Shroud of Turin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Just_One_Touch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ccording to Merriam & Webster’s Dictionary the definition of a relic is as follows:

1a : an object esteemed and venerated because of association with a saint or martyr
b :souvenir, memento
2 plural : remains, corpse
3: a survivor or remnant left after decay, disintegration, or disappearance
4: a trace of some past or outmoded practice, custom, or belief

Nos. 1 and 4 seem to fit either way you want to go.
 
Exactly. And nails driven in the palms would tear out (apparently).
Not so although that is possible if the weight of the entire body hung from the nails in the hands. But ancient depictions show a sort of foot rest and even to this day the orthodox show a cross with three horizontal pieces, one is the foot rest, two is the cross piece and the third is the sign added by Pilate that read, ‘‘Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews’’.
 
Last night I watched the current Shroud of Turin program on EWTN.

I’m a rather firm believer in the Bethlehem Star dating of Jesus death on April 3, 33. I also knew that the Shroud has the outlines of flowers on the cloth and I began wondering how on April 3, there would be so many blooming flowers available. (I live in Nebraska and we don’t have many available flowerings on plants in April / May).

Temperatures today in Israel on April 5, 2011 are in the 60s. weather.noaa.gov/weather/current/LLBG.html

Yearly weather pattern temperatures in Jerusalem are here:
inisrael.com/tour/weather/index.html

I also found this interesting information concerning three types of flowers on the Shroud.
I may be mistaken but I seem to recall there was little or no pollen from olive trees found on the cloth; olive tress flower between April and June so early April would agree with that .
 
Not so although that is possible if the weight of the entire body hung from the nails in the hands. But ancient depictions show a sort of foot rest and even to this day the orthodox show a cross with three horizontal pieces, one is the foot rest, two is the cross piece and the third is the sign added by Pilate that read, ‘‘Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews’’.
Apperently, the “foot rest” was not mentioned in ancient sources, according to Dr. Barbet. His theory was that it was introduced artistically and that the victims’ feet were secured directly to the vertical post.

The one set of crucifixion bones known to history had a nail through both ankles; clearly a foot rest at least in some cases was NOT used.

ICXC NIKA
 
Also Dr. Fred Zugibe, a coroner and medical expert on crucifixion’s effects, suggests that a single nail driven slantwise through the palm, in the groove that an indrawn thumb creates, would be sufficient to keep the hands affixed, even without a footrest. Of course thie does not mean that every crucifixion was performed with nails through the palms. Some could have gone through the wrists or forearms, some may not have used nails, but ropes. Etc. Anyone interested can read about this at:

e-forensicmedicine.net/

… and …

shroud.com/zugibe.htm

The second link provides information on Zugibe’s updating of Barbet’s findings.
 
I think it’s important to be careful about things like this. This can potentially hurt someone’s faith if the Church says it’s real, and then scripture contradicts it. All the accounts say the body was “wrapped” with linen cloth… and John says that there were two pieces one for the head, and one for the body. John 20:6-7

Furthermore there is no account of this image appearing. It seems kind of odd, doesn’t it?
 
Also… wasn’t the Shroud dated back to the same time period where the story of the Veil of Veronica was first heard?

Hmmmmmm
 
Apperently, the “foot rest” was not mentioned in ancient sources, according to Dr. Barbet. His theory was that it was introduced artistically and that the victims’ feet were secured directly to the vertical post.

The one set of crucifixion bones known to history had a nail through both ankles; clearly a foot rest at least in some cases was NOT used.

ICXC NIKA
This is where things are a little confusing. You’re correct that there does not seem to be any mention of the footrest (aka suppedaneum), and the oldest depictions of crucifixions we have are divided as to whether there were footrests or not. The earliest portrayal of the crucifixion of Jesus known, the Alexamenos graffito in Rome (late 1st-3rd century) shows what seems to be a beam under the crucified figure’s feet, so that his legs are drawn spread apart and seem to be straddling the vertical beam:

http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/273/alexgraffito.gif

However, other early depictions have more diversity at this point: this 2nd-3rd gem amulet from the Eastern Mediterranean shows the victim’s legs are spread wide, as if on horseback, with his feet clearly not attached to the cross. A graffiti found in Puzzuoli - probably a caricature of a victim who was executed at the ampitheater nearby - shows no footrest as well, but has the victim with his feet on the sides of the vertical post. These 4th century gems meanwhile, show the legs being straight, with the feet side-by-side; the earliest ‘orthodox’ depictions that I know of, both made at the early 5th century, also show Jesus in this position, without footrests.

