Stephen Jones, in a posting yesterday, The Shroud of Jesus?: 1.2 The Shroud and me, quotes himself as his 
thinking progresses:
But as I posted in January 2005 . . .
"I am a Protestant and my attitude to the Shroud of Turin was until recently that it was probably a fake. But I saw [and bought] a secondhand book coauthored by Protestant Christian philosopher Gary Habermas … called "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1981). I have only dipped into it, but I was astonished for the evidence that points to it being the burial shroud that covered the crucified Jesus and through which he was resurrected … If the new radiocarbon date `is up to 3000 years old’ then, based on the evidence that Stevenson & Habermas present, I provionally accept that the Turin shroud is the actual burial shroud of Jesus and the unique nature of the image, is indeed additional `Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ’!"
By the time I started this blog in June 2007 . . .
"I am persuaded by the evidence that the Shroud of Turin is the burial sheet of Jesus Christ and bears His crucified and resurrected image."
Or as I put it in comment under one of my posts:
"Previously I believed Jesus rose from the dead but now I know that He has, in the same way that the Apostle John "saw the linen cloths lying there … and believed":
Interesting, but I find it harder to cross the deep chasm between believing and knowing.
Stephen Jones wrote: “in the same way that the Apostle John “saw the linen cloths lying there … and believed”.
The most likely true exegetical fact is when John (Yeshua’s secret young disciple) saw the linen cloths, he JUST believed the women had told the truth about the tomb being empty. Period. Jones’ IMAGINARY exegesis of the emty tomb event does show here (the only snag is this untruth is common to most Christians).
I think you and others are completely wrong here Max. I have heard this interpretation before and it fails in the logical sense. Whereas, if John had found the tomb empty of a body, but with the burial cloths still intact, wouldn’t it be obvious at that moment, that he KNEW without doubt, that the woman were right in their statements? Not just ‘believing’ that they were? Why the detailed description of the garments left behind? I think logic dictates he was referring and believed ‘something else’ entirely.
R
For once Max, I think I agree with your interpretation. I first read this same interpretation that St John only ment that he believed what Mary Magdalene had told him about the empty tomb in a paper written by William Meacham some months ago and I now think this is the very best interpretation for this part of St John’s Gospel because it makes the next phrase (i.e. “For as yet they did not know the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead.”) much more rational and intelligible. I truly think the disciple never understood that Jesus was resurrected until they really saw him with their own eyes and even then, because his appearence was somewhat different, they still needed faith to completely trust that it was really him and that he was alive again (but somewhat differently) !
Ron,
you better ‘ask Saint Augustine of Hippo’ how he read the same passage…. I came to the same conclusion as his (as early as 1994) without even having previously heard of it. You may think I am completly wrong but ‘who are you’ to also think Saint Augustine was too? What REALLY OBJECTIVELY PHILOLOGICALLY ETHNOCULTURALLY LINGUISTICALLY makes you think he (or me) cannot read (in the Greek Gospel original version)?
The fact IS: there is AN ALTERNATIVE READING to John’s famous passage. IT SHOULDN’T BE SIMPLY RULED OUT OR OVERLOOKED as most Christians use to do. I cannot help thinking the ‘egnimatic’ TS image has negatively impacted and biased the exegesis here on the sole assumption the image ‘had miraculously formed’ on Yeshua’s burial cloth…
Meacham also refers to the personal interpretation of Augustine and I think he was right on the target about that !
The sign of Yonah (Jonas) is to be found in the Greek-Hebrew pun on oth Yonah (sign of Jonas)/ othonia (linen sheets).
I came to the conclusion Yeshua was draped in his burial cloth as in a himation when he ‘appeared’ to Mary of Magdala and the latter mistook him (not for a divine messenger but) for the gardener…
The himation was worn as a work wear next to his skin (i.e. as an achiton). This was the way Second Temple Judean gardeners used to dress when they worked.
Ron you wrote: “John had found the tomb empty of a body, but with the burial cloths still intact”. Really? What makes you ‘dead sure’ this is the ONLY way to understand the empty tomb scene?
