Skip to comments.Burial Cloth Found In Jerusalem Cave Casts Doubt On Authenticity of Turin Shroud [Really?]
Posted on 12/15/2009 8:35:30 PM PST by Steelfish
Burial Cloth Found In Jerusalem Cave Casts Doubt On Authenticity of Turin Shroud
By MATTHEW KALMAN 16th December 2009
Archaeologists have discovered the first known burial shroud in Jerusalem from the time of Christ's crucifixion - and say it casts serious doubt on the claimed authenticity of the Turin Shroud.
Ancient shrouds from the period have been found before in the Holy Land, but never in Jerusalem. Researchers say the weave and design of the shroud discovered in a burial cave near Jerusalem's Old City are completely different to the Turin Shroud.
Discovery: The shrouded body of a man was found in this sealed chamber of a cave in the Hinnom Valley, overlooking the Old City of Jerusalem Radiocarbon tests and artefacts found in the cave prove almost beyond doubt that it was from the same time of Christ's death.
It was made with a simple two-way weave - not the twill weave used on the Turin Shroud, which textile experts say was introduced more than 1,000 years after Christ lived. And instead of being a single sheet like the famous item in Turin, the Jerusalem shroud is made up of several sections, with a separate piece for the head.
Professor Shimon Gibson, the archaeologist who discovered the tomb, said ancient writings and contemporary shrouds from other areas had suggested this design, and the Jerusalem shroud finally provided the physical evidence. The debate over the Turin Shroud will not go away. Last month a Vatican researcher said she had found the words 'Jesus Nazarene' on the shroud, proving it was the linen cloth which was wrapped around Christ's body.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Uh Huh. Why don’t they tell us all about the image on that shroud they found too.
Just in time for Christmas...
I don’t know if the Shroud of Turin is what people think it is or not, but why would finding a different style of shroud “cast doubt” on the one in Turin? Do we all dress identically today, or all use the same kind of bedding, or drapes, or anything else? Why would we expect those in the first century Roman Empire to all use the same things?
Precisely. Not everyone is buried now, and then if they are, not in the same style/type of casket. Far too many variables insofar as the material used, imho. Joseph of Arimathea (sp?) was a wealthy man, iirc, and could have provided really high-end shroud material as well as the tomb.
Perhaps there was one type of shroud for commoners, and a better quality for nobles. Jesus was buried in a noble’s tomb.
Indeed. Plus the volume of trade across the empire was enormous. Dried fish from the Sea of Tiberias made its way to Rome. Goods made in Britain in the second Century have been found in the Holy Land. Rome owed that to Pompey who savaged the sea pirates and made the seas safe for trade for hundreds of years. Roman highways were superior to any made in Europe until the 18th Century. Roman garrisons made them safe for merchants and travelers.
1. As a weaver . . . I can attest that single weavers can weave any number of different styles. Twill is not that complicated. Sheesh.
2. It is highly likely that a special weave would have ended up as Christ’s cloth.
3. Jerusalem likely had many weavers from many regions with a great variety of styles.
4. Burial cloths and customs were also likely quite varied. And it would only take varying by say only 2-4 different styles to make the assertions of this article grossly foolhardy.
Ping for later
So just like the Climate Debate this is now settled? Sorry, not buying it. The left continuously works itself into a frenzy trying to disprove/discredit Christ and the Resurrection. As far as I am concerned they can ram their discovery right up their....uh, theory.
It doesn’t matter what Jesus was buried in. It matters that the burial cloth was used for only three days, then discarded.
Let’s worship the Savior, not souvenirs.
According to the New Testament, Joseph, in whose tomb he was buried was a member of the Sanhedrin, the Council of 70.
If its true that twill was not used there until 1000 years later then there is a problem for the Turin cloth. Not much different than claiming we have the pants Colombus wore: blue jeans.
Good point. Thanks.
And don’t forget that the tomb belonged to Joseph of Arimanthea. He was wealthy and since he was donating his tomb to bury Christ, it makes sense he would also donate the linens prepared for himself. They were probably of finer stuff than the typical burial shroud.
Some people really, REALLY don’t want the Shroud to be genuine.
People have no idea just how sophisticated weaving and dying were thousands of years ago. Its the same with plaid , with the Brits saying that it didn’t exist prior to 1500 , when 4000 year old Celtic mummies in Urumchi, China were recently found wearing twill and plaid.
Twill was woven widely 4000 years ago. Thats a fact.
B) I'd thought there was one, and only one known archaeologically confirmed case of what we now call leprosy (Hansen's disease) from that time and area and it was a fairly recent find. That was a walled up burial that had never been opened to collect and rebury the bones after a year, which was the normal Jewish practice then. What the bible referred to as "leprosy" is much debated, but probably was several diseases with prominent skin involvement such as psoriasis. HD is known from biblical times in India, but not from the middle east excepting the one recent find. I wonder if this cloth was from that burial or whether they've found a second burial of HD there. HD was often a more severe disease in the middle ages than what is usually seen today and probably was also more severe in the 1st century AD. TB would have been a common disease then; it is more likely this poor soul was given a quick and permanent burial because his HD was both unfamiliar and horrific to them. I doubt this was a 'normal' burial for the time, not that Christ's was normal either...
And it perhaps was so because it was a lifelong job for a weaver, and inventing a new style immediately gave him an economic advantage. A weaver doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to pull a thread over two, or three, other threads instead of one.
It’s like one guy buried in a polyester suit and another in silk. Doesn’t mean they didn’t die in the same timeframe.
But Jesus is risen. The linen was left behind for a reason.
By way of a further example, on p.196 Barber reproduces the remains of a black horsehair sash, found in a bog at Armoy, County Antrim, Northern Ireland, again dating from the early 1st millennium BC, and bearing the closest resemblance to the Shroud's weave. As Barber goes on to point out (p.190), the Hallstatt folk worked with flax (i.e. linen), as well as wool and other fibres. So although this is not to suggest that the Shroud actually derived from the Hallstatt culture, which was broadly Celtic (as in the case of ancient Egypt linens, the Hallstatt fabrics simply survived due to exceptional environmental conditions), it is quite clear that the Shroud's herringbone twill weave represents no obstacle to a first century AD date.
Sinful human nature dictates that IF God had left any actual artifacts that came in direct contact with Jesus, the creation would be worshiped instead of the Creator. Which, IMHO, is why we would never find any of it.
Since there have been studies done on the Turin shroud that reveal things like pollen which are from the Jerusalem area, I wonder if anyone has done the same studies on this new shroud?
We don't have to have artifacts when there are places...but Christians never made the Jordan River into the Ganges and we never made Bethlehem into Mecca. God left us many puzzles from atomic nuclei to the Shroud to Capernaum to the Heavens.
Obligatory Holiday anti-Shroud of Turin story PING!
The Catholic bashers have arrived. Thanks for that pithy comment and the charity in which it was delivered. I'm sure someone is as proud of you as you are of yourself.
Since the woman with an issue of blood was healed by touching the *fringe of Christ’s garment* it is not surprising that such “souvenirs” are venerated in traditional Christianity.
“25And a certain woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years,
26And had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse,
27When she had heard of Jesus, came in the press behind, and touched his garment.
28For she said, If I may touch but his clothes, I shall be whole.
29And straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up; and she felt in her body that she was healed of that plague.
30And Jesus, immediately knowing in himself that virtue had gone out of him, turned him about in the press, and said, Who touched my clothes?
31And his disciples said unto him, Thou seest the multitude thronging thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me?
32And he looked round about to see her that had done this thing.
33But the woman fearing and trembling, knowing what was done in her, came and fell down before him, and told him all the truth.
34And he said unto her, Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague. (Mark 5:25-34)
That claim is not true. One of many of the claims in this article that is simply not true... including the one that remnants of shrouds have not been found in burials inside Jerusalem. In fact, the weaving of the Shroud, done on a wall loom, with the hand spinning, the soapwort fullering, and hank bleaching technique, when used in combination... something that would not have been likely done deliberately... are all, according to numerous textile experts, uniquely first Century. The thee over one twill in Linen would have been a very expensive cloth that would have represented weeks of work of a skilled weaver. It would have been reserved for avery wealthy buyer, a person such as Joseph of Arimathea was described as having been.
A leper, with two communicable diseases, such as the body covered by this shroud, is probably not a candidate for purchasing a "fine Linen cloth" and his relative used what they could afford. In fact, as you know, as a weaver, the larger the cloth, the more expensive it will be.
What this burial DOES prove, however, is that they DID use a large sheet... and bound his wrists, his jaw, and his ankles, as is reported in Jewish custom and was postulated as the "bindings" or mistranslated "wrappings" in Jesus' burial.
This is the VERY SAME burial... it had the Shroud they are talking about. It was found in 2000. They have just dusted it off and are using it as "new"...
