spin

leonarde:
----------------
The same Bible in John 20 verses 5 to 10 refers
to a "napkin" (something like the Sudarium of Oviedo) and "wrappings" (which MIGHT be the Shroud
of Turin). I'm sure that with all the translations
available of the Bible that some will use different words for these things (including "strips").
----------------

The body was wrapped in bands, Greek: oQonion, according to all the references in John 19:40, 20:5 and 20:7. (oQonion is diminutive of oQonh, linen clothes, so "strips" or "bands" are what is being referred to.) John 20:7 talks of the head only being wrapped in a soudarion. (to soudarion o hn epi ths kefalhs)

The sindone is not the item referred to in John.

leonarde

Spin,
Thank you very much for your informative and
courteous response on the linguistic/translation question. As I mentioned, I don't have any koine Greek. However I have studied several other languages in my life (I'm an old geezer) and therefore have a general idea of the problems of translation and the limits of what we can make out from simple word usage.
You reference a diminutive form. Such a form
SOMETIMES is used to distinguish a smaller object
from a larger one. Yet other times the diminutive
form is used for other reasons/with other connotations(denotations):
1)"baby talk": for a young child it's "doggie"
not dog, "blankie" not blanket etc.
(sometimes this is coyly used by adults too but
hey let's not go there!).
2)emotional coloring (pet names of good friends/
family members frequently have diminutive elements
: Richie instead of Richard, Stevie instead of
Steve).
3)unclear diminutive forms which "just are":
in the Czech language the word for "tree" is
"strom" yet when talking about a Christmas tree
the diminutive "stromek" is (always?) used. The
origin may well have been that originally only
a small tree (hence the diminutive)could fit into
a house and so ORIGINALLY "stromek" was indeed used because of the SIZE of the tree. Today, however, even the very large Christmas trees (at
Rockefeller Centre or the White House etc.) would
be called a "stromek" (ie the original reason no
longer applies; usage via association has taken
over).
In the case of the funeral linen under discussion
the third reason may well apply: a diminutive form
which originally referred to small(thin) strips
became the general term for all such funereal cloths.
I have read much about this (years ago) but don't
know the best source(s)offhand. If I come across
them I will post the info here.
The upshot/take-home lesson that I got years ago
is: the Greek words used in John will NOT settle
the S of Turin question one way or the other.
Cheers!

leonarde

Since Koy in particular is interested in whether
the body was washed or not and, if so, whether
it was a "complete" washing or not, he might
peruse the following in which a Professor Zugibe,
M.D. and Professor of Pathology, explicates HIS
reasons for believing that the body was indeed
washed prior to entombment. <a href="http://www.shroud.com/zugibe2.htm" target="_blank">http://www.shroud.com/zugibe2.htm</a> Like many of the sub-controversies involving the Shroud it cannot be
said to be a settled matter.
Cheers!

[ March 25, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>

leonarde

Since many might not want to read all the URLs
provided I shall provide a pertinent excerpt from
from the last one (Professor Zugibe writes):
[ March 25, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>

Jack the Bodiless

Two points that haven't yet been mentioned (unless I missed them):

1. The amount of modern carbon that must be added to make a genuine 2000-year-old shroud appear medieval is just that: modern carbon. It assumes that all contamination of the formerly pristine Shroud of Turin occurred in the twentieth century. I have seen claims from Shrouders that the dates are off because it was washed in olive oil in the late medieval period: but, the older the carbon, the more you need to skew the dates (same applies to the "soot" from the fire). The contamination estimate is a minimum.

2. Even if we grant, just for the sake of argument, that the red stuff is blood and the image is correct for a crucified body wrapped in a shroud: why assume that a forger needs to take the trouble of laboriously painting such an image? There is an easier way...

leonarde

from the previous post by Jack the Bodiless:
No. The Shroud hasn't been "pristine" in the usual
sense of that word for many centuries: it was
in a fire centuries ago and has burns/water stains
from that incident; there was all sort of residue
on it when examined in the 1970s: hair, insect
parts. In addition it DOES have a lot of blood on
it: which to certain skeptics is supposed to be
suspicious. The URL I previously gave is an exchange between a c-14 specialist and Meacham,
an archaeologist. But just to answer very briefly
about one of the possible causes for a false date
on the c-14 tests: if there an organic film of some sort (microorganisms on the fibers) then this
could skew the date in a major way.
Cheers!

leonarde

Previously posted by Jack the Bodiless: But I don't think it should
just be "for the sake of argument": I listed a
few pages back 8 to 10 scientific tests for whole
blood, a list taken from Heller's book on the Shroud. All those standard tests indicated blood.
I find authenticity opponents very selective:
1)the c-14 test is definitive (because anti-authenticity).
2)the 8 to 10 tests for whole blood are questionable (because they are compatible with
authenticity).

I think it more likely that one test is skewed
for some reason than that 8 to 10 are.
Cheers!

Koyaanisqatsi

Ok, I'm going to try and calmly go through all of your last "responses" leonarde (up to the point where I began this attempt to make sense out of your evasions and redirections), so that you know precisely what are the "important" arguments for you to address.

Right after this concession, you posted:

Childish appeals to your drunken fraternity aside, you recognized a serious flaw in Dr. Bucklin's "objective" forensics analysis and then ridiculously tried to marginalize the significance of this concession.

So, let's consider what this means.

Bucklin was, as you put it, the leading forensic pathologist and by the way he is lovingly described in memoriam, clearly prominent either directly or indirectly within the various Shroud forensics teams. What he concludes about the shroud is, arguably, of primary importance to everyone else involved in the project, from a forensics point of view.

You have just conceded (pretending that you were drunk so you might have an "out" in case I called you on it) that his analysis regarding the "water stain" was most likely tainted by his religious beliefs.

The references to the "water" are likewise prominent throughout his analysis and, more importantly, are unique to the Gospel of John as well as one of the primary elements to his claim of searching through history for similar postmortem stories to establish identity.

Now, if there weren't "water like stains" would he still have made the connection to Jesus? Probably, but that's not what's important. What's important is the fact that one of the leading forensic pathologists of the Shroud didn't just go into this with an agenda, it proves that the agenda drove him; so much so that he would perpetrate a deliberate (if subconscious) fraud in his analysis that is in turn passed on to the others, such as, arguably, Meacham.

As I mentioned several times, Meacham spends the majority of his paper discussing the forensic findings. Like Bucklin, Meacham's repeated discussion of the "water like stains" and his own almost word-for-word regurgitation of Bucklin's "historical documents" justification is seen, leading Meacham to the following comments (sequentially redacted).

Meacham starts with an appeal to objectivity giving the same appearance of unbiased analysis that Bucklin did (and you conceded to not be the case). Emphasis throughout will be mine:

Meacham, just like Bucklin, attempts to establish at length a deliberate claim to objectivity and indeed, his paper tries desperately to remain within these guidelines in tone and presentation, but ultimately betrays the true agenda, just like Bucklin's.

The "agenda" is serious and a priori and it destroys the credibility of both of these men precisely because they have both made such a claim of objectivity contingent!

They have evidently both gone into their analysis with the following unspoken and assumed proposition: "I believe Jesus exists, therefore this is how I can reconcile biblical accounts with the Shroud," and not, "We don't know what the Shroud is, so here's our objective analysis based upon our particular fields of scientific study."

In other words, they have both committed the cardinal sin of scientific inquiry; biased their findings before ever looking at the evidence.

A common false accusation always hurled at atheists, I should add.

I wouldn't make that big a deal out it if both Meacham and Bucklin didn't themselves go to such lengths to obfuscate their bias; they are the ones telling everyone (like Jesus) that if anything they say about earthly things is not correct, then how can we believe them about spiritual matters?

It literally drips with irony.

In the case with Meacham, however, it is even more detrimental, since he is not a forensic pathologist! He is not just basing his paper on the biased conclusions of others, but also basing his own conclusions on the historical guidelines justification of others, taking us even further from the truth and destroying his credibility.

Note the sequence of tainted comments as Meacham approaches his own biased conclusions:

Do you see how the bias warps and twists the analysis? There was no water and no water stains or even "water like stains" on the shroud, yet we have two of your sources going to great lengths to repeatedly make links to just one gospel account through this non-existent, imaginary, biased evidence.

Why? Discard the non-existent link and you still would have a compelling case for a comparison of Jesus' alleged wounds to the Shroud, yet neither Bucklin nor Meacham do such a thing. Why? Because they have an agenda and seek to prove the bible is true, that's why.

