been called simply and informally, "John, the servant of the Priest."

Further Biblical evidence that John had been a servant of the High Priest. Although John and his brother James had helped their father Zebedee in his Galilean fishing business (Mt 4:21 & Mk 1:19), John had a home in Jerusalem (Jn 19:27)[37]. John had a detailed and accurate knowledge of the geography of Judea and the features of Jerusalem (before its destruction in AD70), which one would not expect from a Galilean fisherman[38]:

"His [John's] knowledge of Palestinian topography was accurate. He distinguished between Bethany, the suburb of Jerusalem where Mary and Martha lived (11:1), and `Bethany on the other side of the Jordan,' where John the Baptist preached (1:28). Some of the sites he alluded to, such as Aenon (3:23) and Ephraim (11:54), are not described elsewhere; but, obviously, they were actual places well known to him. His description of the features of Jerusalem, such as the pool by the `Sheep Gate' (5:2), the `pool of Siloam' (9:7), the `Stone Pavement' (Gr. lithostroton, 19:13), and the varied references to the temple (2:14-16; 8:20; 10:23), show that he was familiar with the city before its destruction"[39].

The Gospel of John, much more than the other gospels, gives details of Jewish feasts and purification rites, which would have been especially important to a Jewish priest:

"... the author [John] is acquainted with ... Jewish feasts and purification-rites: the Passover: 2:13, 23; 6:4; 13:1; 18:28; perhaps also 5:1; the Feast of Tabernacles: 7:2, 37, 38; the Feast of Dedication: 10:22, 23. See also 3:25; 11:55; 12:12; 18:28, 39; 19:31"[40]

This is further Biblical evidence that John was a priest and had been based in Jerusalem, as would be the case if he had been a servant of the High Priest.

Jesus appeared to the Apostle John before He appeared to James, Jesus' brother. The Apostle Paul, quoting a list of post-resurrection appearances of Jesus, stated that Jesus appeared to "the Twelve" which included John (Mt 10:2), before He appeared to James, Jesus' brother (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3; Gal 1:19)[41].

1Cor 15:3-7. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles."

Jesus could have given His shroud to John when He appeared to the Twelve. Or, since Paul list only five of the ten recorded post-resurrection appearance of Jesus[42], and since Acts 1:3 states that Jesus appeared to His apostles after His resurrection over a space of "forty days":

"He [Jesus] presented himself alive to them [the apostle] after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God."

it is entirely possible that Jesus appeared to John alone, but unrecorded, to give His shroud to him, before He appeared James.

That Jesus took His Shroud with Him out of the empty tomb and later gave it to the Apostle John, seems the most likely. We saw in parts (1), (2), and this part (3) of entry #9, evidence that: 1) the Empty Tomb did not contain Jesus' burial shroud [sindon]; 2) the late first/early second century Gospel of the Hebrews preserved a tradition of the earliest Church which was widely believed to be true, that Jesus took His burial shroud out of the Tomb and have it to "the servant of the priest"; and 3) the Apostle John was a priest and had been a servant of the High Priest, Annas. It is therefore proposed that the term "servant of the priest" was a pseudonym of the Apostle John, and that Jesus gave St. John His burial shroud (known today as the Shroud of Turin) in one of His earlier post-resurrection appearances.

The pseudonym being necessary to preserve the security of the Shroud from the far more numerous and powerful enemies of the early Church, the Romans and the Jews, who if they knew the Shroud existed with Jesus' image on it, they would demand it be handed over to them under threat of torture and death:

"As to whether the disciples of Jesus did remove the burial wrappings from the tomb, the Gospels are indeed silent. There is evidence, described later, that they did take the Shroud. This evidence suggests they took it with them into hiding, for, as we read in the Bible, they feared for their lives. They would have known that if they `advertised' their valuable possession, it might become a target for either Romans or Jewish zealots. Those who were responsible for Jesus' crucifixion seemed determined to stamp out the new Christian-sect. The Easter story shows that they would do anything to erase the memory of Jesus. They would seize and destroy the Shroud if their attention was drawn to its survival. So the Shroud was kept hidden, and the Gospel stories are silent about its removal from the tomb." (my emphasis)[43]

"It is absurd to demand a detailed documentation from Jews and Jewish Christians regarding the presence and handing down of the Holy Shroud in the period before Christianity enjoyed full freedom of expression in the Middle East, and particularly in Jerusalem, which was a troubled, much conquered city right from the beginnings of Christianity. The lack of documentation may be due to three main reactions which would have been provoked by the open showing of the shroud of a man who, from the blood marks and entire imprint, clearly died on the cross: a religious reaction concerning legal impurity, a theological reaction concerning the question of real or only apparent humanity, and a juridical reaction concerning violation of the tomb. This would have led to the immediate destruction of the shroud and severe punishment of those having it in their possession." (my emphasis)[44]

Posted 23 November 2016. Updated 14 January 2024.

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."

[Servant of the priest: (1) & (3)]

[Main index] [Entry 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).

Posted 15 November 2014. Updated 14 January 2024.

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."

[Servant of the priest: (2) & (3)]

[Main index] [Entry 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 ("looped together and knotted exactly as they had bound the hands and the feet" - see below) 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]

Created 6 November 2014. Updated 14 January 2024.