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?

No comments: