Pyrolysis/Mass Spectrometry show threads from Shroud of Turin Carbon-dating different

www.Shroud.com ^ | January 2004 | Ray N. Rogers,

[Swordmaker]

Race,

The answer to the three days is this:

Friday: crucifixion... death approximately 3PM . At the moment of death, Christ's spirit descends to hell. Before sundown, Christ's body is placed in the tomb. The FIRST DAY.

Sundown Friday: When the last glimmer of sun disappears, the Sabbath starts (Jews count days from sundown to sundown). Jesus's body is still in the tomb. It is now Saturday, the SECOND DAY.

Sundown Saturday: Sabbath is over, it is now Sunday. Sometime before the women arrive after dawn with their jars of ointments and salves to treat the body, the resurrection occured, the stone is rolled back, etc. This is the THIRD DAY

The Biblical accounts relate that Jesus arose ON THE THIRD DAY, not that he spent 72 hours in the tomb! "on the third day" implies that His rising could occur anytime after the the last glimmer of sun disappeared the night before.

As a final nail in the coffin of a Wednesday crucifixion, the Bible is explicit that it occured the day before the Sabbath... and Sabbath is the last day of the week: Saturday, not Thursday.

[Graymatter]

Good answer. But...

You are saying that the image does not convey color, or the difference between light and dark, merely distances from the cloth? and this is conveyed by density of the so-called pixels.
Well then, let's consider the dorsal surface. The body was lying on that and so it should be pretty much flat up against the shroud at most points. Yet everywhere there are lash marks. How dimensional can those be? Most would be mere discolorations, dark areas, and they show up as dark areas upon light, on the equally flat surfaces of skin pressed against cloth.

[Swordmaker]

MissPie, while they do have the cloth (the Sudarium of Oviedo) it bears only blood stains and no image. The positions of the blood stains on the Sudarium have a high correlation with blood stains on the Shroud, indicating that the blood stains may have come from wounds in similar locations on the body both may have covered.

The theory is that the Sudarium served as a temporary face covering, placed over the top of his head and draped down over his face, while Jesus's budy was removed from the cross, perhaps to shield his agonized face in rictus from his mother.

He was then transferred to the Shroud and the Sudarium, no longer needed to cover the face, was pressed into duty as a binding, rolled into a bandage-like strip and tied around his head, under the jaw and over the top, to keep his jaw closed in death when Rigor Mortis passed in a few hours.

The blood stains locations on both Shroud and Sudarium map to the same head wound locations and the blood type, AB, matches.

[MissAmericanPie]

Along with other things, like microscopic pollen being the same, the blood at the nape of the neck matched in 50 something places under a microscope.

I just don't have a solid opinion yet, but the growing perponderance of evidence that both cloths covered the same body, even to the hair drawn into a pony tail at the back of the head, the route taken by each during the same period ahead of the advancing muslim invaders, gives one pause.

Here is an interesting site that compares the two cloths. http://www.shroudstory.com/sudarium.htm
As yet, I just cannot write it off as a hoax, even though I'm pretty much a cynic.

[Swordmaker]

Well then, let's consider the dorsal surface. The body was lying on that and so it should be pretty much flat up against the shroud at most points. Yet everywhere there are lash marks. How dimensional can those be? Most would be mere discolorations, dark areas, and they show up as dark areas upon light, on the equally flat surfaces of skin pressed against cloth.

The scourge marks are not "lash" marks but rather the WOUNDS left by a very nasty weapon, the Roman Flagrum. Modern day readers of this event tend to think in terms of the movies and the stripes laid on a bare back by a whip, or a cat-o-nine-tails. These are nothing compared to the flagrum. The flagrum was a wooden handle with two or three leather thongs tied to it and either a bone, lead balls, or bronze dumbell shaped objects tied to the ends of the thongs. These marks left by a flagrum are DEEP.

For a series of lectures I once presented to my church, I constructed a flagrum. Mine had three fifteen inch thongs, each with two round half inch lead balls tied in the end of the thong.

To demonstrate the efficacy of this vicious weapon to my lecture audience, I used it with moderate force on a pine board. Each of the six balls was imbedded into the wood a quarter inch. If I used it with more force, it was difficult to remove the balls from the wood.

If this weapon goes this deep into a wooden board, how deep would it gouge into human flesh? The flagrum would break the skin, tear it, and sometimes gouge pieces out. Many prisoners did not survive scourging.

Studies of the scourge marks show that they are dark because although they are probably hours older than the crucifixion wounds, they are still bloodied, although not as freshly. These blood stains enhances their appearance on the Shroud.

[Graymatter]

>>Studies of the scourge marks show that they are dark because although they are probably hours older than the crucifixion wounds, they are still bloodied, although not as freshly. These blood stains enhances their appearance on the Shroud.


On the negative, blood shows up white because it is not part of the image. Therefore any parts that are bloodied are going to show up as light or white, not dark.
Speaking strictly of the image, not the blood, now, how is it that any marks at all can be seen on the back, where it is flat up against the cloth (and solid surface beneath the body), if the image only conveys depth and not shades of light and dark? The weight of a body is going to flatten out scourge marks however deep, yet they're all over the back, rather uniformly considering that some parts of the back will touch a flat surface and some won't.

PS-You sound like you know your stuff so I'll add another question. Why are the right hand fingers so long?

[Swordmaker]

On the negative, blood shows up white because it is not part of the image. Therefore any parts that are bloodied are going to show up as light or white, not dark.

My comments about the scourge wounds appearing as "dark" on the image refers to the shroud itself, not the "positive" that appears in the photographic negative. Let's look at the supine image in the photographic negative:

Notice all the LIGHT toned scourge marks... this is because they ARE oozing blood from the broken skin. The really BRIGHT WHITE (except for the charred areas from the 1532 fire) tones are fresher blood. If you were to compare the tone of the overall image on the dorsal image (this one) with the ventral image (the one of the front) you would notice that the back is actually denser overall than the front. This is exactly because it is laying on the shroud on a stone surface.

Note the areas of lower density on the dorsal image... they correspond to areas where the body has natural curvatures toward the ventral, or where rigor mortis has raised the part abnormally such as the lower portion of the calf of the right leg. The densest area is the shoulders. All of this is somewhat harder to see because of the wounds.

The sholders in particular carry a larger load of bloody ooze than other parts, perhaps from scrapes earned by carrying the rough hewn patibulum of the Cross.

Incidentally, there IS no image underneath any blood stains... indicating the blood came first, image later.

Why are the right hand fingers so long?

This has been debated for over a century. Again, let's look at the picture:

Dr. August Accetta, a medical doctor and experienced radiologist, has proposed a very interesting theory... as well as noting some other pecuiarities of the image on the Shroud. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the shroud is not only a quasi-photograph, it is also an X-Ray! Quoting a peer reviewed article by Dr. Accetta, et al,

"The Shroud image suggests quite strongly the presence of many skeletal details e.g. carpal and metacarpal bones, some 22 teeth, eye sockets, left femur, left and possibly right thumbs flexed under the palms of the hands, as well as soft tissue and soft tissue injuries; all presumably originating from some form of radiation emitted from the body enshrouded."

The carpal bones are those that make up the base of the palm and the wrist. The metacarpals are the first bones of the fingers and are located in the palm, from the wrist to the first knuckles (in fact when you make a fist, the knuckles are the ends of the metacarpals). Dr. Accetta is saying that we are NOT seeing extra long fingers, we are seeing the fingers AND the metacarpals under the skin, giving the illusion of extra length!

Look at the other hand... the one on top. The fingertips are bent downward, wrapped around the other arm's wrist, and are out of the field of view on the image... what we are seeing on that hand that appear to be fingers are the metacarpals and immediately to their rear, between the metacarpas and the large blood stain, the carpal bones of the wrist!

Essentially, Gray, we are looking THROUGH the skin of the hand to the bones inside! P.S. Barrie Schwortz told me that under greater computer enhancement of this area it is obvious that the man on the Shroud was a male... there is the faint image of the end of his penis.

[RaceBannon]

you realy stretch things to make that definition. I'll be back to this.

[RaceBannon]

Wrong. The Sabbath that is mentioned in the Bible is THE PASSOVER, not the Saturday Sabbath.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/894289/posts

[Swordmaker]

you realy stretch things to make that definition. I'll be back to this.

No, Race, it is you who is stretching "bound" into "wrapped".

