Posted on 08/21/2002 7:41:41 PM PDT by mjp
Shroud of Turin tests miff scientists, religious scholars
ROME (August 21, 2002 5:23 p.m. EDT) - Experts on the Shroud of Turin said Wednesday they felt frustrated and betrayed to learn a Swiss textile expert had obtained Vatican approval to test the sacred cloth without involvement from the international scientific community. The shroud is a strip of linen believers say was used to wrap the body of Jesus. Kept in the Cathedral of Turin, it is rarely displayed to the public.
Earlier this month, the Rome newspaper Il Messaggero said a well-known Swiss textile expert, Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, had begun tests on the cloth and, as part of the research, cut out 30 patches woven into it in the 16th century.
Flury-Lemberg confirmed then that she had received Vatican approval to perform the tests. But she has refused to say exactly what her work has entailed.
Some experts worry that in the absence of any oversight, she may have damaged the cloth. In the past, tests on the cloth have involved a large committee of international scientists.
"This one was limited strictly to certain favorites in Turin, and Flury-Lemberg was one," said the Rev. Albert Dreisbach, an Episcopalian minister who has been studying the shroud since 1977.
Flury-Lemberg said Wednesday she would release photographs of her research next month.
"There are so many wrong things in the press," she said by telephone from Bern, Switzerland. "Everyone's speculating. I don't want to give any news."
Cardinal Severino Poletto, the archbishop of Turin and the shroud's custodian, said in an interview with the Italian Catholic newspaper L'Avvenire that the Vatican approved the tests.
He would not discuss Flury-Lemberg's procedures except to say her work was carried out in accordance with two Vatican conditions: that there be unanimous consent of the members of the Conservation Commission for the Shroud, a small group of experts overseeing the cloth, and that the cultural authorities of the Italian government be informed.
Members of the commission could not be reached Wednesday.
Ilona Farkas, who has been following shroud research since 1976 but is not a commission member, said scientists are upset.
"It's scandalous," Farkas said from Rome. "There will be tons of protests arriving at the Vatican from scientists."
Paul Maloney, general projects director for the Association of Scientists and Scholars International for the Shroud of Turin, located in Pennsylvania, said the lack of information has "many of us around the world very frustrated, because we don't know how to assess what they have done."
Maloney, who is also not a member of the smaller commission, said experts fear "historically important information may be gone forever."
The cardinal said the research involved removing impurities and residue from the cloth, which is 13 feet long and three feet wide.
"The interventions have been carried out reservedly not out of a great desire for secrecy, but to guarantee the necessary calm for those who had to work, beside obvious reasons for safety," Poletto told L'Avennire.
Yes. Or at least they did about 25 years later when the Bishop of Troyes wrote a letter claiming to have spoken to a person who claimed to have spoken to a person who claimed to have "painted" it. The Bishop's testimony is somewhat suspect as he was upset that the little church at Lirey was attracting donations away from his big church in Troyes. However, his letter does attest to the image.
In addition, there also exists a silver medalion with a known provenence of the mid eleventh century (c.1250) that shows an crude image of the shroud with both frontal and dorsal images.
It wouldn't matter how much blood was found on the rag. It doesn't make it Christ's burial cloth. Can't you people process more than one thing at a time? So we have researchers with differing conclusions. That's a newsflash.
Last time on the facts:
Christ was wrapped in CLOTHS, not A cloth.
A napkin was wrapped about His head.
The word "cloth" can be used to mean cloths, but the word "cloths" can never mean a single cloth. "Cloths" is clearly used in John.
The custom at that time was to use long strips of linen.
NO ONE can date the rag of turin earlier than the 1300's.
And to recap, you all are applying your wishes/ideologies with no concern for the facts.
The next obvious question is what do you think you gain if you can cling to this false belief?
Answer: You have convinced yourselves that this is some sort of validation that Christ existed. Surely you can find something a bit more concrete, eh? He must be embarassed knowing what fragile straws you grasp.
Christ was wrapped in CLOTHS, not A cloth.
A napkin was wrapped about His head.
The word "cloth" can be used to mean cloths, but the word "cloths" can never mean a single cloth. "Cloths" is clearly used in John.
Do the shroud and a napkin total TWO cloths? PLURAL?? Or is it only one? Your argument is specious.
Mark 15:46
New Internation Version
46 So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb.
King James Version
46 And he bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre.
The Amplified Bible
46And Joseph bought a [fine] linen cloth [[1] for swathing dead bodies], and, taking Him down from the cross, he [2] rolled Him up in the [fine] linen cloth and placed Him in a tomb which had been hewn out of a rock. Then he rolled a [very large] stone against the door of the tomb.(1)
Footnotes
1. James Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary.
2. Robert Young, Analytical Concordance.
American Standard Version
46 And he bought a linen cloth, and taking him down, wound him in the linen cloth, and laid him in a tomb which had been hewn out of a rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb.
Well, ALS, I could go on and quote from every version of the Bible... but that wouldn't prove a thing except that you are wrong about the number of cloths. Nowhere do we see anything about tearing that "fine linen cloth" into strips. There were at least TWO pieces of cloth reported to have been found in the tomb after the disappearance of Jesus' body.
The custom at that time was to use long strips of linen.
