Wednesday, September 30, 2015

"Wasn't Jesus' body washed before putting it in the grave?"

Daryl

Continuing from part #2 of my response to your comment under my 2014 post, "Shroud of Turin depicts a Y-shaped cross?," here is the tenth and final installment (as well as yet another update of a past installment) of part #3 of my response to your third and fourth points, "Wasn't Jesus' body washed before putting it in the grave?" and "So how is it that blood is present?" Again, your words are prefaced by ">" and in bold to distinguish them from mine.

[Right (enlarge): The Shroud, showing major bloodstains[1]. Note that the Shroud is not heavily bloodstained. This is compatible with the pro- authenticity positions of: 1) a full washing of Jesus' body and a later oozing of blood; 2) an incomplete washing due to shortness of time, leaving some blood on the Shroud; and 3) No washing due to shortness of time and Jewish law. The last is, as I understand it, the majority pro-authenticist position. It is also my position, for reasons I will give in a subsequent installment.]

>"Wasn't Jesus' body washed before putting it in the grave?" As mentioned above, there are three basic Shroud pro-authenticist positions on whether Jesus' body was washed:

1) A full washing of Jesus' body and a later oozing of blood This was the position of the late Frederick Zugibe (1928-2013), the Chief Medical Examiner of Rockland County, New York:

"The body unquestionably would have been covered with blood because the heart pumps about 4,500 gallons of blood through the more than 60,000 miles of large and small blood vessels throughout the whole body each day. Instead of the very exact imprints of the wounds, the Shroud would bear large indistinct masses of blood over the entire image, including the face, arms, hands, feet, and trunk."[2]

But then Zugibe has a problem. If Jesus' body was fully washed, how does he account for the fact that there is still blood on the Shroud? Zugibe's unconvincing and inconsistent answer is that after Jesus' body was washed, blood that was still in the wounds then oozed out onto the Shroud:

"However, if the body was washed, the dried blood around the wounds would be removed, causing an oozing of bloody material within the wounds. This should result in the production of relatively good impressions of the wound."[3]
But why would the burial party wash the dried blood from the wounds and not have also mopped up any blood that oozed from those wounds? And why would there still be blood that was not from within wounds, but had flowed a distance from them, like the reversed `3' blood trickle on the forehead from a thorn in the scalp (see photo below), and the blood trickles down the arm (see photo above), from the nails in the wrist?

Yet, despite these major (if not fatal) problems for his full-wash theory, Zugibe issued his medical opinion as an ultimatum - either he is right or the Shroud is a fake:

"Acceptance of the hypothesis that the crucified was not washed would therefore place the authenticity of the Turin Shroud in serious doubt."[4]
Zugibe based his entire argument on an assumption that the scourging of Jesus had produced "large indistinct masses of blood" (see above):
"The dumbbell-shaped markings on the Shroud may not be evidence of bruises or welts, as contended by some, but rather impressions of small breaks in the skin resulting in `patterned injuries' similar to those that we regularly see in the practice of forensic pathology" (my emphasis)[5]
But this assumption by Zugibe is a fallacious either/or, rather than a both/and. Clearly the dumbbell-shaped lead weights on the type of flagrum which matches the scourge marks on the Shroud[6] [left], brought down full-force on a victim's exposed skin would cause bleeding. Nevertheless, the self-evident

[Left (enlarge): A Roman flagrum excavated from Herculaneum, which was buried in the eruption of Mt Vesuvius in AD 79, with dumbbell-shaped lead weights which match the scourge marks on the Shroud[7].]

designed purpose of blunt lead balls would be "percussion":

"Of the many physicians and pathologists favouring the Shroud's authenticity, those who have studied the dumb-bell-shaped marks have unhesitatingly defined them as contusions, that is, severe swellings or bruises seemingly caused by the percussion of the whip tip with the body's surface." [8]
to induce internal bleeding[9], so that the victim suffered great pain, but did not lose consciousness and die prematurely before crucifixion from excessive blood loss. As Zugibe himself notes, there was a flagrum with pointed weights, called scorpiones which was rarely used[10], presumably because it killed crucifixion victims from blood loss too quickly.

Also, Mt 27:26-31 and Mk 15:17-20 record that after Jesus was scourged, the Roman soldiers "stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him" and then later "they stripped him of the robe and put his own clothes on him". These two changes of garments over Jesus' scourged body would have soaked up much of whatever blood there was on it from the scourging. And as Oxley pointed out, when Jesus clothes were removed, the blood on His body, which would have become stuck to His clothes, would have been torn away, "like a giant plaster strip":
"Following the scourging and his being dressed in a purple robe for the purpose of mockery, Jesus had had his clothes restored to him. He did not make the journey to Calvary naked. This, however, must have led to another source of extreme pain. On arrival at Calvary Jesus was stripped of his clothing. His cloak or tunic would have stuck to the blood covering his body. It must have been torn off his body prior to crucifixion, like a giant plaster strip attached to his whole body"[11]
which explains why there is not much blood on Jesus' trunk (see photo above).

This false assumption of Zugibe's that the scourging and crucifixion of Jesus resulted in the Shroud bearing "large indistinct masses of blood over the entire image" (see above), is fundamental to Zugibe's entire anti-Barbet position that Jesus died from hypovolemic (low blood volume) shock, not asphyxiation[12] (see my "Why I prefer Barbet's hypotheses over Zugibe's").

Further problems (amounting to falsifications) of Zugibe's full-wash theory include:

a) The man on the Shroud has dirt on his feet, face and knees:

"Perhaps the most tantalizing glimpse of all, however, came from reflectance spectroscopy work carried out by the husband-and-wife team Roger and Marty Gilbert in the course of the 1978 STURP examination. As they ran their equipment up and down the man of the Shroud's image the spectra they obtained proved relatively regular except when they reached the sole of the foot imprint on the back-of-the-body half of the cloth. Suddenly the spectra changed dramatically. Something in the foot area, and particularly around the heel, was giving a markedly stronger signal than elsewhere, but what? When optical physicist Sam Pellicori was summoned to view the area under the portable microscope ... [he] pronounced, `It's dirt!' As might have been expected in an individual who had had even his sandals taken away from him, the man of the Shroud had dirty feet."[13]
and also around his nose and knees[14]. It can't have been a full wash if it did not include the man's feet and face!

b) The reversed `3' bloodstain on man's forehead, is not over its source

[Above (enlarge): The reversed `3' or epsilon bloodstain on the Shroud man's forehead, as well as other blood trickles from the crown of thorns punctures in the man's scalp[15]. As can be seen, these bloodstains are not directly over their source wounds, so Zugibe's explanation that the blood on the Shroud oozed out from within the wounds after the body was completely washed doesn't work. And being on the man's face, they would surely have been washed if the man's body had been washed at all. So these bloodstains alone refute Zugibe's full wash theory!]

wound in the scalp (see above), and it would certainly have been among the first blood to be washed, if the man on the Shroud had been washed at all. Moreover, it was formed when the man was still alive because it follows the furrows of his forehead as its muscles contracted in pain:

"Quite unmistakable on the Shroud's frontal image are several `blood' trickles visible at the level of the forehead, together with others extending down the hair. Most pronounced of these, as visible on the negative, is a full-bodied rivulet that begins at the apex of the forehead, trickles downwards in a `3' shape (as if it has met a couple of diversions along the way), then terminates in a final glob just above the left eyebrow. As has been pointed out by several physicians ... not only is the way that this rivulet has flowed absolutely characteristic of venous blood, but the 3 shape is consistent with where the muscles of the brow would have contracted and formed ridges under intense pain ..."[16]
Also, tellingly, in his two books on the Shroud, Zugibe ignored the problem of the shortness of time, due to the impending sabbath, for the burial party to wash Jesus' body (as we shall see). However, in a 1989 article, which was after his first 1988 book but well before his second in 2005, Zugibe merely asserts, with no supporting evidence that, "A complete washing of the body ... can be accomplished in minutes":
"However, Wilson's statement that `Only on the view that Jesus was not washed can the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin be upheld'[17] basing it on the fact that there was not enough time to perform the washing since the Sabbath was at hand is completely untenable. A complete washing of the body accompanied by a shortened ritual can be accomplished in minutes."[18]
But leaving aside if that is even true, Zugibe by his qualification, "accompanied by a shortened ritual," defeats his own argument. To devout first-century Jews, let alone members of the Sanhedrin, as the burial party of Joseph of Arimathea (Mt 27:57; Mk 15:43; Lk 23:50; Jn 19:38) and Nicodemus (Jn 3:1; 19:39) were, burying Jesus, their Master, with the full "ritual" would have been all-important. So if there was no time for the full Jewish funerary ritual (which Zugibe tacitly conceded), Joseph and Nicodemus would not have washed Jesus body at all but postponed His funeral, including washing His body (if there was to be one - see future), until after the Sabbath, which as we shall see, is what the gospels indicate. So for all the above reasons, it is Zugibe's "complete washing" of Jesus' body theory which is "completely untenable"!

2) An incomplete washing due to shortness of time, leaving some blood on the Shroud This is a possible pro-authenticist position on the washing of Jesus' body, although I don't know of anyone who has held it. But as we saw above, since there was insufficient time for the full Jewish burial rites (see below), Joseph and Nicodemus would have postponed the washing of Jesus' body (if there was to be one - see future) until after the Sabbath. And, as we saw, the bloodstains and dirt on Jesus' face were not washed, which surely they would have been, even in an incomplete washing. So this second possible pro- authenticist position on the washing of Jesus' body is also refuted by the evidence.

3) No washing due to shortness of time and Jewish law This is, as I understand it, the majority position held by Shroud pro-authenticists. As Ian Wilson in 1979 stated:

"Some have argued that washing was a prescribed ritual that would have been permissible to carry out irrespective of the sabbath. Some eminent New Testament scholars do not share such a view. Even among the best exegetes there seems little major objection to the concept that there simply was no time for Jesus' body to be washed before the Sabbath, particularly in view of the various Jewish requirements relating to this rite. When, as events proved, it was also impossible to carry out this rite after the Sabbath, one can understand a certain reluctance on the part of gospel writers to admit this directly. Only on the view that Jesus was not washed can the authenticity of the Turin Shroud be upheld."[19]
While this may seem inconsistent with my above listing of three possible pro-authenticity positions, it isn't. As we also saw above, while the first two of the three pro-authenticist positions on the washing of Jesus' body: 1) no washing and 2) incomplete washing, are possible, they are nevertheless refuted by (amongst other things) the evidence of blood on the man on the Shroud's face, which cannot be explained by Zugibe's oozing out of washed wounds, and which surely would have been removed in even an incomplete washing of the man on the Shroud's body.

Further to the above evidence that the man on the Shroud's body was not washed, other evidence that Jesus' body was not washed includes:

■ The gospels do not state that Jesus' body was washed[20]. This contrasts with Acts 9:37, which states of a disciple named Tabitha that, "... she fell sick and died; and when they had washed her, they laid her in an upper room"[21]. Since it is recorded of a minor disciple that her body was washed; washing a body was one of the most basic funerary services[22]; any of the four gospels could have mentioned that Jesus' body had been washed[23], the likely inference from this silence is that Jesus' body was not washed[24].

■ The full Jewish burial rites, prescribed in the Mishnah, the code of Jewish law, included that a body had to be washed seven times and the hair and beard completely shaven[25]. The fingernails were to be cut, the body anointed it with oils[26] and dressed in the person's clothes[27]. Cloths were then to be bound around the chin, wrists and feet, a clean cloth was to be placed over the head, the body was to be wrapped in a linen shroud and spices packed around it to mask the odour of decay[28]. However, Jewish law made an exception for a Jew who had died a bloody death[29], as Jesus had[30]. In such cases, so that the whole body, including its blood, should be kept together for its resurrection[31], the body should not be washed[32], but it and any of its bloodstained clothes should be wrapped together in an all-enveloping linen sheet, called a sovev[33], deriving from a Hebrew word "to surround" or "to go around"[34]. This corresponds perfectly to the all-enveloping, over-the-head, Turin Shroud[35].

■ There was insufficient time to carry out the full Jewish funeral rites on the body of Jesus. The gospels record that Jesus died on the cross at "about the ninth hour" (Mt 27:46-50; Mk 15:34-37; Lk 23:44-46), that is about 9 hours after sunrise[36] or about 3 pm[37]. The Gospels also record the following events occurred between Jesus' death and His burial:

• The soudarion or facecloth which had been on Jesus' head (Jn 20:7), that is, the Sudarium of Oviedo, was placed over Jesus' dead face while He was still on the cross (see video "Mark Guscin - Sudarium of Oviedo").
• The Jewish religious leaders asked the Roman Governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, to break the legs of Jesus and the two robbers who were crucified with him (Mt 27:38; Mk 15:27) be broken so that they would die quickly and their bodies be taken away, because it was both the Sabbath and also the Passover; so soldiers came from Pilate and broke the legs of the two robbers, but since Jesus was already dead, they did not break His legs but instead speared him in the side to make sure He was dead (Jn 19:31-34).
• When it was evening, Joseph of Arimathea, a rich man, a member of the Jewish council (the Sanhedrin) and a secret disciple of Jesus, went to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body (Mt 27:57-58; Mk 15:42-43; Lk 23:50-52; Jn 19:38).
• Pilate was surprised to hear from Joseph that Jesus was already dead, so he summoned the centurion, and when he came, asked him whether Jesus was dead (Mk 15:44).
• Pilate granted Jesus' body to Joseph (Mt 27:58; Mk 15:45; Jn 19:38).
• Joseph bought a linen shroud [sindon] (Mk 15:46).
• Joseph and Nicodemus took down Jesus body from the cross (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53; Jn 19:38).
• They bound Jesus hands, feet and jaw with linen cloths to prevent them moving (Jn 20:6-7; 11:43-44).
• They then wrapped Jesus' body in the shroud (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53; Jn 19:38).
• They then transported Jesus' body wrapped in the shroud to Joseph' nearby, never used, rock-cut tomb (Mt 27:59-60; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53; Jn 19:40-42).
• They laid Jesus enshrouded body in the tomb (Mt 27:60; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53; Jn 19:42).
• Nicodemus had brought 100 litras (~32.75 kgs or ~72.2 lb)[38] weight of myrrh and aloes (Jn 19:39). This very large quantity of spices is itself evidence that Jesus' body was not going to be washed before the sabbath (if at all), but was to prevent decomposition until Jesus' body could be anointed after the sabbath (see later below):

"There is one other suggestion that Jesus' body was not washed. This is John's statement that Jesus' body was wrapped in a large quantity of spices before burial (19:39-40). Since the women were returning to the tomb on Sunday in order to anoint the body with spices, what was the difference between the first anointing and the second? The most likely explanation is that the large quantity of spices had been packed around Jesus' body before the burial precisely because the body had not been washed. This large quantity of spices, possibly in dry form, could have been intended to serve as a disinfectant to arrest decomposition until the women could properly anoint the body after the Sabbath"[39]
• They then bound Jesus' enshrouded body in linen cloths [othoniois] i.e. not only, or even, in the shroud] with [meta "while making use of"[40]] the spices according to burial customs of the Jews (Jn 19:40).
• Joseph (and Nicodemus - Jn 19:42; 20:1) rolled a very large stone across the tomb's entrance (Mt 27:60; 28:2; Mk 15:46; 16:3-4; Lk 24:2; Jn 20:1).
• It being the Day of Preparation, the sabbath was beginning [epephosken]." (Lk 23:54; Jn 19:42). The Greek word epephosken (epi "upon" + phosko "to shine"[41]), appears to be only in Lk 23:54 in all of Greek literature[42], and may be "Jewish-Greek"[43]. It literally means "begin to dawn or give light" [44] and would presumably have been translated "was dawning" (Lk 23:54 ESV footnote) but it was evening[45]. The late Bishop John Robinson (1919–83), a New Testament Greek scholar and a founder of the British Society for the Turin Shroud, suggested epephosken may mean "lighting-up time"[46], when the lamps were lit to mark the start of the sabbath[47].

