Death certificate is imprinted on the Shroud of Turin, says Vatican scholar (more info)

The Times ^ | 11/20/2009 | Richard Owen

[Swordmaker]

I understand all about tradition, and how things are done “even today”, but that doesn’t override what the Bible actually says. You’ve yet to address the main point: why the Bible indicates linen strips and a face cloth, NOT a large linen sheet.

No, that's a confabulation. The Bible says Jesus was wrapped in a sindon. One of the Gospels, Matthew 27:59, says that Joseph of Arimathea bought a σινδονι (a Sindon)... a fine Linen sheet... not strips. The Shroud is a fine Linen Sheet.

The Gospel of Mark, in Chapter 15 Verse 46 says that Joseph bought a fine (singular) linen cloth, in Greek a σινδονα... again a large sheet.

Only John speaks of "strips" and that may have been referring to the strips or band used to bind the wrists and ankles to keep them from flopping.

[Swordmaker]

Luke also cites that Jesus was wrapped in a a large sheet:

"και καθελων αυτο ενετυλιξεν αυτο σινδονι και εθηκεν αυτο εν μνηματι λαξευτω ου ουκ ην ουδεπω ουδεις κειμενος"

[csense]

Thanks for the ping to the threads, Swordmaker.

[csense]

The Gospel of Mark, in Chapter 15 Verse 46 says that Joseph bought a fine (singular) linen cloth, in Greek a σινδονα... again a large sheet. Only John speaks of "strips" and that may have been referring to the strips or band used to bind the wrists and ankles to keep them from flopping.

You raise an interesting point that a lot of people don't understand about the four books, in that, they describe different things within the same event. They are not discrepancies as some people interpret them, but rather, they are complimentary observations. It's a recurring theme that can be found throughout the Gospels if you read them carefully and diligently, and if you're wise enough, you understand why God chose to do it this way deliberately.

Good thread, and very informative posts, Swordmaker.

[muawiyah]

You did know that the current state of knowledge is that the radio carbon dating was OK, but "they" managed to select for measurement a portion of the Shroud that consisted of a Medieval "repair".

The repairs were known about for hundreds of years.

More recently some of the sampled area has been carefully examined and found to consist of 2 kinds of cloth simply weaved together as a repair.

[muawiyah]

Rose of Sharon ~ have a bunch of 'em in my yard. They look remarkably like their cousins, the domesticated varieties of cotton. Then they bloom ~ mine are bright purple or white.

Many people plant them as stabilizers for hedges ~ plant 10 Siberian wild roses then 1 Rose of Sharon. Repeat many times and you get a very straight, well-defined hedge.

The references to the Rose of Sharon have to do with how the plant is used, its resilience during times of famine, or when high winds have knocked down your other hedge plants, and its brightly colored blooms.

[markomalley]

You might be interested in this for your lists

[RightOnline]

Wrong. Ray Rogers’ work (building on some terrific research by others) on this is the definitive statement on the subject. The radiocarbon testing was done (four locations) on samples taken from “rewoven” sections of the Shroud. They were rewoven using a technique known as “invisible weave”.

In short, those were not part of the original Shroud. This is well-known for any who care about little things like “facts”.

It’s not a medieval forgery, period.

[RightOnline]

Yep. See my reply above.

[RightOnline]

No. The body was laid on the cloth, the remainder folded back over the body. It wasn’t ‘wrapped’ for a simple reason. This was a very hurried ‘burial’ since Passover was rapidly approaching. They cleaned up the body a bit, put in flowers and other objects with the body. The whole idea was that they’d then come back in three days to properly finish the job. This is why the body wasn’t ‘wrapped’ as you describe.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks.

[visualops]

Rose of Sharon are Hibiscus.

[SunkenCiv]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2391295/posts

[Iscool]

In Matthew, Mark, and Luke the word translated to English as “wrapped” (And he took it down and wrapped it in a linen cloth-NASB) literally means to roll or wind something around something else. In John, the word used is the same one used to describe someone being bound by chains (So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen wrappings-NASB), again wrapping something around something else. In John, when the apostles run to the tomb and look inside they describe the shourd also (and stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings-NASB). The word translated as “linen wrappings” literally means “strips of linens.”

The word of God means nothing to these people...Their fabrications and fairy tales are just as good, or better than anything found in the scripture...

Joh 20:5 And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.
Joh 20:6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,
Joh 20:7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

How much more clear can it get??? The covering for his face and head was a separate piece of material...There was no shroud...

[Swordmaker]

After working on this reply for several hours, I thought the information important enough to ping the entire Shroud of Turin Ping list to this discussion... Swordmaker

---

In a reply to Brookhaven, Iscool stated:

The word of God means nothing to these people...Their fabrications and fairy tales are just as good, or better than anything found in the scripture...

Joh 20:5 And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.

Joh 20:6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,

Joh 20:7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

How much more clear can it get??? The covering for his face and head was a separate piece of material...There was no shroud...

Actually, Iscool, quite a bit clearer.

Try reading the other Gospels where the Sindon, the large fine cloth sheet shroud, is mentioned, especially in the original Greek. I wrote about them in comments 61 and 62 above, with direct quotations.

As to your quotations from the King James Version of the Bible, John, Chapter 20.

Here it is in the original Greek:

"ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 20:

5 και παρακυψας βλεπει κειμενα τα οθονια ου μεντοι εισηλθεν

6 ερχεται ουν σιμων πετρος ακολουθων αυτω και εισηλθεν εις το μνημειον και θεωρει τα οθονια κειμενα

7 και το σουδαριον ο ην επι της κεφαλης αυτου ου μετα των οθονιων κειμενον αλλα χωρις εντετυλιγμενον εις ενα τοπον

The Greek word used to denote the grave clothes in the original Greek Gospel of John is the singular οθονιων (Othonion), and the plural οθονια (othonia). The usage is distinctive and important.

Although the words, in Greek most commonly referred to large sails or tent cloths, and in another usage they referred to traditional burial shrouds; the plural version—and only the plural—could also refer to small strips that were used to bind wounds as bandages.

As reported in John 20, 4-7, the burial clothes, both plural and singular, the othonia and othonion, of Jesus were seen. The traditional burial "clothes" of 1st Century Jews was inclusive of a large sheet, a shroud, and strips of cloth or ropes to bind the wrists, ankles, sometimes the knees, and the jaw.

As I mentioned on one of my earlier posts, NOT ONE Jewish burial has been found wound with "strips of linen" like bandages. However, burials HAVE been found with the bodies laid on a large cloth shroud that was then drawn over the head and down over the body. In fact, here is a photograph of a 1st Century Jewish Burial as found in a woolen shoud in a floor niche tomb:

This body was buried with its ankles, knees, wrists and jaw tied with strips of cloth.

Referring again to John, in Chapter 19, Verse 40, we are told "Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury." (KJV)

The original Greek presents it thus:

"ἔλαβον οὖν τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ ἔδησαν αὐτὸὀ ὀθονίοις μετὰ τῶν ἀρωμάτων, καθὼς ἔθος ἐστὶν τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις ἐνταφιάζειν.

There are two Greek words of interest here. The second is our familiar othonia, grave clothes. The first, however, is εδησαν (ἔ[disan), from δεω (deo), which in Greek means "tie, "bind," or "fasten," but never "wind," as given is in some Biblical translations, in particular the King James Version. Others, such as the updated New King James Version, now use the more contextually proper translation of "bound" in place of "wound."

Let's look at the "napkin" reported in John 20:7. The King James Version of the Bible reports there was a second cloth apart from the other linen clothes which it called a "napkin." The word "napkin" is a translation of the Greek word σουδαριον (soudarion), Sudarium in Latin, which actually means "sweat cloth," a cloth that was folded and often wrapped around the forehead to keep sweat from dripping into the eyes.