This is a fallacy. No Levantine burials have been found with grave cloths intact. The assumption that Jews buried their dead in mummy like wrappings come from the juxtaposition of Egyption burials and the mis-interpretation of the Gospel accounts of two Biblical burials, those of Lazarus' and Jesus', in which wrappings are mentioned. In the case of Lazarus, he was resurrected and commanded to WALK out of the tomb, which he did, still covered by his grave cloths. Had they been "wrapped strips" ala a mummy, he could NOT HAVE WALKED OUT!
The Jewish custom of the time was to wrap the WASHED body in a linen cloth with spices, herbs and flowers. (Which incidentally, according to the Gospel accounts, had not been completed on Jesus, because the Sabath was beginning and no work could be done on the Sabath. This is what the women were coming to do when they discovered the body missing.) The body was then placed on a shelf in the family tomb where it was allowed to ossify. At a later date, the bones were collected and thrown into a central pit, called an ossuary, in the tomb to mix with the bones of the deceased's ancestors. The shelf was then re-used.
You do not know what you are talking about.
And anyone that quotes several translations has proven they are working their way around the original meaning, instead of just iterating what the original meaning was. YOU, like your pal smedley conveniently ignore this:
John 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.
Now tell me, does it say He was "WOUND" in a cloth or does it say "WOUND" in "CLOTHES"? And why would or how do you wind someone in a cloth? It wasn't A(singular) cloth. Get it yet?
You think that because you read it in English that the original must be exactly what the translator meant when he found an English word that was close to the same thing in Greek. Amazing.
The Greek word sindon, meaning SHROUD, was used in the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) when refering to the cloth that Joseph of Aramathea purchased and wrapped Jesus' body in. Sindon is SINGULAR, not plural.
Another Greek word was used in John to indicate the asssortment of cloths that were found. That word is othonia which is plural. In addition, John uses the term sudarion, singlar, which means either "napkin" or "kerchief" to indicate the seperate cloth laying aside from the other grave cloths.
ALS, I was posting from various translations to show you that the scholars who translated those passages from the earliest Greek manuscripts had, in that passage, found the SINGULAR form to be the most correct. Using a similar technique, I find that the word "wrapped" is variously translated as "wound", "wrapped", "folded", and "rolled", depending on which word the scholar preferred to translate the original Greek word.
Your ability to discern the meaning of one word from the original writers of the Gospels from a modern English translation without examining the original is truly amazing.
Your assertion that there were more than one cloth is a given. It is your assertion that these cloths were all "strips" that I am challenging. NOWHERE does it say that in any of the gospels about Jesus' burial.
It was common practice to bind the wrists to keep them from flopping down to the sides when rigor mortis passed. There is a Greek word, kerias, which can be variously translated as "bandages", "bonds", or "ties", which was used to describe the grave cloths of Lazarus... but these are considered the bindings on wrists, ankles, and jaw. It was common practice to tie a binding around the head and under the jaw to keep the mouth closed... hence the rolled up "napkin" or "kerchief", the sudarion, left in a different place from the other cloths, commented on as though this were something to be noted as important.
As for logical conclusions or assumptions, it IS logical to conclude that Lazarus was not bound like an Egyptian mummy because it was reported he WALKED out of the tomb under his own power. I challenge you to show me how even a living person wrapped as an Egyptian mummy (not as a Hollywood mummy) could walk.
Only YOU are assuming "strips" to fit your preconceived notions of how burials took place. I have quoted authoritative sources in the Gospels; I have shown you the Greek words and shown that there are alternate meanings, and yet you still continue in your ignorant rantings about "bindings" and "strips." You cannot place YOUR "wishes" in the place of facts. I am merely following the research and scholarship.
ps - your "way of thinking" is small at best. Did I mention wrong?
"think outside the shroud"
Your adherence to the King James Version of the Bible means that you put form over substance, poetry over accuracy. When I want poetry, I will read King James... when I want objective translation I will read more modern translations. The translators of the King James did not have the advantage of several hundred more years of scholarship, manuscripts closer to the writing of the original, or archaeology (it hadn't been invented yet).
Strong's Concordance is hardly the last word in Biblical exigesis. If you will notice I DID quote the KJV's version of Mark 15:46 and it agreed with the other versions in that it refered to "the linen" and not to "the linens".
I again repeat, I am merely following where the scholarship and PEER REVIEWED research is leading. You, on the other hand, are afraid to do that.
Just because YOU have an opinion does not mean that your opinion is equal to the opinion of others who have bothered to research and keep up-to-date on the subject.
Bluster and ad hominum attacks will not win you any arguments on a FreeRepublic forum. The other readers on here recognize true discussion and can recognize that you are out of your depth.
You attempt to denigrate me by arogating to yourself age and wisdom. I deny you that privilege. I am probably the only poster on this thread that is cited on www.shroud.com. I have met and had discussions with Barrie Schwortz. I can truthfully say that I have been studying this topic for over 35 years.
(Incidentally, it is my WIFE who bought the brand new Gremlin six months before we met and married, not my uncle's... and I, probably unlike you, did not have a problem with acne.)
You have posted twaddle. You cite arguments that have long ago been disproved. You ignore anyone who attempts to point out the actual research and scholarship. Your arguments have been refuted and refuted again... and still you persist in re-stating what has already been proven to be erroneous. That is called WILLFUL ignorance. Are you afraid that facts might shake YOUR faith in atheism?
Maybe because it's the real deal and they know it.
I grew up in the late '70s and early '80s. My mom had a Gremlin. Great car. Too bad it failed to turn over half the time.
How would they know it? Superstitious certainty?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.