Paper Chase: “Lazarus & Jesus . . . “ by Kim Dreisbach

imageRon references a paper by Fr. Kim Dreisbach (pictured), “Lazarus & Jesus . . . “ and notes that he can’t find it online. The fault is mine. It was at www.shroudstory.com and the link was broken due to some work I was doing on the site. Here is a new link that works:

 

 

http://shroudstory.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/dallasdreisbach.pdf

To quote from the abstract:

Exegesis of John 11 & 12 reveals a superbly ingenious way of affirming the survival and significance of both the Shroud and the Oviedo Cloth to "insiders in the know" while cleverly denying that knowledge to "outsiders" who could seize and destroy them.

John 20:12 is a masterpiece wherein both the evangelist* and redactor* deflect drawing attention to the Shroud by avoiding the Synoptics’ use of the word sindon while simultaneously affirming its image(s).

[. . .]

Further analysis will reveal not only the influence of these burial linens on subsequent liturgical practices, but it also shed significant light about what was actually visible upon them.

DaveB wrote: “It seems Dreisbach an Episcopalian minister, was widely respected among the Shroud world, but he died some years ago.” 

Yes, he was highly respected. He was a friend. This blog is dedicated to him. Read why here.

4 thoughts on “Paper Chase: “Lazarus & Jesus . . . “ by Kim Dreisbach”

  1. Thanks for the blog reference Dan. He’s sure seems to have been a lovely man to have known, and a sad loss to all. His grand-daughter’s posting says it all.

  2. People here won’t be surprised to know that I completely disagree with Dreisbach understanding of those parts of the Gospel of John. The main thing is the fact I don’t believe one second in the so-called “spy clues” that could be present in this Gospel… I really don’t think John was writing a document for the CIA ! Of course, there’s often a second level of understanding in a text like that and we cannot take every line in a strick literal way (just like we cannot take every lines of a text like the “Narratio of Imagine Edessena” or the sermon of Gregory Referendarius in a stick literal way !!! The fact is that those texts are full of spiritual teaching and are not “historic books” in the modern sense). Nevertheless, I have a hard time to convince myself that John wanted to let his Christian readers know about the presence of body images on the Shroud of Christ, while using a coded language. In my mind, Dreisbach had a very good imagination…

    I have a completely different point of view on this topic and I even think that the most logical way to translate the word “Sudarium” used by John in both chapters (chapters 11 and 12) is by using the word “Shroud”. Yes, along with some researchers (but definately not the majority of them, I know), I think that John was talking about the “Shroud” when he wrote “Sudarium”… We have an infinite number of examples in ancient greek texts where words like “sudarium” and “sindon” would mean the same thing. Why not for the Gospel of John ? For a second, just try to change the word “Sudarium” in both chapters by using the word “Shroud” instead. You’ll see that both texts then take a completely different light !!! It’s a very interesting hypothesis that, as I say, don’t come from me, but that I agree with, particularly because of the chapter 11, which takes a much more logical sense when you think that Lazarus came out with a Shroud instead of just a face cloth… Effectively, if John really mean “face cloth” by using the word “Sudarium”, why in the world the dead had to be tied up with linen strips ??? Makes no sense ! Also, I always thought (and this was even reported by some “shroudies”) that the use of a Sudarium was only prescribes when the victim died of a violent death (with blood flowing out of the body) !!! Now, as I know, Lazarus died of a disease, not of a violent death !!! Why using a Sudarium in the case of a “natural” death like that (with, most probably, no blood flowing out of the body) ???

    That’s just my personnal interpretation but, as I say, I can back up this point of view with the opinion of some serious researchers… I don’t think we can discard this hypothesis easily.

  3. Hi Dan, Thanks for posting the link to the Paper by Dreisbach. I do have a copy on my computer and again tried to send it to you by email, alas it kicked it back. I am not able to email you on either email accounts…Maybe inadvertently I was placed on your block list?…I am diagnosing things on my side though also.

    Thanks

    Ron

  4. Soooo, did anyone read this paper? What do you think about the two angels in the tomb, one at the head and one at the foot? A spy clue to the Shroud? ….I think so.

    Ron

Comments are closed.