Whatever, the exact meaning of epephosken, it at least means that when Jesus' enshrouded body was placed in the tomb, the sabbath was beginning, when all work had to cease[48], including preparing a body for burial[49], so even if Jesus' body was to be washed (which having died a bloody death it wasn't - see above), there would have been insufficient time for Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus to do it:

"Several very convincing arguments refute assertions that Jesus' body was washed. In the first place, the burial that Jesus received was hurried and incomplete. It was the Day of Preparation and the Sabbath was approaching, and all work had to cease before sundown. Not only was this the Sabbath, but this particular Sabbath was also the Passover, one of the holiest of all Jewish occasions. It was already evening when Joseph of Arimathea went to Pilate to ask for the body of Jesus (Matthew 27:57-58, Mark 15:42-43). This would have been at least a ten-minute journey (and possibly longer because of the crowds gathered for the Passover). There most likely would have been some additional delay in gaining an audience with Pilate, and even further delay as Pilate awaited confirmation of Jesus' death from the centurion (Mark 15:44-45). Since the release of the body would have involved a legal act of some importance, more than likely a document of release would have been prepared as well, especially since the Jews had sought permission a short time before to have the bodies of the crucified taken away (John 19:31). Joseph of Arimathea then had to proceed back to Golgotha, purchase a linen shroud along the way, take the body down from the cross, and transport it to the tomb. In describing Jesus' burial, Luke uses the graphic word epephosken (23:54), meaning that it was already `lighting-up time,' when lamps were lit or when the first stars became visible. Jewish law prohibited a crucifixion victim from remaining on the cross at night. The Gospel accounts clearly imply that Jesus' burial was hurried and provisional and that the Sabbath was fast approaching. Perhaps the Sabbath had already arrived by the time Jesus' body was laid in the tomb."[50]

■ Additional evidence that Jesus' body was not washed includes:

• After the sabbath, early on the first day of the week, some of Jesus' women disciples returned to the tomb with spices to anoint His body (Mt 28:1; Mk 16:1-2; Lk 24:1; Jn 20:1). They would not have done this if Jesus' burial had been completed before the sabbath:

"However, the gospels tell us that Jesus' burial was incomplete. Because the Sabbath was about to begin, he was removed from the cross and laid in the tomb rather hurriedly. This is why the women returned to the tomb on Sunday morning. They had prepared spices and ointments for Jesus' body, and they went to the tomb to apply them (Luke 23:54-56). ... At least to some degree, the anointing with spices was incomplete because the women returned to the tomb to complete the process."[51]
• Jesus predicted that His burial would never be completed when a few days before His death he stated that Mary of Bethany, in pouring an expensive ointment over His head and feet, had "anointed my body ... for burial":
"As a matter of fact none of the Gospels say anything about washing or anointing the body of Jesus. On the contrary, Mark and Matthew report the words spoken by Jesus a few days before the Passion on the occasion of the anointing by Mary of Bethany [Jn 12:3-7]. According to this, Mary had anticipated the anointing of His body for burial. `She has done me a good turn ... She has anointed my body in preparation for burial' (Mk. 14:8; Mt. 26:12)."[52]

>"So how is it that blood is present?" Jesus' body was not washed. See above.

To be continued at a later date with part #4, "He was wrapped in more than one cloths."