But there is one other alternative: the sedile or cornu (‘horn’), a sort of ‘seat’ - more likely a peg or block of wood - attached halfway the vertical post which helped the victim relieve himself from the stress placed on his body and be more ‘comfortable’ - in effect prolonging his life and his suffering. Without the sedile, a person nailed to the front of a cross would lurch forward because of gravity’s pull (those images of Jesus you see where He is able to keep an upright position while crucified to the front of a cross without any footrest or sedile is actually also physically impossible!)

The Fathers who lived in the days when crucifixions were still commonplace also mention this seat:

And God by Moses shows in another way the force of the mystery of the cross, when He said in the blessing wherewith Joseph was blessed, ‘From the blessing of the Lord is his land; for the seasons of heaven, and for the dews, and for the deep springs from beneath, and for the seasonable fruits of the sun, and for the coming together of the months, and for the heights of the everlasting mountains, and for the heights of the hills, and for the ever-flowing rivers, and for the fruits of the fatness of the earth; and let the things accepted by Him who appeared in the bush come on the head and crown of Joseph. Let him be glorified among his brethren; his beauty is [like] the firstling of a bullock; his horns the horns of an unicorn: with these shall he push the nations from one end of the earth to another.’ (Deuteronomy 33:13-17) Now, no one could say or prove that the horns of an unicorn represent any other fact or figure than the type which portrays the cross. For the one beam is placed upright, from which the highest extremity is raised up into a horn, when the other beam is fitted on to it, and the ends appear on both sides as horns joined on to the one horn. And the part which is fixed in the centre, on which are suspended those who are crucified, also stands out like a horn; and it also looks like a horn conjoined and fixed with the other horns. And the expression, ‘With these shall he push as with horns the nations from one end of the earth to another,’ is indicative of what is now the fact among all the nations.
  • St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 91
The very form of the cross, too, has five extremities, two in length, two in breadth, and one in the middle, on which [last] the person rests who is fixed by the nails.
  • St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.24.4
Every piece of timber which is fixed in the ground in an erect position is a part of a cross, and indeed the greater portion of its mass. But an entire cross is attributed to us, with its transverse beam, of course, and its projecting seat.

-Tertullian, Ad Nationes 1.12
 
The Romans were really concerned to keep their victims up on the cross, and for as long as possible, and so they devised methods to such effect. Another method we know must have been practiced (due to the heel bone of a man crucified near the time of Jesus) is to the enlarge the heads of the nails with say, wooden plaques serving as washers which would make it difficult to break free of the nails.

The presence of this seat is included (or at least, implied) in some of these images:

http://img864.imageshack.us/img864/8290/sedilee.png

Note the line depicted just above the buttocks of the crucified figure in the Alexamenos graffito (left): it has been interpreted variously as a representation of a short tunic, a loincloth, or - more likely IMHO - the sedile. The victim in the Puzzuoli graffito (center) has what seems to be a sedile pointing out and slanting downwards just below the man’s left leg (our right). The figure depicted on the gem has his legs spread rather obscenely wide away from the cross, kind of like a rider on horseback.
 
I think it’s important to be careful about things like this. This can potentially hurt someone’s faith if the Church says it’s real, and then scripture contradicts it. All the accounts say the body was “wrapped” with linen cloth… and John says that there were two pieces one for the head, and one for the body. John 20:6-7
I KNEW this would come up, like it did before. 😃

The Synoptics (Matthew, Mark and Luke) all say that there was a sindon, in the singular.

And evening having come, there came a rich man from Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was discipled to Jesus. He, having gone near to Pilate, asked for himself the body of Jesus; then Pilate commanded the body to be given. And having taken the body, Joseph wrapped it in a clean sindon and laid it in his new tomb which he had hewn in the rock; and having rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb, he went away. And there were there Mary the Magdalene and the other Mary, sitting opposite the burial.

