Diana Fulbright published a detailed paper on several Greek words relating to the burial of Jesus in the bible, including ‘sindon’, ‘othonion’, ‘keiria’, and ‘soudarion’.
HF: Diana Fulbright’s paper is masterly, and fairly convincingly demonstrates that the Greeks, at any rate, had no specific word which meant exclusively ‘cloth for wrapping dead bodies with,’ and that both sindon and othonia were fairly generic words for pieces of cloth, whose form and purpose were defined by their context.
Max: Fulbright’s translation: And the napkin, which had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but rolled up in a place by itself. Mine: And the all enveloping wrap (Aram. sudara, Heb. mitpahat), that was over his head, not lying (on the ground) with the smaller linen cloths, but rolled up onto itself (and left) in the sole (vaulted) loculus (Heb kokha).
Jews prior to 50AD were buried in a set of clothing used as shrouds (layers of clothing used as shrouds have been found). The requirement to bury in a single shroud (overall enveloping a variety of garments, (the takhrikhim) that include a hat, jacket, belt and linen shoes) dates back to Gamaliel II who was born about 50 CE and died in 110 CE. Jesus was dressed in a set of clothing (the all enveloping wrap known as the Kornelimünster Sudarium (Aramaic ‘sudara’, Greek ‘soudarion’), the skull cap known as the Cap of Cahors, the face veil known as the Veil of Manoppello (now reduced to about half its original size) a linen strip/belt (resewn onto the Shroud), a himation (Shroud itself) and another large sindon (now cut into two halves, one half being known as the Kornelimünster Sindon). In other words, Yeshua was dressed in a set of wrappings used as shrouds not just a single burial cloth, as verified that the set of genuine/substitute wrappings used as shrouds on Yeshua’s burial have survived to this day.
HF: “Jews prior to 50CE were buried in a set of clothing used as shrouds (layers of clothing used as shrouds were found).” Not necessarily. Any evidence? I thought not. “Jesus was dressed in a set of clothing [et seq.].” I don’t believe any of that, and Max has not provided any evidence to suggest that it might be true.
Max: Reminder for the Earth Science expert who is definitely a NOT Second Temple period specialist in terms of koine Greek and Semitic Philology, Archeaeology and History: My archeological thought experiment is based on a couple of ACTUAL attempts (in 1994 and 1997; each time with the same volunteer) at reconstructing Jesus’s dressing/wrapping up in a set of clothing used as shrouds in light of extant Christic contact relics (whether genuine relics and/or substitutes/faithful replicas), Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Philology (especially Hebrew time markers and koine Greek verbs to describe the dressing in a large shroud and smaller shrouds), Second Temple period burial, practices, customs and rites and the Halakha (just to name the main fields of investigation here involved).
Methinks that HF, who cannot substantiate his negative aprioristic opinion, is totally unable to really separate good archaeology from pseudoarchaeology. When was it last time HF attempted to dress a real human body in a set of clothing used as shrouds ? Does he really think the Shroud was left in the empty tomb and the Johannine soudarion can only refer to a pre-burial napkin? Methinks they are enslaved to exegetical presuppositions. Is HF even aware that the Johannine word ‘soudarion’ is not derived from the Latin sudarium but from the Aramaic ‘sudara’ (used several times in the Palestinian Targums of the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh, where it refers to an all-enveloping wrap or cloak. The Kornelimünster ‘Sudarium’ (whether a genuine relic or a substitute’) is the ‘sudara’ that was used as an all envelopping shroud and was the one left rolled up onto itself on the stone bench of the cave tomb? Regarding Lazarus’s ‘soudarion’, which Fullbright claims was only over his face, is HF even aware, that the Greek ‘ἡ ὄψις’ does not refer to the face but to all of Lazarus’s ‘external appearance, form, or shape’. Because of his philological and Chrsitolipsological blind spots, focussing solely on the Oviedo Sudarium and Turin Shroud and overlooking other Christic relics, HF cannot even discriminate between a napkin used as a pre-burial shroud (the Oviedo Sudarium) and clean white burial clothings (the Turin Shroud, Cap of Cahors,, and the Kornelimünster Sindon Munda and Sudarium Domini)!
When was the last time these alleged specialists attempted to dress a real body in shrouds the same size and shape as the still extant Christic relics to reconstruct Jesus’s dressing in shrouds on his burial? Are they authorities in Second Temple period archaeology or history? They are just recycling exegetical presuppostions made by others and mistake contradictory exegesis for archaeological truth. A real shame! Methinks the Earth Science teacher should take the other extant relics more seriously.
In fact a new field of expertise (‘Christolipsology’: the study of Christic relics) would shake a good many scholarly or pseudo-scholarly presuppositions based on contradictory hermeneutics. HF’s ‘pet conservative exegesis’ is not the absolute truth, far from it. Methinks he is quite wrong as far as my research and studies in Christolipsology are concerned. He has not taken the trouble to delve into the real thing as I have. To paraphrase Fr Dubarle, I would say say: “J’attache plus d’importance aux constatations objectives faites sur les reliques de contact de Jesus qu’aux discussions des exégètes. Ceux-ci, comme il arrive souvent aves l’archéologie, auront à s’arranger des faits concrets, s’ils sont bien assurés”.
And regarding cloth used as a shroud, besides sindon and soudarion/ sudarium, has HF ever heard of mindil, pathil and mitpahat? I very much doubt it! (midil = burial scarf or veil; pathil = a burial skull cap or kippa; mitpahat (Hebrew for Armaic ‘sudara’) = an all enveloping wrap or cloak used as a shroud.
Methinks HF cannot substantiate his negative aprioristic opinion, and is totally unable to separate good archaeology from pseudoarchaeology.
Diana Fulbright wrote that the Johannine “soudarion” was a small cloth
which covered the face or, in some instances, was wrapped around the head, thus supporting the validity of the cloth known as the Sudarium of Oviedo. Totally wrong. See my comment above.
Re: the use of an all-enveloping wrap (Aramaic ‘sudara’, Heb. ‘mitpahat’) see the pseudo-Johnathan Targum of Exodus 34:29-35, Biblia sacra polyglotta byraina Walton, Vol. 4 (Ms Add 27031, British Museum + Codex Neofiti 1, Vatican Library.
Re: John 11:44 “’ἡ ὄψις’” used in conjunction with “soudarion”, to be traslated ‘the external appearance, form or shape’ not ‘the face’, see John 7:24 and Rev. 1:16.
Re: Latin/Greek ‘sudarium’/’soudarion’, see “Latin sudarium is a phonetic coincidence with our word (soudarion), from which it differs in meaning.” (Jastrow, Dictionary of the Tagumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, New York, 1950, Vol 2, p 962)
HF: All this philological gallimauphry is off the point, Max, even if it is true, for which you provide no evidence (what a surprise). I was asking for evidence that Jesus was wearing a set of clothing. Telling us that the Kornelimünster Sudarium is a big sheet is not evidence that it, or anything like it, was used for Jesus’s burial. Nor is all your dressing up, nor are any of your so called thought experiments. Methinks you should attempt to distinguish between a thought experiment and a flight of fancy. “A thought experiment is a device with which one performs an intentional, structured process of intellectual deliberation in order to speculate, within a specifiable problem domain, about potential consequents (or antecedents) for a designated antecedent (or consequent).” This does not describe anything you have mentioned here so far.
Max: What is your real expertise? Can you really discriminate between an archaeological thought experiment, and genuine attempts at reconstructing a Second Temple period burial dressing in shrouds, plus archaeological findings in the Holy Land (e.g. multiple burial garments used as “shrouds” and found in the shape of fragments or a bundle made of several layers of garments, use of an all enveloping wrap, etc)? Methinks you are off the mark as far as Second Temple period dressing in shrouds is concerned and archaeological pieces of evidence. What do you make of the Christlisological pieces of evidence such as the Cap of Cahors, the Kornelimünster Sudarium and Sindon, and the Veil of Manoppello? Nothing! They are the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that just have to be put in place. They are the pieces of evidence that Jesus was tightly wrapped up, fastened and wound in a set of clothing used as shrouds. Most curiously, my alleged ‘lack of evidence’ is much stronger than your unsubstantiated denial!
HF: My real expertise, Max, is in identifying flim-flam…
Max: Too bad your ‘expertise’ does not allow you to REALLY discriminate between good archaeology, pseudo exegesis and pseudo archeaology!
To paraphrase Mouraviev; “the only valid assumption we are entitled to as scientists and/or archeaeologists and/or professional cryptologists is that the double bloodied body image could be a natural accidental/providential byproduct of the pre-Gamalielian II Second Temple period Judean main burial procedure itself, not of the mysterious disappearance of the body, or a forgery.”
HF: Goodness me! I think I agree with your last paragraph!