Here is the definition of "bound"

---------------------

bound

Bind \Bind\, v. t. [imp. Bound; p. p. Bound, formerly Bounden; p. pr. & vb. n. Binding.] [AS. bindan, perfect tense band, bundon, p. p. bunden; akin to D. & G. binden, Dan. binde, Sw. & Icel. binda, Goth. bindan, Skr. bandh (for bhandh) to bind, cf. Gr. ? (for ?) cable, and L. offendix. [root]90.]

1. To tie, or confine with a cord, band, ligature, chain, etc.; to fetter; to make fast; as, to bind grain in bundles; to bind a prisoner.

2. To confine, restrain, or hold by physical force or influence of any kind; as, attraction binds the planets to the sun; frost binds the earth, or the streams.

He bindeth the floods from overflowing. --Job xxviii. 11.

Whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years. --Luke xiii. 16.

3. To cover, as with a bandage; to bandage or dress; -- sometimes with up; as, to bind up a wound.

4. To make fast ( a thing) about or upon something, as by tying; to encircle with something; as, to bind a belt about one; to bind a compress upon a part.

5. To prevent or restrain from customary or natural action; as, certain drugs bind the bowels.

6. To protect or strengthen by a band or binding, as the edge of a carpet or garment.

7. To sew or fasten together, and inclose in a cover; as, to bind a book.

8. Fig.: To oblige, restrain, or hold, by authority, law, duty, promise, vow, affection, or other moral tie; as, to bind the conscience; to bind by kindness; bound by affection; commerce binds nations to each other.

Who made our laws to bind us, not himself. --Milton.

9. (Law) (a) To bring (any one) under definite legal obligations; esp. under the obligation of a bond or covenant. --Abbott. (b) To place under legal obligation to serve; to indenture; as, to bind an apprentice; -- sometimes with out; as, bound out to service.

To bind over, to put under bonds to do something, as to appear at court, to keep the peace, etc.

To bind to, to contract; as, to bind one's self to a wife.

To bind up in, to cause to be wholly engrossed with; to absorb in.

Syn: To fetter; tie; fasten; restrain; restrict; oblige.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

------------------------

Well, Race, what do we find. The accepted usage of "bound" has nine definitions in this meaning - and only #3 comes even close to your interpretation while number 1,2,4,5, and 6 plus the list of synonyms seem to support MY interpretation.

The Amplified Bible renders the relevant passage thusly:

7But the burial napkin (kerchief) which had been around Jesus' head, was not lying with the other linen cloths, but was [still] [1] rolled up (wrapped round and round) in a place by itself.

This is taken from the most original source material and translated with alternative usages of the Greek words included as well. Note the description of the Sudarium... "burial napkin (kerchief)" and the description of its condition after the resurrection: "[still] rolled up (wrapped round and round)". These give clear indication that it was rolled when it was on Jesus and still rolled afterwards. If the Greek meaning was that it was "rolled up (wrapped round and round)" then it could not have been a covering for the face... it was a binding.

The Sudarium of Oviedo

[RaceBannon]

13th day of Nisan Tue 6PM to Wed 6PM Day of Preparation.
Day ofPreparation, Last Supper Of Christ, Killing of The LAMB,Christ Crucified The same time

14th day of Nisan Wed 6PM To Thur 6PM Passover
Day-1 Passover Begins at Evening at 6pm, 1st day in the tomb ends at Thur 6PM

15th day of Nisan Thur 6PM To Fri 6PM Feast of Unleavened Bread
Day-2 Feast of Unleavened Bread Begins At 6PM, 2nd day in the tomb ends at Fri 6PM

16th day of Nisan Fri 6PM To Sat 6PM Normal Sabbath
Day-3 Sabbath Begins at FRI 6PM, Ends at Sat 6PM, 3rd day in The Tomb Ends at Sat 6PM

17th day of Nisan Sat 6PM To Sun 6PM Resurrection Sunday
Tomb Opened Anytime After 6PM Saturday Tomb Found Empty Before Sunrise Sunday

[Swordmaker]

Wrong. The Sabbath that is mentioned in the Bible is THE PASSOVER, not the Saturday Sabbath.

I suggest you re-read John 13. The Bible makes it QUITE clear that the last supper was the Passover Feast. Jesus cleaned the feet of his guests... and later told Judas to go do what he must do.

If Jesus was killed before the Passover, how could he participate in it.

Your argument is Racebannonism and non-Biblical.

[Graymatter]

Swordmaker, I thank you for taking the time to enlighten me, no pun intended. I remain a bit dense ;) about the fine details, but after all, what is there is there. And while some of it, e.g. the long fingers, looks very typical of medieval style, there is no disputing the realistic quality of the balance of it. I think it impossible that anyone deliberately crafted that image---which leaves some natural process, not excluding the hand of God. But I still wonder if it wasn't embellished somewhere along the way. Particularly I wonder that after 2k years and a serious fire, the blood stains are so vivid.

Like most people I suppose, I conclude that a 3-d human figure was present and if it wasn't Jesus, that would be stranger than if it were.

I also wonder, in passing, how the shroud happened to go completely flat over the body---I assume it did from the overall lack of image distortion---at the moment the image was transferred. One would think that handling the sheet in any way would be unnecessary to effect the presumed phenomenon of resurrection. But apparently that's what happened, the sheet went flat.

Incidentally, I wonder if the shroud has been thoroughly examined for hairs or micro particles of flesh in the blood stains. That would be a lot easier than trying to figure out what caused the image.

Again, thanks for the time you're taking to answer questions on this thread. It is much appreciated!

[RightOnline]

For those who missed it the first time around........read this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38765319358d.htm

[Graymatter]

Thank you RightOnline. I too am right online 24/7, give or take a nap, and have been waiting a lifetime for the kind of learning now available on my desktop. Couldn't be happier. Much obliged!

[Swordmaker]

Incidentally, I wonder if the shroud has been thoroughly examined for hairs or micro particles of flesh in the blood stains. That would be a lot easier than trying to figure out what caused the image.

Yes, Gray, it has. Several times. In 1978 the Shroud of Turin Research Project was allowed nine days of unfettered access to the shroud and minute examination of every detail was done... down to microscopic levels. Sticky-tape samples were taken from every area of the Shroud. Most blood stains were left undisturbed but samples were taken from each area.

Last year, a SECRET, ill-advised restoration was done to the Shroud that horrified most people associated with Shroud research. The patches over the missing burned areas and the Holland Cloth backing were removed. The charred peripheries of the burned areas were (AGGGHHH!) "TRIMMED" to prevent a mythical "growing of the char." In that "restoration" the Shroud was "cleaned" by the application of steam and vacuuming. All residue recovered was bagged in plastic baggies labeled with the area it came from, then the Shroud was (Oh, the horror of it) STRETCHED to remove the ancient wrinkles and fold pleats (those wrinkles and pleats were part of its HISTORY, you arrogant idiots!)by the means of pulling on the Shroud with lead weights and more steaming. This means that much of the in situ data has been destroyed and placed in baggies preventing its in situ examination. Finally, a new (well years 50 years old is newer than the Holland Cloth) backing was basted on and the patches were left open but carefully basted to the backing cloth. The one upside is that the contents of the baggies (including the charred trimmings) MAY be someday available for study.

[RaceBannon]

hehe, The Last Supper was THE DAY BEFORE THE PASSOVER!!

Jesus called it the Passover, yes, but you clearly havent read the Bible very closely to think it was the DAY of the Passover!

And I suggest you read the link I provided, I cover it in detail, you are missing quite a lot in your opinion on this that is just not Biblical at all.

[RaceBannon]

You better learn which word the word BOUND came from AND Napkin before you make more errors.

44 And <2532> he that was dead <2348> (5761) came forth <1831> (5627), bound <1210> (5772) hand <5495> and <2532> foot <4228> with graveclothes <2750>: and <2532> his <846> face <3799> was bound about <4019> (5718) with a napkin <4676>. Jesus <2424> saith <3004> (5719) unto them <846>, Loose <3089> (5657) him <846>, and <2532> let him <863> (5628) go <5217> (5721).

4019 peridew perideo per-ee-deh'-o

from 4012 and 1210;; v

AV - bind about 1; 1

1) to bind around, tie over

4676 soudarion soudarion soo-dar'-ee-on

of Latin origin;; n n

AV - napkin 3, handkerchief 1; 4

1) a handkerchief
2) a cloth for wiping perspiration from the face and for cleaning the nose and also used in swathing the head of a corpse

What is a SWATHING??