And now evening having come, seeing it was the Preparation (that is, the fore-sabbath), Joseph of Arimathaea, a prominent council-member, who also himself was waiting for the kingdom of God, came, boldly entered in to Pilate, and asked the body of Jesus. And Pilate wondered if He were already dead; and having called near the centurion, asked Him if He were now dead, and having known from the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph. And he, having brought a sindon, and having taken Him down, wrapped Him in the sindon, and laid him in a tomb that had been hewn out of a rock, and he rolled a stone unto the door of the tomb. And Mary the Magdalene and Mary of Joses were seeing where He is laid.

And behold, a man named Joseph, a council-member, was a man good and righteous - he had not consented to their counsel and action - from Arimathaea, a city of the Judaeans, who also himself was waiting for the kingdom of God; he, having gone near to Pilate, asked the body of Jesus; and having taken it down, he wrapped it in a sindon and placed it in a tomb - stone-hewn, where no one was yet laid. And the day was Preparation, and Sabbath was dawning.

The problem of course is John’s account, which has Jesus being buried in othoniois (‘linen cloths’ or ‘linen wrappings’), in the plural. By contrast, the word sindon does not appear in John.

Now after these things Joseph of Arimathaea asked of Pilate (being a disciple of Jesus, but hidden, through the fear of the Judaeans), that he may take away the body of Jesus, and Pilate permitted; he came, therefore, and took away His body. Now Nicodemus also came - who came to Him by night at the first - bearing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred litra. So they took the body of Jesus, and bound it with othonion with the spices, according as it was the custom of the Judaeans to prepare for burial. Now there was in the place where He was crucified a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had yet been laid; there, therefore, because of the Preparation of the Judaeans, because the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus.

On the face of it, we have a contradiction between the Gospels!
 
The precise meanings of othonia and sindon in their gospel context have been hotly debated. Some have contended that othonia (which is a plural form) means ‘linen bands’ or ‘linen strips’ and that Joseph must have torn up the sindon into strips to wind Jesus mummy-style.

Quite neutral exegetes such as archaeologist Fr. Pierre Benoit, O.P. (1906-1987) have pointed out that it would surely have been easier for Joseph to purchase ready-made bandages rather than tearing up a large sheet for this purpose, especially because of time constraints. Besides, mummy burial was an Egyptian, not a Jewish, custom, and we have no evidence for this ancient Egyptian custom among 1st-century Jews living in Roman Palestine.

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/1980/givathamivtarhz1.png
Corpse in situ (from Givat ha-Mivtar, Jerusalem) wrapped in woolen shroud
Moreover, if we look at mummies dating from the Hellenistic and Roman periods, the Egyptians themselves seem to have abandoned the custom of wrapping a body in strips of cloth. Instead, extraordinary lengths of coarse linen were wrapped around a small coffin encasing the body in an intricate rhomboid pattern.


As pointed out, according to the Synoptics (Matthew 27:59 ff.) Joseph wrapped the body of Jesus in a sindon, while John 19:40 says it was bound with othonia, and there is a later mention of a soudarion (from Latin sudarium, ‘sweat-rag’) placed over the head (20:7). As for Lazarus, his feet and hands were bound with keiriai, and his face was covered with a soudarion (John 11:43). The question naturally arises: is the sindon of the Synoptics the same as the othonia of John, and are both these the same as the keiriai of Lazarus?

To this Fr. Alberto Vaccari, S.J. (1875-1965) of the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome gave his answer thus. In the early fourth century, a lawyer and public figure from the Nile valley city of Hermopolis named Theophanes made a six-month journey from upper Egypt to Antioch of Syria. The day to day details of his journey are preserved on papyrus documents and offer a remarkable record, covering everything from distances traveled to daily food purchases, from medicinal supplies to fees paid for services. In a large papyrus containing 349 lines he has kept an account of the places where he stopped, the distances travelled, the expenses, and the garments which apparently he carried on his journey.

Under othonia are listed seventeen species of linen garments. Among them are four sindonia and one phakarion, a synonym for soudarion. On the other hand, fasciai, a synonym for keiriai, are placed under another heading, sc., stromata. Therefore othonia is a generic term and can mean or include a sindon. Vaccari thus concludes that keiriai and othonia are different terms.

