The Shroud of Turin, the supposed burial wrapping of Jesus. Fact or fiction? For a number of years, the claims made about the shroud have troubled me. I am not a mystical person and am not drawn to nor interested in either Catholic or Evangelical mysticism or claims for the miraculous. Neither has much to offer the average believer in his daily walk.
Back to the shroud. As I considered the claims about the shroud, and studied photographs of it, my doubts grew. Over time, my questions about this relic coalesced into two groups: the biblical descriptions of Jesus’ burial and the image on the shroud itself.
First, an investigation of the biblical accounts of the burial of Jesus must be undertaken. We must consider the descriptions of Jesus’ burial garments, the manner of Jesus’ burial and the visit to the tomb by Peter and the other disciple.
What do we learn from the statements about the material in which Jesus was buried? Two words are used by the writers of the Gospel accounts to describe Jesus burial garments. In describing the burial clothes, Matthew, Mark and Luke used the Greek word sindôn, meaning “linen cloth” (used for clothing or for burial; cf. Mk. 14.51-52). John used the word othonion, meaning “linen cloth or wrapping.”
Now, one significant modification in this pattern is found in Luke’s account of Peter’s post-resurrection visit to the tomb. Luke said Peter, upon arriving at the tomb, stooped, looked into the tomb and saw the linen wrappings only. Interestingly, the word Luke used here for linen wrappings is the word othonion, not sindôn, which he had used in describing the linen material with which Joseph had wrapped the body of Jesus prior to the burial. Obviously, Luke understood othonion and sindôn to be synonyms. Thus, John’s us of othonion appears to be neither odd nor in conflict with the Synoptics.
As to how the linen material (othonion or sindôn) was used to prepare Jesus’ body for burial, in each of the Gospels, the Lord’s body is said to have been wrapped or bound in linen cloth. Three Greek words, translated bind or wrap, are used by the Gospel writers. Mark used the word eneileô meaning “to wrap in.” Matthew and Luke used the word entulissô, meaning “wrap in, fold or roll up.” John’s choice was deô, meaning “to bind or tie” (the word also can mean imprison). The linen material was not draped over Jesus’ body; his body was wrapped in this material. As we will see later in this article, the material was wrapped around his body in the same manner as a robe or cloak would be wrapped. In other words, Jesus was dressed for burial.
Equally significant are the descriptions of the disciples visit to the tomb and the statements about how the burial garments were found. The othonion, according to John, was “lying there.” The face-cloth was lying apart from the othonion, being folded up (entulissô). The face-cloth, translation of the word soudarion, was also one of the burial garments Peter saw. Lazarus was wearing a soudarion when Jesus called him from the tomb. The account of Jesus’ and Lazarus’s burial and resurrections show a face-cloth was a normal item used in Jewish burials, remaining on the body after burial.
The Shroud of Turin has no evidence of a face-cloth. The explanation given is the soudarion was removed before burial, so, it was found folded and lying to one side. One source stated the fact the face-cloth was lying to one side “point[s] to a short temporal use of the cloth and eliminate[s] the possibility of its contact with the body after burial. Jewish tradition demands that if the face of a dead person was in any way disfigured, it should be covered with a cloth to avoid people seeing this unpleasant sight. This would certainly have been the case with Jesus, whose face was covered in blood (my italics) from the injuries produced by the crown of thorns and swollen from falling and being struck. It seems that the sudarium was first used before the dead body was taken down from the cross and discarded when it was buried.”
If such is the case, why was the soudarion in the tomb at all? Why was it not discarded, being covered with blood, and thus unclean? Lazarus had his soudarion on when he emerged from his tomb, and he had been buried for approximately the same number of days as Jesus would be in the tomb. Why had Lazarus’s face-cloth not been taken off at burial? Jesus’ face-cloth’s being found in the tomb along with the linen burial garments, the description of Lazarus emerging from his tomb with his face covered by a soudarion and the absence of any trace of a face-cloth on the shroud raise serious questions about the shroud as Jesus’ burial garment and even the historicity of the shroud.
Monday, April 19, 2010
The Shroud of Turin, Fact or Fiction? Part 2
One further issue needs to be considered. In John 19.28-42, the writer described the burial preparations of Jesus body as according to the burial custom of the Jews (This ritual practice is called tahara, from a Hebrew word meaning to be clean or pure). The burial ritual of the Jews is very precise. In the online edition of the Jewish Encyclopedia, the following is found. “R. Benjamin, in his ‘Binyamin Ze'eb’ (responsum No. 204, ed. Venice, 1539), records the testament of R. Eliezer ha-Levi ordering that his body should be cleansed carefully, including the ears and the fingers, and that his nails should be pared and his hair combed, that he may go to his rest as he was wont to go to the synagogue on Sabbath (my italics) eve. In ancient times the hair was cut, but now it is only washed and combed. The nails are not cut, but are cleansed with a special kind of pin.”
Further, “in Biblical times persons, especially of high rank, were arrayed at burial in the garments, ornaments, and weapons which they had worn in life (I Sam. xxviii. 14; Isa. xiv. 11; Ezek. xxxii. 27). To be buried without garments was considered a disgrace. (Italics not in original) . . . since funeral expenses became common extravagances and an object of alarm to the relatives, R. Gamaliel II (lived late 1st cent. to mid-2d cent.) set the example by the order he gave for his own funeral, and thus introduced the custom of burying the dead in simple linen garments.”
On the Shroud, one sees the hair of Jesus had not been cut, blood was still upon his body, and analysis has shown dirt was on his feet and his nose had run and left dried residue on his face. The washing of the body before burial had to do with the deep concern by the Jews for ritual purity. The reason Jesus’ body was not left on the Cross on Passover was so the land itself would not be polluted (cf. Mk. 15.42; Lk. 23.54; Jo. 19.42), thus compromising the integrity of Passover. If Jesus had been buried unwashed, not only would the tomb and land have been polluted, but the very words of John would be proven to be false. We must either accept the witness of John, or the traditions surrounding the shroud. Only one can be true. Either Jesus was buried according to Jewish burial customs (Jo. 19.40) or he was not.
What can we infer from the accounts of the inspired writers of Scripture (as well as Jewish burial traditions)? Without question, the body of Jesus was wrapped tightly in a linen burial garment. His body was not loosely covered or placed inside of a kind of burial bag. The words used in the biblical texts describing the burial of Jesus leave no doubt as to the wrapping, or binding, of the body of Jesus in a linen garment. The loose wrapping implied by the Shroud of Turin is not consistent with the biblical descriptions. His body would have been washed clean of all dirt, blood and other bodily fluids. Finally, the words used by the Bible writers and the facts of Jewish tradition point out a person was buried clothed. The image on the Shroud of Turin, naked under the shroud, covered with dirt, blood and bodily fluids, does not fit the biblical description.
Having seen the conflicts between shroud claims and the biblical account of the burial of Jesus, we need to turn to the image on the shroud itself. What must be pointed out is the actual historicity of the shroud is not being questioned in this article. Whether the shroud is 2,000 years old, or 500, is not the issue. The question being raised is whether or not the shroud is the actual burial garment of Jesus.
What does the shroud show us? First of all, the image on the shroud is of a tall man supposedly exhibiting wounds similar to those suffered by Jesus. Ironically, these bloody wounds are the most damning evidence against the claim for the shroud as Jesus’ burial clothes. As pointed out above, no blood would have been on Jesus body when he was buried since his burial was according to Jewish custom.
If the blood had not been washed off, though, would it have had the appearance of the blood stains on the shroud? According to experts, residue of human sweat can be found on the shroud. No doubt, in the heat of the day, Jesus would have sweated profusely. With the crown of thorns on his head, Jesus would have had blood running down his face. That blood, mixed with sweat, would have appeared in streamlets all over his face, not in a few, thick globs on his forehead, as on the shroud.
Further, Jesus died somewhere close to three o’clock in the afternoon. Most likely, the wounds on his head would have stopped flowing due to coagulation. After such an extended period on the Cross, Jesus would have been close to if not dehydrated by the time he died (John 19.28-29). He would have ceased perspiring and so the sweat and blood on his body would have dried and cracked, leaving only a scabby residue. If his body had not been washed prior to his burial, the blood on his body would have been flaking off and what remained would not have had the appearance of running blood.