SWATHING
WordNet Dictionary

Definition: [n] cloth coverings wrapped around something (as a wound or a baby)

See Also: covering

COVERING
Pronunciation: 'kuvuring

Matching Terms: covering fire, covering letter, covering material, Covering of the eyes

WordNet Dictionary

Definition: [n] the work of applying something; "the doctor prescribed a topical application of iodine"; "a complete bleach requires several applications"; "the surface was ready for a coating of paint";
[n] the act of protecting something by covering it
[n] the act of concealing the existence of something by obstructing the view of it; "the cover concealed their guns from enemy aircraft"
[n] an artifact that cover something else (usually to protect or shelter or conceal it)
[n] a natural object that covers or envelops; "under a covering of dust"; "the fox was flushed from its cover" [adj] actively protective; "provided covering fire for the platoon that was moving up"
[adj] above or covering a wide area; "the covering darkness"; "shadow of the overhanging crag"; "the dark overspreading clouds"

Synonyms: application, broad, coating, cover, cover, masking, natural covering, overhanging, overspreading, protective, screening, shielding, wide

See Also: anointing, anointment, apparel, artefact, article of clothing, artifact, artificial skin, bark, blanket, body covering, bootleg, bubble, canopy, case, casing, chafing gear, cloak, cloth covering, clothes, clothing, coat, coating, concealing, concealment, concealment, cover, cover plate, covert, crust, daubing, dressing, earmuff, eggshell, encrustation, envelope, exhaust hood, facing, fig leaf, finger, flap, floor covering, floorcover, floral envelope, folder, foliation, footgear, footwear, fumigation, galvanisation, galvanization, grooming, hiding, hood, imbrication, incrustation, indusium, instep, integument, lapping, lining, lubrication, mantle, manual labor, manual labour, mask, mercy seat, natural object, overlapping, paddlebox, painting, paperhanging, papering, pavage, paving, perianth, pericarp, peridium, planking, plastering, plating, protection, protection, protective cover, protective covering, sac, scale, screen, scumble, seed vessel, sheath, shell, slough, snowcap, spraying, swathing, test, theca, thumb, tiling, tinning, tin-plating, toe, top, upholstery, vesture, vesture, waxing, wear, wearing apparel, wrap, wrapper, wrapping

This is crystal Clear!

Lazarus' Face was BOUND AROUND with a covering! Not a cord, not a tiedown for the Jaw, but a FULL FACE COVERING!!

That was for Lazarus. Let's see what it says for Jesus!

7 And <2532> the napkin <4676>, that <3739> was <2258> (5713) about <1909> his <846> head <2776>, not <3756> lying <2749> (5740) with <3326> the linen clothes <3608>, but <235> wrapped together <1794> (5772) in <1519> a place <5117> by itself <1520> <5565>.

4676 soudarion soudarion soo-dar'-ee-on

of Latin origin;; n n

AV - napkin 3, handkerchief 1; 4

1) a handkerchief
2) a cloth for wiping perspiration from the face and for cleaning the nose and also used in swathing the head of a corpse

So, it is the same word for Jesus!

And what is that Word? It does NOT translate into a string, or band to be used to wrap someone's jaw shut!!

Do you see it now?

Always refer to the Bible when talking about the Bible! You will see that so many things are just not true when you actually look it up in the Bible!

That BINDING, you called it, the cord, or tie down for the Jaw, is NOT found in the original Greek, it is a Kerchief, a NAPKIN, not a cord, not a string, not a band at all. It is a FULL FACE COVERING. And you see it for yourself now.

What day was Jesus Crucified?

Just a sidebar article.

[aruanan]

Do you see it now?

I've seen it from the beginning, but--the vast amount of text you've cut and pasted notwithstanding--it's clear that you still have not. You have posted nothing that contradicts or even weakens my earlier observation that there was nothing in the texts you had earlier cited that supported your conclusion that the cloth that was wrapped around the head necessarily had to be underneath the single piece of cloth that was the shroud.

Furthermore, in your attempt to compare the burial of Jesus with that of Lazarus, you appear to have overlooked the most fundamental difference: the burial of Lazarus was done all in good time of a beloved brother. The burial of Jesus, and the process of getting his body prepped for burial, was a hasty and uncompleted affair, specifically mentioned as such, and done to beat the sundown and appearance of the second star that would mark the beginning of Sabbath.

