The Tablecloth at The Last Supper?

[cmt]

Jewish Burial Practices

There were different rituals for those who died a vilolent death.

One of the more interesting avenues of research is the area of burial practices. Could the Shroud have been a genuine Jewish burial shroud? How can we find out? John 19:40 says, “Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs.” What were those burial customs?

One of the points of confusion with the Shroud is that it was a custom to wash the body before burial. Yet the Shroud seems to depict a man whose wounds were never cleaned. However there appears to be an exception to this custom for those who have died a violent death. Here is an excerpt from The Jewish Way of Death and Mourning by Maurice Lamm (1969):

“The blood that flows at the time of death may not be washed away. When there is other blood on the body that flowed during lifetime (while alive), from wounds or as a result of an operation, the washing and taharah (purification) are performed in the usual manner.”

“Where the deceased died instantaneously through violence or accident, and his body and garments are completely spattered with blood, no washing or taharah is performed. The body is placed in the casket without the clothes being removed. Only a sheet is wrapped around it, over the clothes. The blood is part of the body and may not be separated from it in death.”

“Where blood flows continually after death, the source of the flow is covered and not washed. The clothes which contain the blood that flowed after death are placed in the casket at the feet.”

Notice how only a single sheet is used. Also, the man on the Shroud is naked because they cast lots for his garments. The reason for this unusual custom was due to the belief that “life is in the blood”. Leviticus 17:11 says, “For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.”

Another reason why the blood must be buried with the body is because it was considered unclean. To touch a corpse was to touch something unclean and therefore become unclean yourself. One would then have to go through a ritual process of becoming clean again.

Blood that flowed after the person died is considered “life blood”. This is the blood that makes atonement. It is the trading of that which gives life for that which brings death (sin). It wasn’t just the blood, but the life in the blood that was the acceptable sacrifice.

Blood that flowed after death was often mixed with blood that flowed before death, this was called “mingled blood”. If there was more than a loss of a “quarter log” of mingled blood, it was considered unclean and must be buried with the body. A log is the content of 6 eggs. A quarter log is 1 ½ eggs. The volume of blood lost from the side-wound must have easily exceeded this measure and is why the man on the shroud is unwashed.

That makes sense then that it could have been the Tablecloth from the Last Supper.

 

[_SunShine]

Jewish Burial Practices

…Blood that flowed after death was often mixed with blood that flowed before death, this was called “mingled blood”. If there was more than a loss of a “quarter log” of mingled blood, it was considered unclean and must be buried with the body. A log is the content of 6 eggs. A quarter log is 1 ½ eggs. The volume of blood lost from the side-wound must have easily exceeded this measure and is why the man on the shroud is unwashed.

Okay, so in the movie “The Passion”, Mary and MM were cleaning up Jesus’ blood so maybe that is the cloth(s) that were found in the tomb in the corner?

 

[contemplative]

The Shroud a Tablecloth

1993 - Rebecca Jackson’s historical research indicates Shroud may have also been the tablecloth used at the Last Supper. She notes that Orthodox Jews get a new tablecloth for Passover to insure the purity of the meal. It is highly likely that Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Chevrah Kidusha, the official Jewish burial society. He was thus able to demand Jesus’ body from Pilate, but in all likelihood didn’t have enough time to secure a new, legal burial cloth before sundown - he would have chosen the tablecloth for the Last Supper, used only once, to bury Jesus. The Shroud cloth meets all the requirements for a Jewish burial garment (Tachrichim)and is the right size to cover the table for a Passover supper for 13 people.

I still do not imagine Joseph of A. saying " Hey! Get me the table cloth from Jesus’ Last Supper!" Maybe…just maybe Joseph of A. used the Passover table cloth from his own household.

 

[maggieodae]

~SunShine~:

Okay, so in the movie “The Passion”, Mary and MM were cleaning up Jesus’ blood so maybe that is the cloth(s) that were found in the tomb in the corner?