Because that is what it tells us! I’m not saying it’s the only way to interpret the tomb scene, but definately your and Saint Augustine’s interpretation surely makes no literal or logical sense. Why intact? Well maybe intact was not the proper word, but basically from his description, it would seem there was nothing missing in the sense of burial clothes or whatever (cept the body ofcourse), else one would think he would have mentioned it. But back to the point; Why would John use the term ‘believed’ if he was thinking about what the woman had told him about the body being gone? It makes no literal sense. It would seem to me it was quite obvious the woman were right and he would have found that out immediately upon entering the tomb. It seems more probable the use of the word believe was to some other ‘notion’. Could it not have dawned on him, at that precise moment, all the things Jesus had said to them in the past and he put it all together that Jesus had risen? I think that is more likely then he believed the woman, especially taking the next line in scripture into account….think about it Max.
R
Wht do you exactly mean by ‘intact’?
Methinks you/christian exegetes really need more than stretching the meaning of the Greek words to reach such a convoluted conclusion…
No stretching of Greek words here Max. I along with others have studied this passage and interpretation of it’s Greek, thoroughly.
R
La interpretación del pasaje de Juan es sencilla.
1- las vendasen el suelo están allanadas y ATADAS.
2.-el sudario que cubrió la cabeza está separado de las vendas
3.- la Sábana NO ESTÁ porque la lleva Jesús para cubrir la desnudez a modo de himation.
Las vendas en el suelo ATADAS es una hecho IMPOSIBLE, no se han desatado para robar el cuerpo……así que es un HECHO SOBRENATURAL.
Por ello Juan ENTIENDE que Jesús ha RESUCITADO
Carlos Otal
I think Max, Augustine and William Meacham’s interpretations of that part of St John’s Gospel his better Carlos. But anyone have the right to think otherwise…
Thank-you Carlos…and Peter had not understood….Simply put, and simple logic.
R
The most logical way to understand John 20:8 is the way expressed by Saint Augustine that was accepted by William Meacham and Max. I truly think this is by far the most rational way to understand this text in the light of the next phrase that immediately follow…
Anyone’s interested by this question of interpretation MUST read this short paper written by William Meacham : http://freepages.religions.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~wmeacham/tombclth.htm
I think there are several problems, no matter how John 20:8 might be interpreted. If even St Augustine & St John Chrysostom had different views on the matter, I can’t see how one view can prevail over the other. To follow Augustine’s view could be to fall into the trap of religious reductionism. Although Augustine could have been right.
What cloths did Peter & John see? Why did Mary Magdala mistake Jesus for the gardener? If he was clothed in the Shroud as a himation as Max contends, then the cloths they saw could not have been the Shroud. They could only have been the bandages and ties. The head cloth in a separate place had probably been removed by Nicodemus and Joseph A. To put a supernatural interpretation on it, it may be that Mary saw Jesus draped in some kind of miraculous or heavenly garment, but then he says he has not yet ascended to the Father! Then it could be that the cloth they saw was in fact the Shroud. Meacham’s paper refers to the glutinous properties of the myrrh, and then Peter & John have to get their heads around the idea that a grave robbery has occurred, that only the body has been taken away after the difficult matter of removing it from the glutinous coated Shroud. Alternatively if they saw the image had formed on the Shroud, this might persuade them to believe in the Resurrection. But only if the image had already been formed, and had been fixed. Note that John 20:9 has “UNTIL THIS MOMENT, (they had failed to understand etc…)
We can speculate and speculate, and come up all with our own interpretations, but I feel that none of us end up any the wiser. If both Augustine and Chrysostom had different views of the matter, then we’re entitled to have different views as well.
Ron you wrote:
” Why would John use the term ‘believed’ if he was thinking about what the woman had told him about the body being gone? It makes no literal sense.”
The TRUE fact is your (and others’) interpretation (as opposed to Saint Augustine’s, mine or Meacham’s) is clearly contrary to John 20: 8 LITERAL meaning. Why do you use the phrase ‘literal sense’ ‘ in a way so clearly contrary to its very meaning, this is beyond me?
Lest I get too ‘technical’, I just try to keep my comment to an understandable level here. LITERALLY SPEAKING John and Peter ran to Yeshua’s cave tomb IN ORDER TO check what sounded to them quite unbelievable (‘a mere women’s tall tale’?): “They have taken the Master out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have put Him. ” (John 20: 2).
On entering the tomb and ‘theorizing’ the linen clothes left there on the sole funerary arched bench in the tomb chamber, Peter was the more perplexed of the two (this in keeping with his Aramaic nickname Kepha, ‘Rock’ figuratively meaning ‘Hardhead’) whereas John could not do otherwise but believe the women. It was not ‘a mere women’s tall tale’. They did have told them the truth. This is the literal sense. Beside NO bona fide Biblical exegete can REALLY hold as a compelling fact, the ‘sindon’ was still lying on the tomb bench as one of the ‘othonia’.
Saint Augustine’s, my and Meacham’s reading DO make literal sense. All the more so when we know ‘Yeshua gave his sindon to the servant/auxiliary of the priest’ implying he had NOT left it in his tomb (in all likelihood, the servant/ auxiliary here can be identified either with Joseph of Arimathea as Sanhedrin member/High Priest’s auxiliary of Justice or, as second best candidate, John).
Max I tend to disagree, and agree with Dave in that we can speculate and speculate forever and still come up with our own interpretations. So when you make statements such as; “The TRUE fact is your (and others’) interpretation (as opposed to Saint Augustine’s, mine or Meacham’s) is clearly contrary to John 20: 8 LITERAL meaning” -It just turns my stomach. How can you be so sure your interpretation is right? or infact FACT?
John would have choosen his words very carefully, so for him to use ‘believe’ would have been non-climatic, if talking about the woman. So he believed the woman were right in what they assumed? Still makes no sense, as he would have been ‘absolutely sure’ they were telling the truth and not a ‘tall tale’ at that point. So the usage of the word ‘believe’ is contrary to what he absolutely was sure of at that precise moment. Your comments ‘theorizing’ or ‘sole funerary arched bench’ are simply made up also. When Peter entered the tomb he ‘beheld’ (theOrei) what he saw. When John entered the tomb he ‘perceived’ (eiden) what he saw and believed. Meaning, as I intepret it, that Peter was dumbfounded and could not register in his mind what he was seeing, whereas John saw the condition of the linens and the Sudarium and understood (believed) immediately what must have occured, for up to that moment he did not understand that Jesus would rise from the dead and fulfill scriptures. That ‘to me’ is seems like the most propable and logical interpretation.
Yes Max, I tend to disagree with your hypothesis when it comes to Jesus’s appearance to Mary at the tomb, as I have an issue with Jesus still wearing a dirty, bloodied 14ft sheet as an himation or article of clothing…I would tend to believe the Shroud was left in the tomb for the apostles to find! But thats just me.
R
“Miss Typing”: On entering the tomb and ‘theorizing’ the linen clothes left there on the sole body bench set within an arch (Heb. kokha/maqôm) in funerary chamber,
Ron,
CAN YOU most exactly tell why Mary of Magdala mistook Yeshua (HER own master!) for the gardener (not even a divine messenger but a most ordinary man) and couldn’t even recognize him as Yeshua? (I can share with you ‘my pesonal opinion” if you really care. However I very much doubt you will agree withi me although this is the most likely explanation a bona fide exegete could give given the specific context we have here.
No, but I can speculate quite excessively if you wish Max. Lets see, they were situated in a Garden and it was early morning, so the sun was in Mary’s eyes, so she was unable to see who was standing before her and just assumed it was probably the gardener until he spoke, then she recognized by voice alone who was before her…Jesus could have been naked for all we know…How is that for speculation Max?
R
Ron,
You wrote: […] they were situated in a Garden and it was early morning, so the sun was in Mary’s eyes, so she was unable to see who was standing before her and just assumed it was probably the gardener until he spoke, then she recognized by voice alone who was before her…Jesus could have been naked for all we know…How is that for speculation […]
IN THE HYPOTHESIS the TS is Yeshua’s burial sheet and he appeared to his disciples after he was executed on the Golgotha, exegetically speaking, methinks your ‘simplistic speculative reconstruction’ (namely she was just dazzled by the rising sun and couldn’t really see Yeshua) falls short as it just failed to really cleared up the two most important issues here involved:
1/- what really made it difficult not only for Mary of Magdalene but ALSO for the other disciples (e.g. in Emmaus and on the border of Lake Tiberias) to recognize their Master at first sight?