Such is not the case on the Shroud of Turin. The blood stains on the image of the body appear to be from fresh, wet blood, not dry, cracked, scabby blood. We also would expect the blood on Jesus’ face to be in streams, running down his face, onto his chin and down his neck. Additionally, the blood stains on the wrist show the blood flowing almost horizontally, not in a downward pattern. How could the blood on his wrist have flowed in the manner shown on the shroud with Jesus’ arms extended outwardly with his wrists nailed to the crossbeam of the Cross? And, with the back of his wrist against the crossbeam, why is the blood stain so distinct and not smeared?
We could go on. For instance, why does the face look so much like the Medieval paintings of Jesus and less like a Palestinian man? We need not go further, though. The Shroud of Turin, whatever it is, is not the burial garment of Jesus. What significance would the shroud have even if it could be proven to be the linen material in which Jesus was buried? Could the shroud save? Forgive sins? Heal the sick? Fix broken lives? Mend fractured marriages? The answer is, none of the above. We need no historical relic to experience God’s grace. God’s love, mercy, forgiveness and grace are all dispensed in response to personal trust in the Savior, not in his burial clothes.
“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, (my italics) to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” (Romans 1.16). What else is necessary?
Further, “in Biblical times persons, especially of high rank, were arrayed at burial in the garments, ornaments, and weapons which they had worn in life (I Sam. xxviii. 14; Isa. xiv. 11; Ezek. xxxii. 27). To be buried without garments was considered a disgrace. (Italics not in original) . . . since funeral expenses became common extravagances and an object of alarm to the relatives, R. Gamaliel II (lived late 1st cent. to mid-2d cent.) set the example by the order he gave for his own funeral, and thus introduced the custom of burying the dead in simple linen garments.”
On the Shroud, one sees the hair of Jesus had not been cut, blood was still upon his body, and analysis has shown dirt was on his feet and his nose had run and left dried residue on his face. The washing of the body before burial had to do with the deep concern by the Jews for ritual purity. The reason Jesus’ body was not left on the Cross on Passover was so the land itself would not be polluted (cf. Mk. 15.42; Lk. 23.54; Jo. 19.42), thus compromising the integrity of Passover. If Jesus had been buried unwashed, not only would the tomb and land have been polluted, but the very words of John would be proven to be false. We must either accept the witness of John, or the traditions surrounding the shroud. Only one can be true. Either Jesus was buried according to Jewish burial customs (Jo. 19.40) or he was not.
What can we infer from the accounts of the inspired writers of Scripture (as well as Jewish burial traditions)? Without question, the body of Jesus was wrapped tightly in a linen burial garment. His body was not loosely covered or placed inside of a kind of burial bag. The words used in the biblical texts describing the burial of Jesus leave no doubt as to the wrapping, or binding, of the body of Jesus in a linen garment. The loose wrapping implied by the Shroud of Turin is not consistent with the biblical descriptions. His body would have been washed clean of all dirt, blood and other bodily fluids. Finally, the words used by the Bible writers and the facts of Jewish tradition point out a person was buried clothed. The image on the Shroud of Turin, naked under the shroud, covered with dirt, blood and bodily fluids, does not fit the biblical description.
Having seen the conflicts between shroud claims and the biblical account of the burial of Jesus, we need to turn to the image on the shroud itself. What must be pointed out is the actual historicity of the shroud is not being questioned in this article. Whether the shroud is 2,000 years old, or 500, is not the issue. The question being raised is whether or not the shroud is the actual burial garment of Jesus.
What does the shroud show us? First of all, the image on the shroud is of a tall man supposedly exhibiting wounds similar to those suffered by Jesus. Ironically, these bloody wounds are the most damning evidence against the claim for the shroud as Jesus’ burial clothes. As pointed out above, no blood would have been on Jesus body when he was buried since his burial was according to Jewish custom.
If the blood had not been washed off, though, would it have had the appearance of the blood stains on the shroud? According to experts, residue of human sweat can be found on the shroud. No doubt, in the heat of the day, Jesus would have sweated profusely. With the crown of thorns on his head, Jesus would have had blood running down his face. That blood, mixed with sweat, would have appeared in streamlets all over his face, not in a few, thick globs on his forehead, as on the shroud.
Further, Jesus died somewhere close to three o’clock in the afternoon. Most likely, the wounds on his head would have stopped flowing due to coagulation. After such an extended period on the Cross, Jesus would have been close to if not dehydrated by the time he died (John 19.28-29). He would have ceased perspiring and so the sweat and blood on his body would have dried and cracked, leaving only a scabby residue. If his body had not been washed prior to his burial, the blood on his body would have been flaking off and what remained would not have had the appearance of running blood.
Such is not the case on the Shroud of Turin. The blood stains on the image of the body appear to be from fresh, wet blood, not dry, cracked, scabby blood. We also would expect the blood on Jesus’ face to be in streams, running down his face, onto his chin and down his neck. Additionally, the blood stains on the wrist show the blood flowing almost horizontally, not in a downward pattern. How could the blood on his wrist have flowed in the manner shown on the shroud with Jesus’ arms extended outwardly with his wrists nailed to the crossbeam of the Cross? And, with the back of his wrist against the crossbeam, why is the blood stain so distinct and not smeared?
We could go on. For instance, why does the face look so much like the Medieval paintings of Jesus and less like a Palestinian man? We need not go further, though. The Shroud of Turin, whatever it is, is not the burial garment of Jesus. What significance would the shroud have even if it could be proven to be the linen material in which Jesus was buried? Could the shroud save? Forgive sins? Heal the sick? Fix broken lives? Mend fractured marriages? The answer is, none of the above. We need no historical relic to experience God’s grace. God’s love, mercy, forgiveness and grace are all dispensed in response to personal trust in the Savior, not in his burial clothes.
“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, (my italics) to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” (Romans 1.16). What else is necessary?
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
My Brother versus My Beliefs
LifeLineLive, the online entertainment news service of USAToday, reported the following. “Anne Hathaway, . . . says in the new British GQ that her family left the Catholic Church over its intolerant views on homosexuality. Anne grew up wanting to become a nun but shunned Catholicism when she learned her older brother, Michael, was gay. ‘The whole family converted to Episcopalianism after my elder brother came out,’ she tells the magazine. ‘Why should I support an organization that has a limited view of my beloved brother?’ But the Episcopal church plan didn't really work out for her either. ‘So I'm ... nothing,’ she said. ‘I'm a work in progress.’”
While Ms. Hathaway’s decision may appear on the surface to be principled, when one looks more deeply at her comments, several questions are raised. Let’s look first at the matter of principle itself. Which decision would have shown the deepest commitment to principle: to leave the church or to stay? Being a Christian, whether Catholic or Protestant, implies a commitment to a biblically-based belief system, i.e. a catholic or protestant theology. Traditional Christianity, from both the catholic and protestant point of view, assumes biblical truth, the basis for its theology, to be immutable and eternal.
In Ms. Hathaway’s world, commitment to a human being and his sexual behavior trumps commitment to universal truth. At some point in life, though, for any of a variety of reasons, we all become sexually inactive. What happens to our fundamental identity if we can no longer perform in either a heterosexual or homosexual manner? Do we cease being who we are? If we are defined by sexual behavior, then to not engage in that behavior must have some impact on our basic identity. Ms. Hathaway replaced eternal truth with changeable behavior as the center of her moral universe.
On the other hand, the biblical view of a person’s identity has nothing to do with performance. First, we are human beings, made in the image of God. Second, we are either male or female, the only two categories of human identity having any real significance. Race, ethnicity, sexual preference, nationality, etc. are all human constructs. We have given meaning and value to these categories. But, we must ask, in what sense does race matter, or ethnicity, or national origin, or sexual preference or social category. The only way these groupings matter is related to how we perceive them.
No category, other than sexual identification, can be shown to have any universally demonstrable, unchangeable impact. One’s race or skin color determines nothing about a person. Those Asians who perform well in mathematics do not do so because they are Asian any more than the success in athletics by some African-Americans is because they are African-American. Human effort, regardless of race, determines success.
What is known, though, is a range of differences does exist between males and females. From the most basic biological and physical design to the way brains process information, male and female human beings differ in perceivable, quantifiable ways. Attempts to prove environmental factors are the basis of these differences has failed and failed miserably. For reasons having nothing to do with child-rearing practices, on the whole, little girls prefer dolls and little boys prefer trucks.
So, Ms. Hathaway has chosen to jettison conviction about eternal truth in favor of beliefs about temporary behavior (historically, humans have understood and reacted to homosexual behavior in a variety of ways). Of course, other statements by Ms. Hathaway tell us the real story. She turned her back on an organization, not a belief-system. Proof of the this are her comments about her choosing to affiliate with the Episcopal Church. That choice did not work out, the article stated, so Ms. Hathaway declared, “So I'm ... nothing, . . . I'm a work in progress.’” Obviously, Ms. Hathaway and those like her have trouble committing to anything requiring real conviction. To maintain one’s convictions as a believer in Jesus just may require a break with family. Jesus himself said as much.