Notes
1. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Horizontal: Major bloodstains overlay.," Sindonology.org. [return]
2. Zugibe, F.T., 2005, "The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry," M. Evans & Co.: New York NY, p.219. [return]
3. Zugibe, 2005, p.221. [return]
4. Zugibe, F.T., 1988, "The Cross and the Shroud: A Medical Enquiry into the Crucifixion," [1982], Paragon House: New York NY, Revised edition.134; Zugibe, 2005, p.219 [return]
5. Zugibe, 2005, p.24. [return]
6. Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.31. [return]
7. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.56. [return]
8. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, p.32. [return]
9. Wilson, 1986, p.20. [return]
10. Zugibe, 2005, p.19. [return]
11. Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.165. [return]
12. Zugibe, 2005, p.135. [return]
13. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.93. [return]
14. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.32. [return]
15. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Face Only Vertical.," Sindonology.org. [return]
16. Wilson, 1998, p.33. [return]
17. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.56. [return]
18. Zugibe, F.T., 1989, "The Man Of The Shroud Was Washed," Sindon N.S., Quad. No. 1, June. [return]
19. Wilson, 1979, p.56. [return]
20. Wilson, 1979, p.55; 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.51. [return]
21. Antonacci, 2000, p.32. [return]
22. Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.33. [return]
23. Antonacci, 2000, p.117. [return]
24. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.52. [return]
25. 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.45. [return]
26. Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, p.24. [return]
27. Ricci, G., 1981, "The Holy Shroud," Center for the Study of the Passion of Christ and the Holy Shroud: Milwaukee WI, p.10; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.52. [return]
28. Whiting, 2006, p.24. [return]
29. Wilson, 1986, p.45. [return]
30. Wilson, 2010, p.52. [return]
31. Wilson, 1986, p.46. [return]
32. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, 44-45. [return]
33. Wilson, 1986, pp.45-46; Wilson, 1998, pp.54-55. [return]
34. Wilson, 1998, p.55. [return]
35. Ibid; Wilson, 2010, p.52. [return]
36. Finegan, J., 1964, "Handbook of Biblical Chronology: Principles of Time Reckoning in the Ancient World and Problems of Chronology in the Bible," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, p.12. [return]
37. Carson, D.A., "Matthew," in Gaebelein, F.E., ed., 1984, "The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 - Matthew, Mark, Luke," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, p.577. [return]
38. "The litra of Jn. 12:3; 19:39 (cf. Lat. libra: `pound' - from this weight we have our abbreviation lb for pound) was a Rom. measure of weight equivalent to 327.45 gm." (Wiseman, D.J., "Weights and Measures," in Douglas J.D., et al., eds., 1982, "New Bible Dictionary," [1962], Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester UK, Second edition, Reprinted, 1988, p.1249). Therefore 100 x 327.45 = 32745 gm = 32.75 kgs or 72.2 lb. [return]
39. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.52. [return]
40. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, p.94. [return]
41. Zodhiates, S., 1992, "The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament," AMG Publishers: Chattanooga TN, Third printing, 1994, pp.644-645. [return]
42. Arndt, W.F. & Gingrich, F.W., 1957, "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian literature," University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Fourth edition, 1952, Revised, p.304. [return]
43. Moulton, J.H. & Milligan, G., 1930, "The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament: Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-literary Sources," Hendrickson Publishers: Peabody MA, Reprinted, 1997, p.250. [return]
44. Robertson, A.T., 1930, "Word Pictures in the New Testament: Volume II: The Gospel According to Luke," Broadman Press, Nashville TN, p.289. [return]
45. Ibid. [return]
46. 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.24. [return]
47. Feuillet, A., 1982, "The Identification and the Disposition of the Funerary Linens of Jesus' Burial According to the Fourth Gospel," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 4, September, pp.13-23, p.23. [return]
48. Wilson, 1979, p.56; Wilson, 1986, p.55. [return]
49. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.51. [return]
50. Antonacci, 2000, p.117. [return]
51. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.46-47. [return]
52. Bulst, 1957, p.81. [return]

Posted: 30 September 2015. Updated: 14 October 2015.

8 comments:

Isabelle Esling said...

Many thanks for this insightful article:)

Stephen E. Jones said...

Isabelle

>Many thanks for this insightful article:)

Thank you. But it is mostly just reading carefully and reproducing what the gospels say, aided by my old battered harmony of the gospels (Wieand, A.C., 1947, "A New Harmony of the Gospels," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, Sixth printing 1961).