2/- what really characterized a Second Temple gardener?
If we are to rely on John’s Gospel, most obviously, the TRUE fact is Mary of Magdalene saw Yeshua as a man, an ordinary man (not a divine messenger/angel) and mistook him for the gardener (how could not she tell a gardener from her own Master?). She couldn’t recognize her own master at first sight nor even ‘until he spoke’ (as you wrongly contend): she could recognize him ONLY when he called her by her name. The detail is of importance as it can get us close to understanding what most likely could have really happened in Joseph’s garden.
(to be continued)
Max, we are not talking about the other two(?) times when apostles failed to recognize Jesus, we are talking about this specific occasion ONLY! …I think I answered the question of the gardener quite well in my speculative hypothesis. Mary was blinded completely by the early morning sun! She could only make out a silhouette of a figure, nothing more. I am quite sure you have experienced this in your life-time Max, countless times no less. Moreover; Being we know from scripture the tomb was situated in a garden, she maybe just assumed it was the gardener which approached her, and when he first spoke, it didn’t dawn on her it was the Lord as she would not expect to hear his voice, but when he spoke her name, she recognized him completely as would be expected, since she heard this many, many times before. Is this not simply a “plausable” scenario? I think it does quite well, and also does not in any way dilute the importance of these lines of scripture. No assumption is made of odd attire or some changling ability, just simple reasoning.
R
Ron, were also all the the disciples of Emmaus ‘blinded completely by the late evening sun? Were the dsiciples on the border of Lake Tiberias also ‘blinded completely’ by the early morning/late evening sun etc? Were all of them blinded by the sun each time? Are you kidding? They all saw him but either cannot recognize him or were not quite sure it was him (till e.g. he either call one disciple by her name or give others a recognizable sign)…
Even if I accept Max interpretation of John 20:8 as the most probable that exist, I must admit that the following reaction of the 2 disciples after they discovered the empty tomb is somewhat strange in that particular context. Effectively, John simply say that the 2 disciples went back home !!! So, if John really wanted to say that he saw the burial clothes empty (particularly the Shroud which he named “sudario” – This is my personal interpretation that has been backed-up by some specialists over the years) and believed what Mary Magdalen had told him (that someone had taken the Lord’s body away from the tomb and the women didn’t knew where it has been taken), then why the 2 disciples just went quietly to their home without making any research in the garden or elsewhere in order to find the missing body ? Don’t you find their reaction bizarre in that circumstance ??? I do… But anyway, I still think the interpretation of Max (the same as Meacham, St Augustine and others) is the most probable because it fits well with the very next verse that would be very enigmatic if we accept the other interpretations that has been proposed over the years. In the end, it’s not that important versus the Shroud. The most important thing is this: This part of St John’s Gospel clearly said that the burial clothes were still present inside the empty tomb on Easter morning and they were as empty as the tomb. That’s what really matters.
YC you wrote: ‘why the 2 disciples just went quietly to their home without making any research in the garden or elsewhere in order to find the missing body ? Don’t you find their reaction bizarre in that circumstance ??? I do’
Had you carefully really read the Gospels, you would have found the answer to your spurrious question: the disciples were instructed by Yeshua (via the women) to meet him in Galilee after the event (‘Go and tel my brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me” (28:9-10)…
Yannick you wrote: ‘ In the end, it’s not that important versus the Shroud. The most important thing is this: This part of St John’s Gospel clearly said that the burial clothes were still present inside the empty tomb on Easter morning and they were as empty as the tomb. That’s what really matters.’.
Can you tell me exactly which burial clothes were ‘still present’ inside the empty tomb on Easter morning ? Were all of them left behind inside he empty tomb? Could you prove beyond any rational doubt the sindon was one of the othonia? Did the Second Temple gardener work naked or dressed in a himation (a long rectangular sindon) worn either calf or knee length and next to the skin as work wear? What do you make of ‘Yeshua giving his sindon/long rectangular cloth to the servant of the priest”? Doesn’t this imply Yeshua took it and dressed in it as he was mistaken for a gardener by Mary of Magdalene?
What makes you so ‘dead sure’ Yeshua’s sindon was left empty on the sole body bench set within the arch in the burial chamber? What is/are your philological/linguistic etc piec(es) of crucial evidence/compelling proof?
Ron,
To the sole exception of Mary of Magdalene who did see Yeshua alive in body and flesh in Joseph’s garden, if you really can read the Greek version of the Gospels and carefully read them you honestly cannot but admit none of the disciples believed Yeshua had resurrected till he appeared to them and opened their minds to what is written in the Scriptures.
Until he appeared in his body and flesh to them, the disciples only thought their master’s body had been taken away and could not believed he had resurrected. Unless of course you imagine John and Lazarus ‘the resurrected’ were one and the same person, (which is quite possible as a Judean ‘coming back to life’ was and is still given today a new name) and the latter was ALSO the SOLE male EXCEPTION to the rule (then he would have hidden his true feeling to the other disciples) Saint Augustine’s, mine or Meacham’s reading of John 20:8 is most likely the good reading.
One should be reminded here that John’s Gospel is a third (NOT a first) person relation or to put it in other words, John did include himself in the ‘they’ [”(THEY still did not understand the scripture that Yeshua had to rise from the dead.) Then THE DISCIPLES went back to where THEY were staying].” (John 20:9-10)
Chrysostom DID the same MISREADING of John 20: 8-10….
…he read ‘they’ as if John was not here included,which is wrong.
Had John believed Yeshua had resurrected on seeing the grave cloths lying in a special arrangement on the body bench set in the sole arch of the burial chamber and indicating that a rising from the dead had occurred, he would have stressed the point and used the same type of formula he used in the preceding chapter preceding (19:35) that relates something he had observed as eyewitness (namely the piercing of Jesus’ side and the blood and water flowing out). He would have implored the reader to believe his account and would have written something like this: “And the person who saw it has testified (and his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth), so that you also may believe.” Most clearly this is NOT the case here.
I do concur completly with both Saint Augustine and Meacham.
Methiks, the true mystery is elsewhere: in Yeshua appearing alive in flesh and blood to Mary of Magdalene and being mistaken for the gardener.
(to be continued)
Reminder: The empty tomb was no part of the early kerygma with its four-fold hoti and chronological sequence (Yeshua died — was buried — was raised — appeared).
The testimony of the beloved disciple to the empty grave was not appealed to as evidence in early church evangelistic preaching.
(Shall the four-fold ‘hoti’ be read in conjunction with the Greek designation (sindon) tetradiplon? Most probably)
…, it shall.
How is it that all kinds of magic went on back in those days… but NO magic ever happens now? Jesus was a magical man. If you believe in Jesus, then you must believe in magic. But this shroud is a great mystery… I can’t believe that no one has reproduced it… yet.
“But this shroud is a great mystery… I can’t believe that no one has reproduced it… yet.’ -Thats because it’s magic ;-)
R
Ron,
Your (pseudo-traditional) interpretation of John 20: 8-10 is consistent neither with the literal meaning of the third person Johanine account of the event (and hence narratologically speaking, illogical), nor with the early church evangelistic preaching (and hence historically speaking, anachronistic) nor even with the Christians’ kerygma (and hence theologically speaking, illogical).
I asked you “what makes you so ‘dead sure’ the Sindon was still in the empty tomb”, you just didn’t reply. What do you make of Yeshua giving his sindon to the servant of the priest? Nothing, you just ignore it. How do you account for the difficulty of ALL Yeshua’s disciples and constant followers to recognize their master at first sight after ‘the event’? You just don’t. Can you linguistically/philologically/historically/theologically etc demonstrate Saint Augustine of Hippo’s reading of John 20:8-10 is “completely wrong”. You just can’t.
All these piled up shortcomings and self-serving omissions of yours do speak for themselves…
(To be continued)
Max, first you never asked me about being ‘dead sure’ the Sindon was in the tomb, I think you asked Yannick that question. But I will answer the question anyway; How are you so “dead sure” the sindon was not in the tomb? Don’t you think John and Peter would have noticed it was NOT there and made mention of it? That would be a clincher that the body had been taken don’t you think? As I can’t see anyone stealing the body without it….thats all I have to say. Also as I said previously we are NOT talking about the ‘other’ times Jesus appeared to the deciples, just this one appearance, so NO I have not stated that in the other appearances everyone was blinded by the Sun….lets please stick to the one topic at hand and don’t put words in my mouth. My statement on the Mary Magdelena appearance, as I stated quite clearly was just an extremely speculative hypothesis in answer to your extremely speculative statements Max.
Now to this comment you made to Yannick on his thoughts about the deciples not investigating and just going home; “Had you carefully really read the Gospels, you would have found the answer to your spurrious question: the disciples were instructed by Yeshua (via the women) to meet him in Galilee after the event (‘Go and tel my brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me” (28:9-10)…” -My response would be; If you had read the Gospels properly Max, you would realize, they left and went home (without any ‘research’ as Yannick stated) before Jesus appeared to Mary and before she went and told the deciples anything!…please get your chronology in order.
Now to this comment by you Max; “To the sole exception of Mary of Magdalene who did see Yeshua alive in body and flesh in Joseph’s garden, if you really can read the Greek version of the Gospels and carefully read them you honestly cannot but admit none of the disciples believed Yeshua had resurrected till he appeared to them and opened their minds to what is written in the Scriptures” -This may be your and others mis-interpretation Max. I interpret the Greek as John at that precise moment of perception ‘believed’ Jesus had risen, not ‘KNEW’. He was not absolutely 100% sure, but believed so, from what he just witnessed, and notice also; he states only ‘he’ believed and not that ‘they’ believed, as in Peter believing so also!… Later that evening he would be ‘sure’ when Jesus appeared to them in the room. Hense the reason he used the term ‘believed’, and the reason he would NOT “Implore the reader to believe” as you say at that time. Ever wonder why none of the deciples had any issue in recognizing Jesus in the room that evening, or the next time when Thomas was present? ….funny isn’t it?
R
Your pseudo-traditional interpretation is not only speculative, it is contradicted by narratology, early Christian theology and history, the Gospel of the Hebrews (see Saint Jerome, common sense and Saint Augstine.
Ron,
Sorry to tell you but your opinion is just wishful thinking…Where are your historical, theological, narratological, linguistic, philological facts/pieces of evidence?
Mentioning chronology in the Gospels, could you give me the EXACT chronology of the events on that morning? Did Mary of Magdalene went only once or twice to Yeshua’s tomb? I wait for you…
The literary fact is the women (i.e. Mary of Magdalene included) were FIRST told by Yeshua’s angels/messengers to tell the disciples to meet him in Galilee and Mary of Magdalene (then alone) was told so A SECOND TIME by Yeshua alive in flesh and blood.
You wrote: “I interpret the Greek as John at that precise moment of perception ‘believed’ Jesus had risen, not ‘KNEW’. He was not absolutely 100% sure, but believed so, from what he just witnessed, and notice also; he states only ‘he’ believed and not that ‘they’ believed, as in Peter believing so also!”
First, can you tell me (from 20: 8) WHAT EXACTLY did John perceive’ (I’ll very much like you to tell me!) and what makes you so sure Saint Augustine, me and Meacham are “completely wrong” and cannot read properly?
Second, you do tend to totally overlook or ignore this contextual metalinguistic/philological fact: the conjugated Greek verb for ‘he believed’ implies here John uses the Hebrew word ‘aman in the hiphil (verbal stem – causative) form of the verb for his original testimony in order to signify what he saw ‘caused him to be certain, sure’ or ‘to be certain about,’ ‘to be assured.’ Then he was certain about the fact the women had told them the truth. In this sense the word ‘aman in the hiphil conjugation implied in John 20: 8 shows that it is an assurance, a certainty, in contrast with the English verb ‘to believe’ in reference to something possible, hopefully true, but not certain.
Now this ethnolinguistic fact is in rather curious contrast with your contention that “John at that precise moment of perception ‘believed’ Jesus had risen, not ‘KNEW’. He was not absolutely 100% sure, but believed so, from what he just witnessed.”
You’d better do your linguistic/philological homework.
