No, we don't, and no, I haven't, but the New Testement was certainly not written in English in 1611. It is also certain that the state of both archaeology and historical and Biblical scholarship is higher today than it was in 1611 and that Biblical exigesis takes a greater cogniscence of Jewish cultural and traditional practices than were known about or given consideration when the King James Bible was translated/written. We have Greek version of the Gospels from the third and fourth Centuries that are in agreement, many from the Eastern Orthodox churches as well as Gnostic sources, that use similar terms, that are far closer in time to the original source material than any English translation you want to rely on.
Scholars are much more aware today of the usage of words in common Greek because there is a large surviving pool of works in Greek of the period that can be used for comparison. Othonia and othonion are very seldom used to describe bandage type strips; it is not even a secondary definition for the words, so why, except for the prevalence of finding thousands of Egyptian mummies buried wrapped in such strips and mis-attributing Egyptian customs to Jewish customs, would one elect to assume the very rare Greek usage Othonia as strips of cloth rather than the much more common Greek usage of a large sheet? It's a confabulation by people who did not have as much information as we have today.
Unless of course it could refer to a single roll of strips sewn together...I am amazed at the length you guys will go to, to discredit the authority of the scriptures...
And I'm amazed at the lengths you will go to ignore the authority of the other three Gospels which refer to the Sindon, a word meaning a large, fine woven cloth which is reported to have been used in all three accounts. . . merely so you can selectively ignore a commonly used Greek word for Grave Clothes that was inclusive of all things used, including the common use of a shroud. Can you find any citation at all where othonia has ever referred to a "single roll of cloth strips sewn together?" I think you just made that one up.
One example??? And you know for certain it was from the first century??? That picture doesn't look lAnd it also mean a towel...And a handkerchief...And, a napkin...ike it ever had a couple of tons of rocks and dirt on top of the corpse...
Good grief! One is sufficient for our purpose here. This is just the best example of quite a few. However, most Jewish bodies were allowed to decompose and their bones were then collected by their family members and placed into the central ossuuary, the "bone pit," where they were joined with their ancestors. And, yes, it IS a 1st Century Jewish burial, it was Carbon dated. Just because it doesn't meet your prejudices doesn't make it wrong. As I stated. NOT ONE Jewish burial has ever been found that has presented a body wound up in strips or bandages of cloth. Such a procedure is time consuming and counter to the intent of long standing written tradition. Find even ONE body from Herodian or prior Palestine Jewish burials that was "wound" or "wrapped" in strips of cloth sewn together. They have never been found.
Obviously there are translators who disagree with you... And because you disagree with them, that makes you right???
Not too many modern ones. Even the translators of the New King James Version Bible have dropped the translation of "wound" for the more correct "bound" based on a much greater understanding of Greek word usage that found that Greek speakers and writers of the period never used that word in the other way the KJV translated it. Why do you think that because you agree with someone who chose a word in 1611 it makes you right??? Especially when modern translators are correcting the error in newer translations, and providing strong evidence, historically, culturally, linguistcally, and archaeologically for doing so?
And it also mean a towel...And a handkerchief...And, a napkin...
Actually, no, it doesn't, but there were no exact single word translations for soudarion in English so approximations were used to convey a meaning that would be understandable to English speakers who were familiar with handkerchiefs, napkins, and towels.
Here's your own Catholic bible. . .
My Catholic bible? Heh. I'm not Catholic.
So what did they do with the salves and spices??? They had a hundred pounds of this stuff...Did they put a 2" layer on Jesus' body and then roll him in the sheet??? And how then did blood stains appear thru the thick mass of salve to penetrate the shroud and make a 'negative'???
My, my, you do read a lot into a few lines of scripture, don't you. 2"? Thick mass? Talk about reading what you want to see there. Do you think they used English weight measures?
Well you tell us...The brand New Catholic NAB says a hundred lbs as well as uses the plural words 'cloths' for your shroud...The NIV says 75 lbs...That's still a heap a weight...
How much weight was it then???
It's one thing to change scripture to line up with your personal beliefs but your change has to line up with other scripture that you don't change...Or it gets revealed as phony...
If you have a shroud which is a single piece of cloth even when all the versions says it is cloths, and a hundred pounds of spices, wet and dry, which would be more than 10 gallons, how do you get blood beyond the salve to soak into the cloth to create a negative???
Even 10 pounds of salve would likely make it impossible...
Plus,,,the idea is that Jesus body was cleaned before the buriel...Dead bodies don't bleed...Plus,,,all the blood was drained out...Where do you get the blood for the shroud???
So explain that before you start correcting what others have learned over the past few hundred years...