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.

Daryl said...

Stephen, I am late thank you for those series. I have two more questions.

First question: People say that Jesus wasn't skinny. They point out to Luke 7:34 and Matthew 11:19. They say that the Greek word for glutton means chubby man. The man in the Shroud is somewhat skinny therefore they say it can't be Jesus.

Second question: People say that the man in the Shroud has what 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 supposedly forbids.

Stephen E. Jones said...

Daryl

>Stephen, I am late thank you for those series. I have two more questions.

I assume from your "more questions" that you are the Daryl who asked a number of questions in a comment under my 2014 post, "Shroud of Turin depicts a Y-shaped cross?", which I answered.

>First question: People say that Jesus wasn't skinny.

Who ARE these "people"? You supply no referenced quote, nor link, so I suspect that you are just making up this objection (see next).

>They point out to Luke 7:34 and Matthew 11:19. They say that the Greek word for glutton means chubby man.

See my question above on these unsubstantiated "They". I did a Google search on "Jesus glutton chubby" (without the quotes) and there were no hits. That is why I suspect that you are just making this up. I am not sure that I should waste my time answering questions that a commenter just makes up. In future please supply a referenced quote and/or link to questions you claim that others have asked. It is OK to ask the question YOURSELF, without falsely claiming that OTHERS had asked it, so as to make it appear your question has more weight than it has.

The Greek word for "glutton" in Luke 7:34 and Matthew 11:19 is phagos from phago "to eat." So it simply means "eater," and has no connotation about body shape.

It is NOT the word for "glutton," which is gaster, "belly," which it could be argued has a connotation of a "chubby" body shape.

And anyway, Jesus was NOT a glutton. All He did was "come eating and drinking" at various times. It was the pharisees and lawyers (Lk 7:30) who exaggerated this into a FALSE claim that Jesus was a glutton.

>The man in the Shroud is somewhat skinny therefore they say it can't be Jesus.

Again, the unsubstantiated "they."

First, the claim that Jesus was "chubby" is FALSE (see above). So if Jesus had been "skinny," it would not have been a contradiction of those verses.

But second, the man on the Shroud (Jesus) is NOT "skinny." See my post, "The Shroud of Turin: 3.2. The man on the Shroud," where there is a photo of sculpture of the Shroud man, based on his image on the Shroud, which shows that he was definitely NOT "skinny." And in that same post there are quotes, with references, that the man on the Shroud is "powerfully built" and has a "muscular physique."

[continued]

Stephen E. Jones said...

[continued]

>Second question: People say that the man in the Shroud has what 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 supposedly forbids.

Again, "People" with no reference or link. I had already answered that objection in a comment before yours under my 2014 post above, that the man on the Shroud has "long hair." I quoted from Stevenson & Habermas' "The Shroud and the Controversy" (1990) that: "Paul was speaking of effeminate men who wore their hair in styles peculiar to women" (my emphasis).

This is supported by: 1) the ESV (the most literal modern translation) has in 1 Corinthians 11:14, "if a man wears long hair" (my emphasis) not "if a man has long hair."

Jewish men, including the man on the Shroud (Jesus), may have had long hair (according to a particular culture's subjective standards), but it does not follow that they wore it long.

Jesus had a crown of thorns placed on His head (Mt 27:29; Mk 15:17; Jn 19:2), and then his clothes had been taken off Him (Mt 27:35; Mk 15:24; Lk 23:34; Jn 19:23-25). Any hair ties He had been normally wearing before would have disappeared long before His image was imprinted on the Shroud.

2) One of my Greek lexicons, on the Greek word kome, which is the word translated "wears long hair" in v.14, states:

"... kome ... Hair. In the NT, used only of human hair. However, it does not always refer to hair per se, but to the way that it is styled (1 Cor. 11:15; Sept.: Num. 6:5) as distinguishing a woman from a man in which case it takes the place of a mantle or veil wrapped around (peribolaion). (my emphasis)" (Zodhiates, S., 1992, "The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament," AMG Publishers: Chattanooga TN, Third printing, 1994, p.876).

The evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud is authentic, that is, it is Jesus' burial shroud. So your comments against the Shroud being Jesus' will not be without consequences, when you stand before Jesus, your (and my) Judge (Mt 16:27; 25:31-32; Ac 10:42; 2Cor 5:10; 2Tim 4:1, 1Pet 4:5).

See my posts of 10Dec15, 07May16 and 19May16, pointing out that those who know the evidence for the Shroud's authenticity, but reject it, will be judged more severely by Jesus (the Man on the Shroud) than they otherwise will be, if they were not aware of that evidence.

Stephen E. Jones
----------------------------------
"By way of guidance as to what I mean by `offensive' and `sub-standard,' I regard comments to my blog as analogous to letters to the Editor of a newspaper. If the Editor of a newspaper would not publish a comment because it is `offensive' and/or `sub-standard' then neither will I. It does not mean that if I disagree with a comment I won't publish it. I have published anti-authenticist comments and other comments that I disagreed with, and I have deleted `offensive' and/or `sub-standard' comments that are pro-authenticist. `Sub-standard' includes attempting to use my blog as a platform to publish a block of text of the commenter's own views, and also bare links to other sites with little or no actual comments. By `off-topic' I mean if a comment has little or nothing to do with the topic(s) in the post it is under (except for the latest post-see above)." [05Jan16]

Daryl said...

Hi Stephen,
Yes I am the same Daryl who commented in September 2015. No I am not making this stuff up. See this: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rOL2pXqURic/VMDoxLrjZgI/AAAAAAAAAU8/M5BPFwLP_5M/s1600/winebibber%2Bjesus.%2BMEME.jpg
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Books,%20Tracts%20&%20Preaching/Printed%20Books/Dr%20Jack%20Hyles/Grace/30.htm

Stephen E. Jones said...

Daryl

>Yes I am the same Daryl who commented in September 2015.

OK.

>No I am not making this stuff up. See this: See this: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rOL2pXqURic/VMDoxLrjZgI/AAAAAAAAAU8/M5BPFwLP_5M/s1600/winebibber%2Bjesus.%2BMEME.jpg
>http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Books,%20Tracts%20&%20Preaching/Printed%20Books/Dr%20Jack%20Hyles/Grace/30.htm

My responses are the same. They are both wrong (see above).

In future please cite your sources, or your comments may be deleted as "substandard." See my "Editor of a newspaper" analogy above. A letter to the Editor of a newspaper which merely said, "People say ..." and "They point out ..." would be unlikely to be published.

In fact your comment was deliberately dishonest. You said "People say ..." and "They point out ..." when it was just two different individuals writing two different things. Which would have been evident if you cited your sources. Which presumably is why you didn't.

And both were quoting from the 405 year-old King James Version of 1611, when a modern translation like the ESV is more faithful to the original Greek (see above).

Stephen E. Jones

Stephen E. Jones said...

>First question: People say that Jesus wasn't skinny. They point out to Luke 7:34 and Matthew 11:19. They say that the Greek word for glutton means chubby man. The man in the Shroud is somewhat skinny therefore they say it can't be Jesus.
>
>Second question: People say that the man in the Shroud has what 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 supposedly forbids.

I have posted a summary of these questions and my responses above in my, "Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, June 2016.

Stephen E. Jones
----------------------------------
"By way of guidance as to what I mean by `offensive' and `sub-standard,' I regard comments to my blog as analogous to letters to the Editor of a newspaper. If the Editor of a newspaper would not publish a comment because it is `offensive' and/or `sub-standard' then neither will I. It does not mean that if I disagree with a comment I won't publish it. I have published anti-authenticist comments and other comments that I disagreed with, and I have deleted `offensive' and/or `sub-standard' comments that are pro-authenticist. `Sub-standard' includes attempting to use my blog as a platform to publish a block of text of the commenter's own views, and also bare links to other sites with little or no actual comments. By `off-topic' I mean if a comment has little or nothing to do with the topic(s) in the post it is under (except for the latest post-see above)." [05Jan16]