They aren't interested in their own declarations of objectivity at all! Classic Freudian slips that will always betray cult programming.

Well, since I told you they were the most important questions--especially the one about how dried blood cannot absorb--no need for any assumptions on your part, just argumentation.

Do you offer any? No, you do not, as we'll see:

Utterly irrelevant sidetrack commentary.

More irrelevant commentary that does not address any of my arguments, especially the argument that if the Shroud is authentic, that would automatically make the GJohn not just "valuable," but ultimate.

Argument yet? No, just more affirmation of the GJohn.

You are wrong as Shuttlebot and I have previously demonstrated and your own comments betray: the headcloth is rolled up separately.

It was good enough for the translators of the NIV, the Bible you so glibly quoted previously, implying that it held some sort of prominence.

The NIV: Taking Jesus' body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs.

Let's look to two other popular interpretations just so that you can't back peddle on this one.

The KJV: Then they took the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

The American Standard: So they took the body of Jesus, and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as the custom of the Jews is to bury.

All three, BTW, mention that not only do Joseph and Nicodemus wrap/wind/bind the body in linen strips/clothes/cloths, they also all three state quite clearly that the body was "spiced" (with a mixture of myrrh and aloes) in the manner of Jewish burial rites.

As ridiculous as that would be (to, in essence, double wrap the head), then you must deal with my argument about blood absorption!

In fact, you still haven't addressed any of the arguments you quite correctly pointed out that I stated were the most important ones!

Stop right there.

That would mean that Joseph and Nicodemus used the "napkin" to wipe the blood and snot off of Jesus face!

They take the body down from the cross and wipe it clean with the first cloth is what you're saying with this.

Why in the hell would you use a cloth to wipe a corpse's face only to then wrap that cloth around the face again?

You're saying that Joseph and Nicodemus wipe the face clean with the "napkin," then take this filthy rag and wrap it around Jesus' face. They then wrap the entire body--including the head that is now wrapped with what amounts to a filthy snot/blood rag--in the first shroud (what you are alleging to be the shroud of Turin) and not linen strips/cloths in the manner of Jewish burial that the NIV tells us, yes?

A filthy napkin used to remove blood and snot is wrapped around the very head that contained the blood and snot only to have another shroud wrapped around that and the rest of the body (thereby discarding the notion, BTW, that the "napkin" was some sort of binding cloth, further contradicting Meacham).

If this is the case, then just reverse and apply another one of my arguments that you've still never addressed. That would mean that the napkin underneath the Shroud would be saturated with blood in the exact same way that a paper towel is saturated when absorbing water; i.e., there would be no face visible through the massive amounts of blood that absorbed through two layers of linen!

No matter where you want to place the headcloth (on the face or on top of the shroud), you are still left with having to reconcile the tremendous amount of fresh blood that would be required to absorb through two layers of linen as well as the saturation factor, not to mention how this contention destroys all of the evidence from Meacham, Piczek and Bucklin in regard to the uniformity and proximity of the cloth to body!

You're demonstrating quite convincingly what Bucklin et al should have concluded from their "historical referencing," which is that the Shroud of Turin could not possibly be Jesus as based on the Gospel of John!

That is the argument in this regard that you continue to evade.

Nice try. There would be no "bleeding from that region" for someone who had been dead (by your own account) for at least two hours and no one would use a "napkin" in that manner for a corpse. They would use it (if at all) as a means to wipe shit off of the face and head, not as an "absorption shroud" only to then discard it.

Regardless, even granting your ludicrous backpedaling on this, let's say Joseph did just wrap the head for 30 or 40 minutes in this "absorption shroud" instead of just using the napkin to wipe the blood and shit off of Jesus' dead face. That would still mean there would be absolutely no fresh blood left over to absorb into the shroud!

Not to mention the fact that Jews would never just leave behind such a corrupted "absorption shroud" in the tomb like Joseph would have had to have done for it to be found (and noted to be found) in the corner of the tomb.

In essence, this argument states that Joseph wrapped Jesus' head in this napkin for 30 or 40 minutes in order to absorb what he would normally have just wiped off, as he and Nicodemus presumably wrapped the rest of the body--not in strips or cloths, but in one giant sheet--on their way to the tomb. Once in the tomb, I suppose, Joseph removed the "absorption shroud" and just tossed it into the corner of the tomb like one would discard a cigarette butt.