Mentioning Early Christian history, how do you account for the early church NOT TO APPEAL to the testimony of the beloved disciple to the empty grave AS EVIDENCE of Yeshua’s resurrection in evangelistic preaching?
The true fact is Peter and John went to Yeshua’s tomb JUST TO CHECK OUT what the women had just told them (‘they have taken the Master away’). Once inside the empty tomb, Peter was puzzled (not knowing what to really think about the missing body) while John no longer doubted what the women had told them was the plain truth.
Had it been otherwise, the kerygma would have literally hinged around the empty tomb scene evidence. The true fact is the scene is… left behind. Yeshua “died… was buried… was raised… appeared…”
Please do your early church historical and theological homework before indulging in wishful exegetical thinking…
I could go on for hours and hours commenting on your overall wishful thinking here…
…the whole irony of it is the Amarican Historian and Biblical exegete, Diana Fulbright (who talked on this blog about wishwul thinking),does read John 20: 8 (almost) like you…
…and so do so many Christians.
There is so much dead wood to be cleared up in the forest of both Christian & Shroud Literature…
Since neither Yannick Clément nor Ron answer my questions, can any Christian scholar tell me exactly which burial clothes were ‘still present’ inside the empty tomb on Easter morning ? Were all of them left behind inside he empty tomb? Could she/he prove beyond any rational doubt the sindon was one of the othonia? Did the Second Temple gardener work naked or dressed in a himation (a long rectangular sindon) worn either calf or knee length and next to the skin as work wear? What does she/he make of ‘Yeshua giving his sindon/long rectangular cloth to the servant of the priest”? Doesn’t this imply Yeshua took it and dressed in it as he was mistaken for a gardener by Mary of Magdalene? etc.
I’ve answered your question Max, and further check again, as your chronology is misplaced and your interpretation of the Greek is incorrect. You keep jumping to other sources, basically averting answering any questions directly. Therefore, I’ve said all I’ll say to this. I’ll let the readers decide who here is quilty of “wishful thinking”.
R
Ron,
Are you kidding? Where are your historical, theological, philological, linguistic, narratological FACTS?
I agree I should have written: “the disciples were instructed by Yeshua (via ‘his’ angels/messengers AND the women) to meet him in Galilee after the event…(I wrote in haste, this was JUST a mistyping/omission not a ‘misplaced’ chronology as you content).
BTW where is YOUR chronology for the empty tomb scenes (as you seem to be ‘in the NT know’)?
AND where are your DIRECT answers to the following BASIC questions you should be able to answer (I just cannot find them):
1/- what really made it difficult NOT ONLY FOR Mary of Magdalene but ALSO FOR the other disciples (e.g. in Emmaus and on the border of Lake Tiberias) to recognize their Master at first sight?
2/- what really characterized a Second Temple gardener?
Your contention is my interpretation of the Greek is incorrect?
Now, in my comments, I only used 4 Greek words:
– Two were EXPLICITLY used namely ‘hoti’ (the known fact being) and ‘kerygma’ (proclamation).
– Two were IMPLICITLY used: in 20: 8, John used the Greek verbs ‘theoreo’ (to view attentively, take a view of, survey’) and ‘pisteuo’ (‘to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place confidence in, to believe indeed’) which translates the Hebrew verb ‘aman’, ‘to be certain’, ‘to be sure’.
Could you tell me in which way I might have misinterpreted those four Greek words, PLEASE?
Do you also really think Saint Augustine’s interpretation of the John 20: 8 Greek was incorrect and yours is far better and right on the archaeological, historical, theological, llinguistic, philological and narratological target?
Hamartia!
Soory I also used the Greek word himation. I wrote: “The himation was worn as a work wear next to his skin (i.e. as an achiton). This was the way Second Temple Judean gardeners used to dress when they worked.” In which way my interpretation of the Greek is incorrect (when actually ‘my Greek’ just ‘sticks with’ the 1st c. CE Judean historical context)?
Mistypings: “sorry” “just sticks to”
And when, I found a true symbolical connection between the Greek designation (sindon) tetradiplon for the Image of Edessa and the ‘four-fold’ (Gr. tetraplon) hoti [Yeshua] died… was buried… was raised… appeared…, is really ‘my Greek’ to be blamed?
…or is it your ignorance?