One final thing many fail to see: commitment to another person does not require approval of their decisions or behavior. Many times, we must be honest with those we love and tell them their actions are both wrong and destructive. Further, our disagreement or disapproval of the actions of a loved-one does not mean we must end our relationship with them. Regardless of how the world of Anne Hathaways perceives the ethical stands taken by the Catholic Church and other Christian groups, these convictional positions are not a rejection of people, but of behavior.
Love for a person demands unyielding loyalty. We must be loyal in all things to Christ; only them will we truly be able to be loyal to those we love. Likewise, to be loyal to Christ demands we be loyal to his people, the church. We do not turn our back on Christ over temporary issues.
While Ms. Hathaway’s decision may appear on the surface to be principled, when one looks more deeply at her comments, several questions are raised. Let’s look first at the matter of principle itself. Which decision would have shown the deepest commitment to principle: to leave the church or to stay? Being a Christian, whether Catholic or Protestant, implies a commitment to a biblically-based belief system, i.e. a catholic or protestant theology. Traditional Christianity, from both the catholic and protestant point of view, assumes biblical truth, the basis for its theology, to be immutable and eternal.
In Ms. Hathaway’s world, commitment to a human being and his sexual behavior trumps commitment to universal truth. At some point in life, though, for any of a variety of reasons, we all become sexually inactive. What happens to our fundamental identity if we can no longer perform in either a heterosexual or homosexual manner? Do we cease being who we are? If we are defined by sexual behavior, then to not engage in that behavior must have some impact on our basic identity. Ms. Hathaway replaced eternal truth with changeable behavior as the center of her moral universe.
On the other hand, the biblical view of a person’s identity has nothing to do with performance. First, we are human beings, made in the image of God. Second, we are either male or female, the only two categories of human identity having any real significance. Race, ethnicity, sexual preference, nationality, etc. are all human constructs. We have given meaning and value to these categories. But, we must ask, in what sense does race matter, or ethnicity, or national origin, or sexual preference or social category. The only way these groupings matter is related to how we perceive them.
No category, other than sexual identification, can be shown to have any universally demonstrable, unchangeable impact. One’s race or skin color determines nothing about a person. Those Asians who perform well in mathematics do not do so because they are Asian any more than the success in athletics by some African-Americans is because they are African-American. Human effort, regardless of race, determines success.
What is known, though, is a range of differences does exist between males and females. From the most basic biological and physical design to the way brains process information, male and female human beings differ in perceivable, quantifiable ways. Attempts to prove environmental factors are the basis of these differences has failed and failed miserably. For reasons having nothing to do with child-rearing practices, on the whole, little girls prefer dolls and little boys prefer trucks.
So, Ms. Hathaway has chosen to jettison conviction about eternal truth in favor of beliefs about temporary behavior (historically, humans have understood and reacted to homosexual behavior in a variety of ways). Of course, other statements by Ms. Hathaway tell us the real story. She turned her back on an organization, not a belief-system. Proof of the this are her comments about her choosing to affiliate with the Episcopal Church. That choice did not work out, the article stated, so Ms. Hathaway declared, “So I'm ... nothing, . . . I'm a work in progress.’” Obviously, Ms. Hathaway and those like her have trouble committing to anything requiring real conviction. To maintain one’s convictions as a believer in Jesus just may require a break with family. Jesus himself said as much.
One final thing many fail to see: commitment to another person does not require approval of their decisions or behavior. Many times, we must be honest with those we love and tell them their actions are both wrong and destructive. Further, our disagreement or disapproval of the actions of a loved-one does not mean we must end our relationship with them. Regardless of how the world of Anne Hathaways perceives the ethical stands taken by the Catholic Church and other Christian groups, these convictional positions are not a rejection of people, but of behavior.
Love for a person demands unyielding loyalty. We must be loyal in all things to Christ; only them will we truly be able to be loyal to those we love. Likewise, to be loyal to Christ demands we be loyal to his people, the church. We do not turn our back on Christ over temporary issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)