But what of the soudarion? Some have thought of this as simply a sort of headcloth or chin band tied around the face of the deceased, which is apparently what the soudarion mentioned in the story of Lazarus was. Others have argued that it may have been our Shroud, on the grounds that the description of it as having been “over his head” (Jn. 20:7). In support of this argument we may note that in the Lazarus account John uses the word peri (“round” or “about”), in contrast to the epi (“over”) used in the case of Jesus, leaving open the possibility that a different arrangement (and different size of cloth) is being described. St. John makes special mention of Jesus’ soudarion being “not with the othonia but rolled up in a place by itself,” which certainly might suggest a cloth larger and more important than a mere chin-band; but as many maintain that a soudarion could not be anything larger than a handkerchief-sized piece of cloth, it seems unwise to be dogmatic.

Still others point to another relic as being the soudarion of John: the Sudarium of Oviedo, a bloodstained cloth, measuring c. 84 x 53 cm, kept in the Cámara Santa of the Cathedral of San Salvador in Oviedo, Spain. It has a more firm, documented history than the Shroud: the small chapel housing it was built specifically for the cloth by King Alfonso II of Asturias (759/60-842) in the year 840 - who, for the record, moved the capital of Asturias from Pravia, where Silo had located it, to Oviedo, the city of his father’s founding and his birth!

http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/images/sudariumrev.jpg
 
Furthermore there is no account of this image appearing. It seems kind of odd, doesn’t it?
There isn’t indeed, but there seems to be a tradition that may point to this effect.

The Mozarabic, Visigothic, or Hispanic rite is a form of Catholic worship within the Latin Church. The name is given to a liturgical rite once used generally in Spain and in what afterwards became Portugal - that is, before the Roman rite mostly supplanted it - and which still survives in certain parts of Spain today, especially in the Capilla Muzárabe in Toledo Cathedral (where it is celebrated on a daily basis).

The term “Mozarabic” refers to Christians living under Arabic rule in medieval Spain. It identifies the Old Spanish rite, also called Visigothic, which remained in use there. The Arian Visigoths, driven from Aquitaine into Spain in the early sixth century, became Catholic in 587. The Muslims overran Spain within a few years after 711, leaving only a remnant of the Visigothic kingdom along the northern shore of Spain. The 7th century marked the zenith of the Old Spanish rite, which had developed among the Visigoths from the liturgy of the Christians living in Spain under the Roman Empire.

The Mozarabic equivalent of the Roman Preface (the prayer recited by the priest immediately before the Sanctus) is the Inlatio or Illatio. Unlike the Roman Preface (which are now limited to a dozen or so - in the old days there were a lot of them), there was hardly a Mass has did not have its own Inlatio. These Inlationes - which are sometimes very long; the longest ones could fill up a page or two of text! -stand as a testament to the learning, the depth, and the culture of Spanish theologians from the fifth-ninth centuries.

One curious Inlatio is that of Easter Saturday (part 1, 2 and 3), which has the phrase Ad monumentum Petrus cum Johanne concurrit: recentiaque in linteaminibus defuncti: et resurgentis vestigia cernit, “Peter ran with John to the tomb, and sees in the new linen-cloths the vestigia of the dead and risen one.” The key word here is vestigia: it could mean ‘footprints’ or ‘tracks’, but also ‘vestiges’, ‘traces’ or even ‘marks’.
 
Also… wasn’t the Shroud dated back to the same time period where the story of the Veil of Veronica was first heard?

Hmmmmmm
An explicit mention of Veronica (usually connected with the bilingual phrase vera eikona but could also easily be a Latinization of the Greek name Berenike/Pherenike) first appears in the apocryphal Gospel known as the Acts of Pilate (first written and revised many times between 150-400 AD), where, at least in the Second Greek and Latin version of it, she appears as the hemorrhaging woman cured by Jesus (the First Greek version does not name the woman):
  • 1st Greek Form:…And a woman cried out from a distance, and said, “I had an issue of blood, and I touched the hem of his garment, and the issue of blood which I had had for twelve years was stopped.”…
  • 2nd Greek Form:There was found there also a woman named Veronica, and she said, “Twelve years I was in an issue of blood, and I only touched the edge of His garment, and directly I was cured.”…
  • Latin Form: …And also a certain woman, Veronica by name, from afar off cried out to the governor, “I was flowing with blood for twelve years; and I touched the fringe of His garment, and immediately the flowing of my blood stopped.”…
By the 7th-8th century, a work called The Avenging of the Savior continues the association of Veronica with the hemorrhaging woman. This also marks one of the first times that a mention of an image of Jesus in a cloth appears:

…[A]nd another woman, named Veronica, who suffered twelve years from an issue of blood, and came up to Him behind, and touched the fringe of His garment, He healed…

…And there came also the woman named Veronica, and said to him: “And I touched in the crowd the fringe of His garment, because for twelve years I had suffered from an issue of blood; and He immediately healed me…

…And all who were in that same place said, “It is the woman called Veronica who has the portrait of the Lord in her house.” And immediately he ordered her to be brought before his power. And he said to her, “Hast thou the portrait of the Lord in thy house?” But she said, “No.” Then Velosianus ordered her to be put to the torture, until she should give up the portrait of the Lord. And she was forced to say, “I have it in clean linen, my lord, and I daily adore it.” Velosianus said, “Show it to me.
Then she showed the portrait of the Lord. When Velosianus saw it, he prostrated himself on the ground; and with a ready heart and true faith he took hold of it, and wrapped it in cloth of gold, and placed it in a casket, and sealed it with his ring…

The story then continues with the veil being brought to Rome before the Emperor Tiberius, who was healed of a grave illness by gazing on it (the story also records that every sick and disabled person present during this audience was also healed), whereupon he converted to Christianity. Meanwhile, in another work, The Death of Pilate, Veronica tells Tiberius’ messenger thus:

And Veronica said to him, “When my Lord was going about preaching, and I, much against my will, was deprived of His presence, I wished His picture to be painted for me, in order that, while I was deprived of His presence, the figure of His picture might at least afford me consolation. And when I was carrying the canvas to the painter to be painted, my Lord met me, and asked whither I was going. And when I had disclosed to Him the cause of my journey, He asked of me the cloth, and gave it back to me impressed with the image of His venerable face. Therefore, if thy lord will devoutly gaze upon His face, he shall obtain forthwith the benefit of health.

Here, she is a disciple of Jesus who who wished to have a picture of him. Jesus obliged her by pressing to his face a cloth which then bore his likeness. It is interesting to note that in this respect, the story is quite similar to the story of King Abgar and the Mandylion of Edessa.

However, by the Middle Ages, around William Caxton’s (who translated Jacobus Voragine’s Golden Legend, compiled ca. 1260) time - around the 15th century - the incident in which this event happens has been apparently transferred: the imprinting of the cloth now occurs during the Passion, as Jesus makes his way to Calvary, and the ‘cloth’, instead of being a sort of canvas, is now Veronica’s veil which she uses to clean Jesus’ bloodied face. The linking of Veronica with the Passion could be under the influence of the popular 1380 book Meditationes Vitae Christi (Meditations on the life of Christ). By contrast, the original Latin Golden Legend contains the older version of the story: where Veronica had a piece of linen where she intended Jesus’ portrait to be painted on until He came in person and provided her with a much better one by personally wiping His face with it. It could be that Caxton played loose with his translation to reflect popular devotional thinking of his time.
 
So, this is where your reasoning would fail: the first mention of an image connected with Veronica would date from the 7th-8th centuries AD. Now, if we believe the 1988 C-14 tests the Shroud would indeed date from 1260-1390 with 95% confidence, just about the time when Voragine authored his Legenda Aurea. But the tradition at that time was that Veronica’s image was an image of Jesus’ face from life, not from His passion or death, so this would rule out the Shroud, a full-body portrait of the dead Christ. William Caxton came out a century or two late. Now you could make a case with the Meditationes Vitae Christi, but despite Veronica now being connected with the Via Dolorosa, the story retained the detail that it was only an imprint of the face of Jesus before He was to die, not of His post-mortem body. 🤷

Also, firm recording of the Veronica’s cloth begin in 1199 when two pilgrims named Gerald de Barri (Giraldus Cambrensis) and Gervase of Tilbury made two accounts at different times of a visit to Rome which made direct reference to the existence of the Veronica. (Before that, it would appear that the Veronica was in place by 1011 when a scribe was identified as keeper of the cloth.) Shortly after, in 1207, the cloth became more prominent when it was publicly paraded and displayed by Pope Innocent III, who also granted indulgences to anyone praying before it. This parade became an annual event and on one such occasion in 1300 Pope Boniface VIII, who had it translated to St. Peter’s in 1297, was inspired to proclaim the first Jubilee in 1300. For the next two hundred years the Veronica, retained at Old St Peter’s, was regarded as the most precious of all Christian relics.

