Home > Blood Studies, News & Views > Guest Posting: Challenging Frederick Zugibe on Washing of the Body

Guest Posting: Challenging Frederick Zugibe on Washing of the Body

July 28, 2013

Guest posting by Yannick Clément

Hi folks!

In a recent post, I brought in a new and, I believe, very strong argument that goes against the hypothesis developed by Doctor Frederick Zugibe who claim that a partial washing of the body prior to the deposit of the body inside the Shroud was responsible for the presence of all the scourge marks on the cloth. You can read this post of mine here: https://shroudstory.com/2013/07/15/stephen-jones-newest-addition-to-his-shroud-of-turin-series/#comment-39278

First, I want you to watch closely this screenshot I’ve taken from the Shroud Scope, which show a portion of the lower back region of the Shroud man that we can see in the dorsal image on the Shroud : 

(Note: You may click on the picture to enlarge it).

Shroud_Portion of the dorsal view in positive with measurements

(Note: You may click on the picture to enlarge it).

On this picture, you can see two very precise imprints of scourge marks (the quality of these bloody imprints is very good) that are located at about 13.3 mm and 17.6 mm from the border of an evident post-mortem blood flow in the lower back region.

First, I want to categorically stated this: Pellicori and Miller made a very good study of the UV fluorescence photos of the Shroud that were taken in Turin by STURP in 1978 and they were clear about the fact that almost every single scourge mark on the cloth was showing an halo of clear serum around them. Among other things, this observation can be seen as a very solid indicator that all the scourge marks on the cloth were caused by the same blood transfer process. Because almost all the scourge marks are showing the same precise dumbbell-like shape, the same presence of halos of serum around them, the same color, etc., there is no good reason to think that these scourge marks on the Shroud were caused by more than one single blood transfer process. Also, it is important to understand that the blood flows that we see below the side wound and the numerous blood flows that we see in the lower back region in the dorsal part of the Shroud have been caused by the post-mortem blood (probably mixed with a clear liquid) that came out after the lance blow to the chest and before any possible washing of the body. Finally, it’s important to understand that these post-mortem blood flows eventually came down on the rib cage and across the lower back region and that such a post-mortem bleeding was considered to be unclean by the Jewish Law and therefore, could not be washed away during the burial procedure. These facts are very important to consider for my challenge.

Barbet, Adler, Lavoie and others medical experts concluded that these scourge marks were caused by a transfer of exudates of still moistened (Adler and Lavoie) or re-moistened (Barbet) blood clots on the cloth by a direct contact between the corpse and the Shroud during the burial procedure, while others, like Zugibe that we just see, believed these particular stains were caused by a partial washing of the Shroud man’s body (especially in all the areas where we see some scourge marks on the cloth, i.e. the chest, the back, the buttocks and the legs).

In sum, Zugibe claimed that a rapid washing of the body would have been enough to remove the dried blood clots that would have been present over all the scourge wounds, with the result of producing an oozing of post-mortem blood from the re-opened wounds. It is this oozing of post-mortem bloody material that would have caused, by direct contacts, all the precise imprints in the form of a dumbbell that we see in many places on the cloth, once the partially washed body would have been placed inside the Shroud. For more information about that, see:http://www.shroud.com/zugibe2.htm. Here’s a short summary, written by Zugibe himself, which you can find in this paper: “The act of washing would then cause an oozing from each of the wounds thereby accounting for the imprints at their locations consistent with those on the Shroud.”

So, if Zugibe was right, that would mean that the rapid washing of a portion of the body would have included the area immediately adjacent to the numerous post-mortem blood flows in the lower back region of the Shroud man that we can see on the picture below, because in this zone, there are a number of evident scourge marks, including the ones I pointed out with a black arrow, which are located at about 13.3 mm and 17.6 mm from the border of one of these post-mortem blood flows (note again that these blood flows were considered unclean and cannot have been washed during the burial procedure).

After this introduction, here’s my argument again (which is also my challenge to all the defenders of Zugibe’s hypothesis): How in the world does the person who did this rapid washing (remember that it if the Shroud man is Jesus, this would have been an hasty burial) could have dared to wash the immediate region surrounding the post-mortem blood flow (including the area located at less than 2 cm where we see a very evident scourge mark on the picture below), while we know for a fact that it was strictly forbidden for a Jew to remove or even disturb the post-mortem blood that would have stuck to the skin of the dead person? Can you imagine the risks of disturbing this particular post-mortem blood flow? Remember that such a washing would have been done with a sponge or something like this in a very rapid manner… As I said in my previous post, in such a context, we should expect the person who did the washing to have take care of not disturbing all the post-mortem blood flows by not washing the areas surrounding these stains, which would have caused a sort of “buffer zone” around each of these blood flows that would have been free of any washing, with the expected result of leaving undisturbed all the possible dried scourge wounds present there, thus preventing any imprint of these dried wounds on the cloth. But on the contrary, that’s not at all what we see on the Shroud, especially in the lower back region where there are many scourge marks that are immediately adjacent to some post-mortem blood flows…

Again, if Zugibe’s hypothesis was right, that mean the rapid washing would have included the immediate region surrounding the post-mortem blood flows on the lower back, because we can see many scourge marks in this area that are very close to these blood flows. Seriously, does that sound credible and rational to you in the context of a Jewish burial that would have been done in a way to prevent any disturbance of the post-mortem blood that was still present on the corpse because it was considered impure by the Jewish Law? One thing’s for sure: Not for me! This idea of a very precise (almost surgical) washing in this zone is quite simply ludicrous to me.