Max: Hugh, can you demostrate that my translation of John 20:7 (“And the all enveloping wrap that had been over his head, not lying (on the ground) with the smaller linen cloths, but (left) rolled up onto itself in the sole (vaulted) loculus.”) is just flimflam? I challenge you. Can you demonstrate the Cahors, Kornelimunster, and Manoppello relics are fakes? I challenge you. Methinks to do is hard; to judge is easy. Do first THEN judge if you have the expertise/knowledge. Waiting for your own reconstruction of Jesus’s burial…
HF: Yes, Max. You explained earlier that in John 11:44, which is about Lazarus, the word ‘σουδαρίῳ’ (soudarion) could have referred to a large sheet which could enwrap a whole body, and justified this by saying that the ‘ὄψις’ (opsis), which was covered by the soudarion, can mean any form or shape, and was not restricted to the head. So far so good. However the soudarion of John 20:7 is specifically said to be around the ‘κεφαλῆς’, which can only mean the head. This calls into question your derivation of soudarion from the Arabic soudara. Your suggestion; “the Johannine word ‘soudarion’ is not derived from the Latin sudarium but from the Aramaic sudara (the latter is used several times in the Palestinian Targums of the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh and refers to an all enveloping wrap or cloak (used to sleep in too)” is ingenious, but not, as far as I know, supported by anybody else. The Jewish Annotated New Testament (ed. Amy-Jill Levine, Marc Z. Brettler) thinks that sudara means a male head covering, and wikipedia (yes, I know…) on Sudara thinks that “Aramaic: סודרא; Sudara, is a traditional ancient Jewish headdress” which is surely less than a full body cloth. So, Max, I think you are completely wrong about the soudarion being a large cloth, and what’s more, everybody reading this comment agrees with me. But how can this be, when you’ve spent thirty years researching this very point, and I’ve spent ten minutes on Google? It’s all about evidence, Max, which I’ve given, and you won’t. The fact is, Max, that all your posturing about archeocryptology and Christolipsology and all the other made-up words you keep trying to impress us with mean absolutely nothing without evidence. Your experiments with dressing up, your thought experiments, your mountain of unpublished papers, nothing. Just guesswork, idle fancies born of familiarity with Middle Eastern linguistics, and an overweening confidence in your own authority. Flim-flam, in fact. Well, maybe you’re right. Maybe soudarion does mean a large cloth. Maybe the Kornelimunster relic is evidence of your hypothesis. But without evidence, Max, we’ll never know…
Max: Hugh, you wrote: “However the soudarion of John 20:7 is specifically said to be AROUND (upper cases mine) the ‘κεφαλῆς’, which can only mean the head.”You’re wrong. In John 20:7, we read of the soudarion “ὃ ἦν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ” (“that had been over his head”). Your comment is just flimflam. It only calls into question your knowledge of koiné Greek, not my derivation of soudarion from the Aramaic sudara! When you say my derivation is not supported by anyone else you are wrong. Bruno Bonnet-Eymard thinks, Fr Levesque and Pierre Barbet also thought Johannine soudarion was is a large wrap, and the Turin Shroud. In the Ruth Targum, the Hebrew ‘mitpahat’ is translated by the Aramaic ‘sudara’. The mitpahat could be folded, or turbaned around the head, yet was a large piece of cloth per se, a large cloak that could wrap both the whole head and body, e.g. to sleep in (see Targum Ruth 3:15). You also wrote: “everybody reading this comment agrees with me”, which means they are ALL totally wrong as they are enslaved in exegetical presuppositions and are totally unaware of translation entropy and subversion! Your whole comment is just FLIFLAM! Period.
HF: No, Max. Ruth 3:15, in Hebrew, contains the word mitpahat, which occurs only twice in the Old Testament and is variously translated veil, mantle, shawl, cloak, etc. Its size in that context is is largely a matter of guesswork. It now refers exclusively to a headdress. If it is interpreted as a headdress, then it may be translated into aramaic as ‘sudara’, but that does not mean that ‘sudara’ can refer to one of the wider interpretations. And no, Max. The fact that various people thought that the soudarion was the Shroud does not mean that they thought the word was derived from the Aramaic ‘sudara’. And no, Max. I never denied that the Kornelimünster cloth could be the sudarium. Quite the reverse. I said that you may be correct. However, I don’t think you are correct, and none of your evidence to suggest that it might be is the slightest bit persuasive. And really, Max. “I am not using made-up words to impress anybody.” Really? Come on…
Max: Although I was the first to tell you about the word ‘mitpahat’ only a few comments back, you now write, as if the word was very familiar to you (!): “Its size in that context is is largely a matter of guesswork.” Oh, really? Actually it is a matter of common sense. In Ruth 3:15, Boaz gives her six measures (a biblical measure of dry goods) of barley in her ‘mitpahat’. He says: “Bring the [mitpahat] you are wearing, and hold it out. And when she held it out, he measured six measures of barley into it, and returned it to her.” Given that one ‘se’ah’ (measure) is 7.7 litres, could you tell me how nearly 50 litres of barley can fit in a kerchief or a napkin the size of the Oviedo Sudarium? YOU are WRONG AGAIN. Remember: “Latin sudarium is a phonetic coincidence with our word (soudarion), from which it differs in meaning.” (Jastrow, as I said before) Your alleged “hermeneutics” is nothing but conjurer’s trick. You have not the foggiest notion about Ancient and/or Second Temple period Jewish clothing! You misleadingly wrote too: “And no, Max. The fact that various people thought that the soudarion was the Shroud does not mean that they thought the word was derived from the Aramaic ‘sudara’.” No, Hugh, YOU are WRONG AGAIN (see for instance Bonnet-Eymard research paper “Le “Soudarion” Johannique Négatif de la Glore Divine” (oral presentation, Congresso di Bologna, 1981).
Besides if Lazarus was only wrapped in a kerchief around his face (and not an all enveloping shawl or wrap, wrapped around his whole head and body/shape), indeed for his alleged “napkin/kerchief”, his handband and feetband, he would not have not been much dressed on his burial!
HF: At last! I’ll have you eating out of my hand yet, Max. What, readers must ask themselves, has been the point of all this incessant needling? Do I really think that Max is nothing but a fantasist? DoI I care nothing for his scholarship and ability to pop out linguistic prestidigitations at the drop of a hat? Of course not – and I’ve said so above. All I’ve been trying to do is to wheedle out of him just a teeny-weeny smidgin of evidence, and guess what, I think I’ve partially succeeded. Is your etymology for soudarion just a fancy? No, of course not, and look, now there’s some evidence to back up your idea. Now we can assess it. Jastrow’s ‘Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature.’ The entry from which you quote has the headword ‘סודר’, which Jastrow defines as “a scarf wrapped around the head and hanging down over the neck, a turban.” After various examples, a note at the end says: “[Latin sudarium is a phonetic coincidence with our word, from which it differs in meaning.]” The next headword is ‘סודרא’, as in Ruth 3:15, which is defined as the same, and several more instances of its occurrence are given, particularly referring to being strangled with one, and to its being wound around the head to form a turban. In this case, then, Max, you have muddled things up. For a start Jastrow does not think that sudarium has anything to do with sudara, and for a second, Jastrow does not think a sudara means a full-body sheet anyway. And does Bonnet-Eymard agree? I can’t find his paper, but note that Domingo Muñoz León’s book, ‘Salvacion en la Palabra’ has a footnote mentioning ‘une étude de Bruno Bonnet-Eymard […] qui voit dans le grec σουδάριον un décalque de l’araméen סודרא, au sens de “linceul” et non simplement de “mentonnière.” So it looks as if you’re correct there, although it must be said that Muñoz León doesn’t agree with Bonnet-Eymard. I think you and Bonnet-Eymard are out on a limb, frankly. The connection of sudarium to sudara is not established by Jastrow, and even if it were, sudara does not refer to a full-body cloth. The hope that it might is derived from the huge quantity of corn that gets dumped in it while Ruth holds it out, but the amount “six measures” is not given an actual unit. If it corresponds to a seah or an ephah it amounts to more than anybody could reasonably carry, and is probably a deliberate exaggeration as a sign of Boaz’s generosity. Other, non-biblical, references to sudara clearly deny its whole-body proportions. Back to Kornelimunster, and its three holy cloths. The linteum (described as the towel with which Jesus wiped the feet of the disciples) and the sindon are about the same size, about 180 cm long and nearly as wide, while the sudarium (prominently embroidered with the word Sudarium) measures 39 x 22 cm. You appear to have muddled these up. But we did get some sources out of you, so well done; we’ll make a scholar of you yet, Max!
Max: The true fact is that you muddled things up regarding the Konelimünster relics, not me! The Sudarium is 16 times folded.. It actually measures 615 x 352 cm (not 39 x 22 cm as you most wrongly claim!) It is an all-enveloping veil or shawl, made of byssus and from Antioch, Syria; a city that was a centres for byssus fabrics in antiquity. The Patriarch of Jerusalem presented it as a gift to Charles the Great and from 812 onward it was kept in the heart of Aachen Cathedral until Louis the Pious, one of Charles’s sons, gave it to Benedict of Anian, abbot of Kornelimünster. Since about 1829, it has been kept in the parish church.
HF: Aw, don’t lose it just as we were making progress. Evidence, Max, evidence. What on earth makes you think that the Kornelimunster sudarium is folded 16 times? Clearly you have never attempted it. I have. Actually, of course, to turn a 615cm x 352cm cloth into a 39cm x 22cm area takes 8 folds, not 16, but that still results in 256 layers of cloth. I challenge anybody to try it, and see if the result looks as if it could contained in the reliquary held by the priest in abtei-kornelimuenster.de. A glimpse there will show the three relics of Kornelimünster together; the Grabtuch, or Sindon, an elaborately damasked cloth perhaps 1.50m x 1.20m, the Shürtztuch, or Linteum, about a metre square, and the Schweisstuch, or Sudarium, about 40cm x 25cm, and certainly not formed by folding up a 6m long bolt into dozens of layers.
Sorry, Max. Mene, mene, tekel upharsin and all that.