[Swordmaker]

RACE, you are showing me NOTHING new. You've looked up the words. Good for you! Most Bibles were written in Latin, not in their original GREEK. The original translators did not find a comparable Latin word for the Greek "othonia" (linen cloths), nor were they aware of Jewish burial customs when they did the translations.

"And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself."

The word that is really causing this entire mis-understanding is "about" which is used in many Bible translations and its confabulation together with the phrase "wrapped up found in the following phrase."

Let's look at the anglicized (English letters rather than Greek) verison of the latin:

"kai to soudarion, ho ên epi tês kephalês autou, ou meta tôn othoniôn keimenon alla chôris entetuligmenon eis hena topon."

"Epi" the preposition that is used in the original Greek text does NOT MEAN "about" its most common definition is "on."

Strong's "Greek Dictionary" defines "epi" as follows:

"epi
ep-ee'
a primary preposition; properly, meaning superimposition (of time, place, order, etc.), as a relation of distribution (with the genitive case), i.e. over, upon, etc.; of rest (with the dative case) at, on, etc.; of direction (with the accusative case) towards, upon, etc.:--about (the times), above, after, against, among, as long as (touching), at, beside, X have charge of, (be-, (where-))fore, in (a place, as much as, the time of, -to), (because) of, (up-)on (behalf of), over, (by, for) the space of, through(-out), (un-)to(-ward), with. In compounds it retains essentially the same import, at, upon, etc. (literally or figuratively)."

The only usage of the word "entetuligmenon" meaning "wrapped up" in the passage is when it is used to describe the state of the soudarion when it was found apart from the other othonia. The word used also implies "twisted around itself" in the Greek as opposed to the Greek word "enetulixen" which is used when refering to "wrapping around something" which is used in Matt. 27:59 and Luke 25:53 where that word was used to describe how the linens were placed on the body.

Why would a resurrected Christ take the time to take the cloth that according to you was "swathed" about his head and "twist it up," as the Greek word implies, to leave it aside? Perhaps because it was already twisted to make a bandage type binding that was on his head? And why would a "twisted around itself" "napkin" be so twisted? Perhaps to make a binding. Why would a head binding be necessary? Because after Rigor Mortis passes (a few hours to a few days after death) the jaw fall under the effects of gravity and the mouth would gape open, and a binding holding the jaw closed would prevent this.

This has been investigated MANY times by people more expert in this area than you OR I... and it has come down to being one of the binding cloths and not a secondary Shroud over the face. The binding cloths have been found AND described on other corpses of similar vintage... but no swaddling, swathing, or covering of the head other than a complete Shroud if one is available has been reported.

Always refer to the Bible when talking about the Bible! You will see that so many things are just not true when you actually look it up in the Bible! That BINDING, you called it, the cord, or tie down for the Jaw, is NOT found in the original Greek, it is a Kerchief, a NAPKIN, not a cord, not a string, not a band at all. It is a FULL FACE COVERING. And you see it for yourself now.

Which Bible is it that I should refer to, Race? Your King James Version? How about the Amplified Bible which uses English words (or when necessary alternatives) as close to the original Greek as possible? It translates the passage as:

⁷But the burial napkin (kerchief) which had been around Jesus' head, was not lying with the other linen cloths, but was [still] [1] rolled up (wrapped round and round) in a place by itself.

Or should I go back to the original Greek texts and try and learn the usages of the words as they were used in the time in which they were written by researching how the words were used in other contemporaneous documents? Just consider the English Language's sometimes oblique references or outright reversals of meaning in the last Century... "That's bad!" means its good, "fantastic" means "great" instead of "composed of fantasy," and "are you're sh*tting me?" means "Are you not telling me the truth." Colloquial language can lead to many misunderstandings.

The people who prepared bodies for burial were practical as well as observing tradition. They used rolled up pieces of cloth to make the bindings that tied the mouth closed, the hands together, and the feet. This has been established by other research that does not appear in your Bible.

They DID NOT USE "cords, strings, or bands" for this purpose, Race. The original books of the Bible did not use the WORDS you bandy about so liberally... they were written in GREEK. They did not use "kerchief" or "napkin" or "about" or even "on" or "wrapped around" which are all words for DIFFERENT things in other languages. They used Greek.