Unfortunately, the Raes samples (taken in 1973) have been conclusively proved to have been a melange of mixed original Shroud linen Flax interwoven with a Medieval Cotton patch invisibly rewoven in the 16th Century to repair a worn area. This Raes area is right next the area where the 1988 Carbon 14 sample was taken and both suffer from the same problem, pollution with the 16th century cotton repair threads. The Cotton that Raes observed in his sample were only observed in his sample and were found in no other locations on the Shroud. His generalizations based on his observations of his samples were erroneously generalized to the Shroud because he assumed the samples were homogenous to the Shroud... just as the scientists who Carbon dated the adjacent samples generalized their results to the Shroud because they also assumed erroneously that their samples were homogenous to the Shroud as well. Both were wrong. Their sample both included material from the 16th Century.
These findings from 2005, have been peer reviewed and duplicated in several scientific journals. Incidentally, the latest studies have found that Raes was wrong about the type of Cotton... it was a European cotton... not Egyptian. However, because it was from a Medieval patch, that would be expected.
Really, they don't talk to those women who understand fabric from the raw textile.
When I first read about the shroud of Turin, I didn't care much for the image, but for the fabric. Because if a length of linen could last 2000 years, that was a miracle itself. That it was a ***wide*** piece of fabric was an indication against the authenticity--ancient looms were narrow. Not that it could not have been supernatural, but everyone focused on the image and I could never get the scientific details about the piece of fabric.
I must admit that I find these archaeological finds that relate to the Bible as interesting. While I would really like to think that someday “proof” as to the origin of the shroud and the supernatural image on it can be confirmed (or at least - “we can't explain the image”) - it doesn't matter one whit with regard to my faith.
Awhile ago they found something with a reference to King David (an inscription on a coin, building, something). Prior to that there was no archaeological evidence regarding a King David - with many saying he was a myth. I'm sure that the finding of the inscription did not change any minds regarding faith issues, but it sure is interesting - to me anyway.
I wonder if prior to this find of another cloth, the “deniers” (those adamantly denying even the possibility - for faith reasons) were saying about the Shroud of Turin “Well, no other shroud has ever been found in Jerusalem - it would be amazing that the one shroud we DID find just happened to be Jesus’ “).
Hmmm. I suppose they have some reasonable answer on the lack of finding shrouds. One of the earlier post said they reburied the bones. Did they recycle the shrouds into something else. That would seem odd - especially with all of the rules they had to follow regarding clean/unclean, etc. Perhaps they were burned in some type of ceremony?
Anyway, as a person interested in the sciences, history, and a Christian - I find the Shroud of Turin an interesting subject. With regards to the separate piece for the head - there is another relic in Europe of that. I think it had something to do with being wrapped under the chin and over the head to keep the jaw closed.
The two statements have the same meaning. He doesn't believe because he's not convinced.
but that such a position was undesirable by atheists because they don't want to entertain even the possibility that God exists
Is it undesirable for you to entertain even the possibility that Zeus exists? How much does the possible existence of Zeus threaten or worry you? Probably not at all, right? Now you may understand.
The weaving argument didn’t make much sense. Now if the Shroud were polyester or had a Gucci logo on it...
Whether real or spurrious, the Shroud of Turin is absolutely fascinating, all the more so because it was Science herself which made it an issue when towards the end of the 19th Century the negative-to-positive image was discovered.
Catholics don’t worship it, they worship the Redeemer, but it is perfectly sane and natural to take interest in the “souvenir” if it is indeed authentic. To ignore it would be foolish pride. It is there before us, it exists, and it has qualities that make it impossible to explain. No one should be accused of idolatry for showing interest in it.
It is one instance in which debunking is not enough. The cloth demands an explanation. In other words, if bogus, that too needs to be figured out. Far from being a test of faith, it is a test of science. Faith remains either way, but what happens to positivistic science?
The cloth would not have survived the effects of putrefaction process of the body... there would not be much left after the microbes and insects had reduced the body to bones. It is theorized that the Shroud of Turin survived because it only covered the body for less than three days, and the body was removed, for whatever reason before much putrefaction set in...
Interesting - makes sense. Thanks!
I was a maid for a very wealthy young Jordanian Muslim. I had given him a copy of a paperback about the Shroud to read to see what he thought about it.
In an ordinary day, an ordinary maid became blessed by God. As I was changing his bedding the book was lying on the bed. I picked it up and looked at the picture of the image of Christ. I was looking at it very carefully to see if I could tell what Christ might look like and said to The LORD in my heart that I wish that I could see what He really looked like not expecting anything to actually happen.
In an instant The LORD transformed me to a place that I could plainly see the face of Jesus. Glorious light was streaming from his face. The light was so beautiful because it was not just light but it was also pure love. This was many years ago and I shall never forget His beautiful face and often think about how someday I shall see it again.
2Cr 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to [give] the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
Because of who Christ was his body did not decompose as others would:
Act 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
Act 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
Psa 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.