So if the C-14 test was real, the records for the Veronica’s existence predates the Shroud by at least 61 years! :eek:
 
I KNEW this would come up, like it did before. 😃

The Synoptics (Matthew, Mark and Luke) all say that there was a sindon, in the singular.

And evening having come, there came a rich man from Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was discipled to Jesus. He, having gone near to Pilate, asked for himself the body of Jesus; then Pilate commanded the body to be given. And having taken the body, Joseph wrapped it in a clean sindon and laid it in his new tomb which he had hewn in the rock; and having rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb, he went away. And there were there Mary the Magdalene and the other Mary, sitting opposite the burial.

And now evening having come, seeing it was the Preparation (that is, the fore-sabbath), Joseph of Arimathaea, a prominent council-member, who also himself was waiting for the kingdom of God, came, boldly entered in to Pilate, and asked the body of Jesus. And Pilate wondered if He were already dead; and having called near the centurion, asked Him if He were now dead, and having known from the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph. And he, having brought a sindon, and having taken Him down, wrapped Him in the sindon, and laid him in a tomb that had been hewn out of a rock, and he rolled a stone unto the door of the tomb. And Mary the Magdalene and Mary of Joses were seeing where He is laid.

And behold, a man named Joseph, a council-member, was a man good and righteous - he had not consented to their counsel and action - from Arimathaea, a city of the Judaeans, who also himself was waiting for the kingdom of God; he, having gone near to Pilate, asked the body of Jesus; and having taken it down, he wrapped it in a sindon and placed it in a tomb - stone-hewn, where no one was yet laid. And the day was Preparation, and Sabbath was dawning.

The problem of course is John’s account, which has Jesus being buried in othoniois (‘linen cloths’ or ‘linen wrappings’), in the plural. By contrast, the word sindon does not appear in John.

Now after these things Joseph of Arimathaea asked of Pilate (being a disciple of Jesus, but hidden, through the fear of the Judaeans), that he may take away the body of Jesus, and Pilate permitted; he came, therefore, and took away His body. Now Nicodemus also came - who came to Him by night at the first - bearing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred litra. So they took the body of Jesus, and bound it with othonion with the spices, according as it was the custom of the Judaeans to prepare for burial. Now there was in the place where He was crucified a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had yet been laid; there, therefore, because of the Preparation of the Judaeans, because the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus.

On the face of it, we have a contradiction between the Gospels!
Of course, the scriptures when taken altogether give the full picture.🙂
The first three accounts say the body was wrapped in a sindon and then the final account says the body was bound with othonion and spices.

So there you have it, wrapped (over-the-head) with a 14 foot length of material, and that long loose length of material was bound with linen tying straps probably soaked in the spices. See, wrapped and bound. no problem!
 
I think it’s important to be careful about things like this. This can potentially hurt someone’s faith if the Church says it’s real, and then scripture contradicts it. All the accounts say the body was “wrapped” with linen cloth… and John says that there were two pieces one for the head, and one for the body. John 20:6-7

Furthermore there is no account of this image appearing. It seems kind of odd, doesn’t it?
  1. The Church will never “say the shroud is real”. Quite simply, even if the C14 issue were resolved in its favor, we can NEVER prove the shroud was ever actually around our LORD.
  2. because of this, and because it is not mentioned in Scripture, the Shroud will not become a faith issue for anybody.
  3. there is no conflict with Scripture. The Shroud has been known for centuries. If it conflicted with Scripture, it would have been discarded.
I’ll look up the Greek word for wrap, however, shrouding practices of that place and time do NOT imply winding bandages around and around like an Egyptian mummy.

And the head-cloth is thought by many to have been a band wrapped from the chin to the vertex to keep the mouth closed. Such a band would explain why we do not see the sides of his face, or the top of head. (The Scripture says “around” his head, not over it).

ICXC NIKA.
 
Ok, ok, you convinced me it doesn’t contradict scripture. Wow, that was long.
 
Here’s something I found from an old Hungarian Bible called the Pray Manuscript:

shroudofturin4journalists.com/pictures/Hungarian_Pray_Manuscript.htm

If you look at the picture, you will notice the burial cloth at the bottom of the page. You will notice that it bears the same herringbone weave as that on the shroud.

I originally found this info in a documentary on the shroud on the History Channel. I believe it airs most Holy Saturdays at 8:00.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top