He and Nicodemus then, what? Unwrapped the body in order to rewrap the head in the shroud and then left, not caring that they have carelessly thrown onto the ground of the burial tomb and forgotten the "absorption shroud" covered in Jesus' blood and snot?

Again and always, apply your logic consistently if you please!

Just like Meacham and Bucklin, you are going to elaborate and illogical extremes in order to reconcile that which cannot be reconciled!

Who cares? The man has at least 34 arterial wounds (30 spike wounds in the head and four arterial wounds in the wrists and feet) according to Meacham.

You have claimed (and I have granted) that he hung there for at least three hours bleeding from these arterial wounds. Do you know what that means? That means the main arteries have been severed and are therefore literally gushing with blood for at least three hours.

Here's an experiment for you. Fill up a balloon with water and just poke four holes in it. Just four. The manner in which that balloon drains will be very similar to the manner in which Jesus' body would have drained, including the most detrimental factor, gravity.

You have also stated (and I granted) that he was dead for at least two hours hanging on the cross while Joseph went to petition Pilate. Do you know what happens when a body dies? All musculature collapses; bowels release; the testicles and bladder release their contents; the blood, no longer circulating through the force of the heart drains to the lowest point, which in this case would be the two holes in his feet. For two hours Jesus body would be nothing other than draining of all remaining blood if not directly out the wounds in his feet into his feet and lower legs!

There would be no blood in his upper body at all after hanging dead from a cross for two hours.

Let me repeat that. There would be no blood in his upper body at all after hanging dead from a cross for two hours.

And please keep in mind that the issuance of blood and water from his side was supposedly right after death, not two hours later when Joseph retrieved the body and also, the wound to the side was just that, from his side, which would have been, most likely, his lower body near the gut considering the angle a guard would have been in relation to the body, not over his right pectoral as Meacham tells us is the case with the Shroud Man!

The relevant point here to what we've been discussing (beside the other relevant points just mentioned) is that a postmortem wound is inflicted (allegedly) in Jesus side right after death that would act as a further drain of postmortem blood at the two most central places following gravity from head down to toe.

This means, at best, all remaining possible fresh blood would have been contained in Jesus feet and certainly not in his head!

Wrapping Jesus head would have been like wrapping a dried gourd.

Once again focusing on irrelevant commentary in order to avoid dealing with the arguments as well as telltale backpedaling.

In order to counter my claims that "into the ninth hour" meant he had been hanging there for almost nine hours!

You quoted the NIV in order to counter an argument I had made with what you must have considered at the time to be authoritative on the subject. Regardless, when Shuttlebot then quoted the same source to destroy all possible relationship between the Shroud of Turin and the strips of linen used to, in essence "mummify" Jesus' body you completely ignored the implications (as you're doing now).

No one cares about your "personal" take on which interpretation as much as we care about you addressing the arguments; arguments that you readily know are still in question! You pointed them out and then didn't address them just like you're doing here.

No, this was not the term in question. This was your irrelevant argument that has nothing to do with any salient, other than to correct my own interpretation of what "into the ninth hour meant," which I've already granted!

STOP AVOIDING THE ARGUMENTS! THIS IS NOT AN IMPORTANT ISSUE AND YOU KNOW IT.

No on both counts! The "napkin" could not possibly be "like" the Sudarium of Oviedo due to all of the arguments I have made and you have never countered and the "wrappings" could not be the Shroud of Turin, since the NIV states that Joseph wrapped the body in strips!

STOP DELIBERATELY MISUSING AND MISAPPLYING TERMINOLOGY TO FORCE A RECONCILIATION WHERE NONE EXIST!

The NIV proves that the Shroud of Turin cannot be Jesus!

Let me rephrase that in Bucklin's and Meacham's terms: the "historical texts" prove that the identity of the Man in the Shroud cannot be Jesus.

Then you have just negated the basis for Bucklin's and Meacham's conclusions.

You've conveniently left out the qualifier he wrote prior: "As a knowledgeable and expertly trained forensic pathologist he has the right and obligation to rely upon available historical and other evidentiary information in order to support or deny his impressions."

Remember? The argument you conceded previously?

But have yet to address a single one of the pertinent arguments!

This had better be evidence, then, dealing with dried blood and/or the blood that has pooled in the feet of an at least two-hours-dead crucifixion victim for it to be relevant...

According to Meacham, that would be at least 34 arterial indiscriminately "oozing" or "spraying" punctures; according to you, leonarde, that would be 34 arterial "leaks" oozing or spraying blood indiscriminately for at least three hours alive and two hours dead.

Twice what I have heard, but still nothing larger than two gallons of milk. Actually, one gallon and a quart to be precise.

Picture that in your mind. A gallon jug of milk "oozing" or "spraying indiscriminately" out of 34 arterial wounds for at least three hours with a pumping heart to expedite the process.

Just pouring the milk out of it's one "arterial" opening would take, what? One minute to drain? Five?

No need to. Picture a gallon of milk pouring out of its container as analogous to a live body with 34 arterial wounds and a heart pumping for at least three hours while gravity drags him down from a cross.

Now picture that same empty container dead for two more hours as gravity drags him down from the cross (while the nails keep him up).

Logic alone would dictate where any possibly remaining postmortem blood would pool; his feet.

I'd recap all of the salient arguments, but they are just too numerous to put into one neat package for you, leonarde so here's your challenge; a challenge that you will not accept because you're not capable of accepting it.

No matter, your continued evasion and redirection speaks volumes.

The challenge: copy and past this entire post and address line by line every single thing I have typed leaving absolutely nothing out nor taking anything I have typed out of it's sequence.

Word for word in one long post followed by your counter-refutation and/or counter analysis, so that there is no chance of missing a single point.

The fact that you will not (I can already hear the lame excuses "oozing" out your intellectual corpse) will be taken as a concession of the whole.

I have no intention of repeating ad nauseum the same un-addressed arguments over and over again.

End with addressing the most important nail in the Shroud's coffin: DRIED BLOOD DOES NOT ABSORB.

[ March 25, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

spin

Sorry, leonarde your attempt to redefine oQonion doesn't work. The term can also be found in classical Greek and means precisely what I have already defined it as. Just check out a Lewis and Short to understand that we are referring to a linen band. You need to understand the language or at least its linguistics and how the specific term is used in that language. You can't profess no knowledge and then attempt to say what you think it means. That's pretty dismal. You should deal with what the text says, not what you want it to.

At the same time, you should note that the linen bandage was what covered the body, the head was covered with a soudarion, ie we are dealing with two separate items, the bandage and the head covering. So on two counts, we are obviously not dealing with the one-piece cloth item at Turin.

leonarde

Contrary to Koy's wishes I shall NOT attempt one
VERY VERY VERY long response. I shall, however,
try to respond to points as I understand them.
His underlying criticism seems to be: Meacham
and Bucklin are too prejudiced religiously to be
considered reliable sources on the Shroud. I wholeheartedly disagree: while one can quibble with the use of the word "water" by Bucklin to
describe a particular fluid, the fact remains that
from the chest/side wound there are two fluids
visible in the Shroud: a blood flow and another
fluid that I would call translucent. John's Gospel
calls this second one "water" because: 1) it was translucent and water is the most common liquid of that type.
2)the eyewitness to the Crucifixion (John?)didn't
know what the liquid was and so merely characterized it by the way it looked.
3)medicine of 2000 or so years ago knew far less
that we do today about various bodily fluids.

As to what the non-blood liquid is/was: the most
frequent speculations are:
1)pulmonary fluid.
2)fluid from the cardial sac.

This is one of those details which is interesting
because:
1)a medieval artist would hardly have thought
of such a detail unless he were intentionally
trying to follow John's Gospel.
2)while not proving authenticity it is a soil clog
in a mountain of detail which seems to be beyond
any forger.

Bucklin's findings as a forensic specialist are
very valuable as to the final STURP report. However they are entirely within the mainstream of
forensic specialists who have examined the evidence of the Shroud over the last century or so. It is UNANIMOUS that the side/pectoral wound
produced two flows: blood and non-blood. There is
far far more consensus about the nature of the
injuries of the Man of the Shroud than there is
disagreement. Professor Zugibe whose article I previously cited is in general accord with Bucklin. In addition there are others whose specialization is in forensic pathology and who
are 100% certain that the image is that of a real
corpse whose death was induced by crucifixion.

Cheers!