Right! The blood was important…very important.

 

[maggieodae]

contemplative:

I still do not imagine Joseph of A. saying " Hey! Get me the table cloth from Jesus’ Last Supper!" Maybe…just maybe Joseph of A. used the Passover table cloth from his own household.

Possible, but then how do we know that the Last Supper wasn’t in his house. Do scriptures name the owner of the house where the last supper was held? I can’t remember. Anyone know?

 

[contemplative]

~SunShine~:

Okay, so in the movie “The Passion”, Mary and MM were cleaning up Jesus’ blood so maybe that is the cloth(s) that were found in the tomb in the corner?

Where is the historical evidence that this part in the movie is true?

 

[_SunShine]

contemplative:

I still do not imagine Joseph of A. saying " Hey! Get me the table cloth from Jesus’ Last Supper!" Maybe…just maybe Joseph of A. used the Passover table cloth from his own household.

Comteplative,
I don’t think that he probably said, “Hey, let’s get that tablecloth from the Last Supper”, I think that if indeed it did become the Shroud, that being the holy man he was, knew it’s significance. He was one of Jesus’ disciples.

 

[maggieodae]

contemplative:

Where is the historical evidence that this part in the movie is true?

Read above…Jewish burial practices for those who died a violent death.

 

[maggieodae]

~SunShine~:

Comteplative,
I don’t think that he probably said, “Hey, let’s get that tablecloth from the Last Supper”, I think that if indeed it did become the Shroud, that being the holy man he was, knew it’s significance. He was one of Jesus’ disciples.

And again…anyone know if it was his house where the Last Supper was held?

 

[contemplative]

maggieodae:

Possible, but then how do we know that the Last Supper wasn’t in his house. Do scriptures name the owner of the house where the last supper was held? I can’t remember. Anyone know?

Come on folks…I give up on you…you are really stretching it to craziness. Believe what you want.

 

[_SunShine]

contemplative:

Where is the historical evidence that this part in the movie is true?

I think that Mel Gibson used many of the references from Catherine Anne Emmerich’s, “The Dolorous Passions of Our Lord Jusus Christ”.

 

[_SunShine]

maggieodae:

And again…anyone know if it was his house where the Last Supper was held?

No, Scripture doesn’t record that, though it is thought that it could have been Nicodemus, Joseph of “A” or possibly the mother of John Mark. See the reference : Click on “Joseph of Arimathea” 3/4 of the way down they page.
newadvent.org/cathen/14341a.htm

 

[maggieodae]

contemplative:

Come on folks…I give up on you…you are really stretching it to craziness. Believe what you want.

Might want to tell Catholic Encylopedia they are crazy then…

And I assure you my dear, I have it on good authority I am not crazy. I strongly suggest you withdraw that remark. Little old ladies don’t take kindly to smart alec remarks. We still weld a mighty bar of soap for miscreants.

Place

PLACE
The owner of the house in which was the upper room of the Last Supper is not mentioned in Scripture; but he must have been one of the disciples, since Christ bids Peter and John say, “The Master says”. Some say it was Nicodemus, or **Joseph of Arimathea, ** or the mother of John Mark. The hall was large and furnished as a dining-room. In it Christ showed Himself after His Resurrection; here took place the election of Matthias to the Apostolate and the sending of the Holy Ghost; here the first Christians assembled for the breaking of bread; hither Peter and John came when they had given testimony after the cure of the man born lame, and Peter after his liberation from prison; here perhaps was the council of the Apostles held. It was for awhile the only church in Jerusalem, the mother of all churches, known as the Church of the Apostles or of Sion. It was visited in 404 by St. Paula of Rome. In the eleventh century it was destroyed by the Saracens, later rebuilt and given to the care of the Augustinians. Restored after a second destruction, it was placed in charge of the Franciscans, who were driven out in 1561. At present it is a Moslem mosque.