Thursday, November 6, 2014

Servant of the priest (1): Turin Shroud Encyclopedia

Turin Shroud Encyclopedia
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

Servant of the priest (1)

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

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

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

[Main index] [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 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 Espa├▒ol de Sindonolog├Ča. [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: 18 December, 2014.

5 comments:

Unknown said...

Hi Stephen. When are you going to finish your series on hacking? People want to know. Regards. Dan Porter

Stephen E. Jones said...

Dan

>Hi Stephen. When are you going to finish your series on hacking? People want to know. Regards. Dan Porter.

Thanks for your and your members' interest.

Hopefully when I finish this current "Servant of the priest" series.

Stephen E. Jones
-----------------------------------
MY POLICIES Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Except that comments under my latest post can be on any Shroud-related topic without being off-topic. I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts.

Anonymous said...

Two years ago you wrongly accused me, Colin Berry aka sciencebod, of posting comments to your site under the pseudonym "Weaving Fan". I felt obliged to post a denial on my TS site, which you may or may not have seen.

Dan Porter, for reasons best known to himself, has just put up a posting that dredges up that sorry episode of mistaken identity and in a sense gives it new life and currency.

It would be nice if you could do the decent thing and disabuse him of what was an over-hasty conclusion on your part. It is not my style to adopt new pseudonyms, least of all troll other people's websites.

Stephen E. Jones said...

Colin

>Two years ago you wrongly accused me, Colin Berry aka sciencebod, of posting comments to your site under the pseudonym "Weaving Fan". I felt obliged to post a denial on my TS site, which you may or may not have seen.

No, I don't read your blog. From what I had seen of it in the past, you are simply self-deluded, thinking you can prove the Shroud to be a fake by your tin-pot `experiments' while ignoring the MOUNTAIN of historical and artistic evidence of the Shroud's existence all the way back to the first century.

Even Prof. Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Director of the Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory, who as "C.R. Bronk" was a signatory to the 1989 Nature paper, has admitted, "There is A LOT OF OTHER EVIDENCE that suggests ... that THE SHROUD IS OLDER THAN THE RADIOCARBON DATES ALLOW":

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

But for reasons given in my comments under my 2012 post "The Shroud of Turin: 2.1. A linen sheet" I still believe you are "Weaving Fan."

But if you aren't "Weaving Fan" then just get over it. You have said far worse things about me! "He who comes into equity must come with clean hands."

>Dan Porter, for reasons best known to himself, has just put up a posting that dredges up that sorry episode of mistaken identity and in a sense gives it new life and currency.

I don't read Porter's blog either and I haven't done so since 8th May - over 6 months.

Also, as I wrote in a comment under my post, "Turin shroud was made for medieval Easter ritual, historian Charles Freeman says":

"... mentioning of Dan Porter, and his blog, and his blog's members in connection with Porter's blog, is henceforth off-topic on my blog."

>It would be nice if you could do the decent thing and disabuse him of what was an over-hasty conclusion on your part.

See above that: 1) I still think you were "Weaving Fan", 2) I don't read Porter's blog; and 3) "mentioning of Dan Porter, and his blog .. is ... off-topic on my blog."

>It is not my style to adopt new pseudonyms, least of all troll other people's websites.

Sorry Colin, but from your past repeated breaches of my blog's policies against "off-topic, offensive or sub-standard" comments (see above), which lead to your being banned permanently from making comments on my blog (I have made an exception of this comment so you could at least air your claimed grievance), I have no confidence in your assertions.

For all I know, you could be just trying to enlist me to attack Porter on your behalf, to stir up further trouble between us, so you can sit back and laugh at both of us.

Because: 1) you are banned from making comments on my blog; 2) comments about Porter and his blog are off-topic on my blog; and 3) commenters normally are allowed only one comment on my blog (see above); this was your last comment on this topic on my blog.

Stephen E. Jones

Stephen E. Jones said...

>... this was your last comment on this topic on my blog.

That should have been, "this was your last comment on my blog" full-stop.

Colin Berry remains permanently banned from my blog for repeatedly posting comments that flouted my stated policies about "off-topic, offensive or sub-standard" comments.

See my comments under my 2012
post, "`The Turin Shroud is a fake ... and it's one of 40': Antonio Lombatti."

Up to and including my final comment permanent banning Colin after I gave him plenty of warnings:

>June 17, 2012 at 8:51 PM
Stephen E. Jones said...
>
>>So Colin/Sciencebod, the ball is in your court. This is your first and final warning. From now on, if I have to delete one more of your comments because it does not comply with my stated policies, I will ban you permanently.
>
>Colin responded with a substandard comment so he is now permanently banned from commenting on this my The Shroud of Turin blog.

I now regret my lack of consistency in allowing Colin to post his recent comment claiming he was not "Weaving Fan."

Stephen E. Jones
---------------------------------
Reader, if you like this my The Shroud of Turin blog, and you have a website, could you please consider adding a hyperlink to my blog on it? This would help increase its Google PageRank number and so enable those who are Google searching on "the Shroud of Turin" to more readily discover my blog. Thanks.