Man wearing a folded sudarium wrapped around his
head to keep sweat out of his eyes.

The KJV also reports that the "napkin" was "about" his head. It says just that, not that it "covered" his head, but that it was "about" his head... if it was rolled diagonally into a long kerchief, wrapped under the chin, behind or over the ears, and tied atop the crown of the head, in other words "about the head." to keep the jaw closed in death. It could literally surround "about" the face without covering it.

In fact, it is reported in John that the "napkin" was found

• ". . . wrapped together in a place by itself" (KJV)
• ". . . rolled up and in a place by itself." (CEV)
• ". . . but rolled up in a place by itself" (NASB)

all translations that use the more common translation of εντετυλιγμενον (entetyligmenon), as "wrapped around itself," which is a good description of a cloth rolled diagonally into a kerchief like a boy scout would make:

The Sudarium of Oviedo, which has been kept in the Cathedral in Oviedo, Spain since the mid sixth Century, shows signs of just such a rolling into a kerchief and tying at its ends.

It is thought that it is the cloth was used to cover the face of Jesus while he was still on the Cross and while His body was moved to the tomb and then pressed into duty as a rolled binding cloth to bind the jaw closed at the hurried burial. he Sudarium of Oviedo also bears blood stains in the same blood type as those on the Shroud of Turin which have 78 points of congruency with the wounds on the head of the image on the Shroud. Although it has no image, the Sudarium does have a bloody handprint on it from someone who assisted in lifting a body while the cloth was covering the face of the body.

[Iscool]

Here it is in the original Greek:

Who are you trying to fake out??? You don't have the 'original' Greek writing...You've never seen the original and you don't know anyone who has ever seen the original...

The Greek word used to denote the grave clothes in the original Greek Gospel of John is the singular οθονιων (Othonion), and the plural οθονια (othonia). The usage is distinctive and important.

The 'original' Greek word as found in the Majority Texts, those that came out of Antioch as opposed to Africa is ὀθόνιον (othonion)...

And this othonion is a derivative of the Greek word ὀθόνη (othonē ) which means a larger linen cloth such as a sheet or sail...A Derivative...

Although the words, in Greek most commonly referred to large sails or tent cloths, and in another usage they referred to traditional burial shrouds; the plural version—and only the plural—could also refer to small strips that were used to bind wounds as bandages.

Unless of course it could refer to a single roll of strips sewn together...I am amazed at the length you guys will go to, to discredit the authority of the scriptures...

You obviously have a problem with the KJV...As many know, the KJV came from the Majority Texts manuscripts...You supposed 'original' Greek texts which are the same texts to translate all other English reading bibles came out of Africa...

But what's interesting is how those other translations of YOUR Greek text agree with the KJV on this issue but even go farther to make it more clear...Here's your own Catholic bible:

DRB: Joh 20:7 And the napkin that had been about his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but apart, wrapped up into one place.

The Douay bible says cloths...Plural...Here's more of your 'original' Greek translations...

ISV: Joh 20:7 and that the handkerchief that had been on Jesus' head was not lying with the linen cloths but was rolled up in a separate place.
LITV: Joh 20:7 And the grave cloth which was on His head was not lying with the linens, but was wrapped up in one place by itself.
MKJV: Joh 20:7 And the grave-cloth that was on His head was not lying with the linens, but was wrapped up in one place by itself.
RV: Joh 20:7 and the napkin, that was upon his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but rolled up in a place by itself.
ASV: Joh 20:7 and the napkin, that was upon his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but rolled up in a place by itself.
BBE: Joh 20:7 And the cloth, which had been round his head, not with the linen bands but rolled up in a place by itself.
ESV: Joh 20:7 and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself.

Why are you just correcting the KJV and not any of your own Catholic translations that use the very 'original' Greek text you are referring to???

As I mentioned on one of my earlier posts, NOT ONE Jewish burial has been found wound with "strips of linen" like bandages. However, burials HAVE been found with the bodies laid on a large cloth shroud that was then drawn over the head and down over the body. In fact, here is a photograph of a 1st Century Jewish Burial as found in a woolen shoud in a floor niche tomb:

One example??? And you know for certain it was from the first century??? That picture doesn't look like it ever had a couple of tons of rocks and dirt on top of the corpse...

There are two Greek words of interest here. The second is our familiar othonia, grave clothes. The first, however, is εδησαν (ἔ[disan), from δεω (deo), which in Greek means "tie, "bind," or "fasten," but never "wind," as given is in some Biblical translations, in particular the King James Version. Others, such as the updated New King James Version, now use the more contextually proper translation of "bound" in place of "wound."

Obviously there are translators who disagree with you...And because you disagree with them, that makes you right???

Let's look at the "napkin" reported in John 20:7. The King James Version of the Bible reports there was a second cloth apart from the other linen clothes which it called a "napkin." The word "napkin" is a translation of the Greek word σουδαριον (soudarion), Sudarium in Latin, which actually means "sweat cloth," a cloth that was folded and often wrapped around the forehead to keep sweat from dripping into the eyes.

And it also mean a towel...And a handkerchief...And, a napkin...

But in all this, you neglect to consider the rest of the scripture...

Joh 19:39 And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight. Joh 19:40 Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

So what did they do with the salves and spices??? They had a hundred pounds of this stuff...Did they put a 2" layer on Jesus' body and then roll him in the sheet??? And how then did blood stains appear thru the thick mass of salve to penetrate the shroud and make a 'negative'???

Seems far more likely to me (and obviously the translators of even your own 'original' Greek) that there were strips of cloth that were saturated with the preserving mixture in subsequent layers of the 'wound' cloth...

There is no shroud that covered Jesus that your church or any other has possession of...It didn't exist...

[NYer]

Thank you for taking the time to provide such a detailed and methodical explanation. Unfortunately, some forum members worship the Bible - their English language Bible - and no matter how much effort is made to relate back to the original language text, their minds are fixated on what they choose to believe.

For my part, thank you for the post and ping. You are a constant source of clarification on the Shroud.

[Petronski]

Don’t you ever get tired of being SO wrong?

[Iscool]

Thank you for taking the time to provide such a detailed and methodical explanation. Unfortunately, some forum members worship the Bible - their English language Bible - and no matter how much effort is made to relate back to the original language text, their minds are fixated on what they choose to believe.

No so accurate...Our minds are fixated on the God breathed written words of God as opposed to the tradition of men and your religion...

You are clearly suggesting that your church tradition trumps the God inspired words of God...

You claim your religion wrote the scriptures...But yet, you can't reconcile your religion with the scriptures...

The English translations that you appear to have so little respect for DO relate back to your 'original' language text...

Your religion has translated the 'original' language into English on numerous attempts...But it seems that it never gets it right...Because you're always correcting it...How is that??? You have the correct translation so you say; well why not get it all together and make the 'only' real translation into English, once and for all???

How did your church get 'cloths' into the English bibles it wrote and now claim it is the wrong word???

I think it's like they say, 'all the bats are not in the belfry'...

[aruanan]

The word of God means nothing to these people...Their fabrications and fairy tales are just as good, or better than anything found in the scripture...

How much more clear can it get??? The covering for his face and head was a separate piece of material...There was no shroud...

Even more tragic is the inability of some to distinguish between what a text actually says and the subsequent inherent limitations on possible meanings and what they think it says or what they want it to say because they don't read carefully enough, are using historically defective texts, are ignorant of the background of what the text says, letting their own uninformed mental imagery substitute for meaning (sort of like judges who see meanings emanating from penumbras of text).