I prefer by far my own hypothesis, which is mainly based on Doctor Pierre Barbet’s own ideas on the subject. For a summary of my hypothesis, see:https://shroudstory.com/2013/07/15/stephen-jones-newest-addition-to-his-shroud-of-turin-series/#comment-39120. Note that, unlike Zugibe’s hypothesis, mine is totally consistent with the presence of these scourge marks in the immediate region surrounding the post-mortem blood flows on the back and can explain them very easily in a totally rational and credible manner…

And if you think otherwise, then you will have to rationally explain to me how a rapid and partial washing done in haste could have been performed so precisely that it was able to remove the supposed dried blood clots that were covering all the scourge wounds, including those that are located at about 13.3 mm and 17.6 mm from the border of a post-mortem blood flow (see picture below) without touching and disturbing this particular post-mortem blood flow? Also, you will have to rationally explain to me why someone performing such a rapid and partial washing would have dare to wash the immediate surrounding area where there were some important post-mortem blood flows that had, legally, to stay on the skin of the Shroud man (up to just 1 or 2 cm away from one of those post-mortem blood flows)? Why taking such a risk of breaking the Law for a washing of the body that would have been only partially done anyway?

Additional argument: I would like to add another very strong argument that goes against Zugibe’s hypothesis, which is the fact that evident traces of dirt have been found by STURP in the knee area on the Shroud, which is a region where we can find some scourge marks. So, if a washing would have been done there, while eventually causing the imprints of those scourge marks, it’s pretty evident that no traces of dirt like this would have been found in this area. The fact that such traces of dirt have only been found there (along with some more traces in the ankle area) is a solid indicator that these areas had been stained during the walk the Shroud man did between the place where he was scourged and the place of crucifixion (most probably caused by one or many fall(s) to the ground during the time he was carrying the horizontal beam of the cross). Note that if such a dirt staining had occurred after the washing and before the deposit of the body inside the Shroud, there would certainly have been many others areas of the body that would have been stained in the same way and therefore, others traces of dirt would had been found elsewhere on the Shroud. That’s why I consider this particular dirt stain in the knee area as another very good argument that goes against Zugibe’s partial washing hypothesis. In fact, this particular argument just reinforce the first one concerning the presence of some scourge marks very close to a post-mortem blood flow… Also, it is important to note that the presence of a such a dirt stain in the knee area can be explain very well and rationally by my own hypothesis. Effectively, the presence of some dirt stains near some scourge wounds was surely not enough to prevent the transfer of these scourge wounds if the blood clots over them were still humid or if they had become re-moistened at the time the body was placed in the Shroud (or shortly thereafter)…

In the end, when we use the Occam’s razor principle while considering the presence of these scourge marks in the immediate vicinity of some post-mortem blood flows, along with the finding of evident traces of dirt in the region of the knees where there are some scourge marks, I think it’s fair to say that my own hypothesis can offer an explanation that is far more credible, rational and easy to believe than the one proposed by Zugibe. Note that I don’t say this because I think I’m better than anyone else. No. In fact, I only say this because I truly and honestly believe my hypothesis is much more rational, especially when we take into accounts the important facts I just gave you.

Final note: If you don’t agree with me and want to give me a rational explanation for the presence of some scourge marks in the vicinity of a post-mortem blood flow in the lower back region and the presence of some scourge marks in the knee area where there was traces of dirt, in the context of a partial and rapid washing of the body during the burial procedure, fine! I want to hear your thoughts. But I just hope you won’t use wild speculations to do so! Remember that Occam’s razor hate wild speculations!

  1. July 28, 2013 at 7:23 am

    Yannick scores again.

    This is an excellent post by Yannick who has made many excellent contributions. I am not sure this “debate” among the experts (Zugibe vs. everybody else) is determinative of the essential issue: the authenticity of he Shroud, and beyond that the reality of the Resurrection.

    Occam’s razor is not a scientific principle but a philosophical one. For example, there is no simplest explanation of quantum mechanics. It does have its application in science. For example, the triumph of the Galileo-Newton view over the Ptolemaic view of planetary and solar orbits.

    Ptolemy began with the view point that the Earth was the center of the Universe which was really a philosophical-religious theory- revelation. Thus the planets and the sun had to do a little loop in their orbits around the earth. Actually, the mathematics worked pretty well in making predictions of eclipses and such. However, it was simply wrong and it was simply wrong for more than a millennia. However, it was not wrong enough to spare Galileo the Inquisition and the danger of death at the stake.

    Newtonian physics became a philosophical position as well as a scientific one despite the questions it could not answer correctly. In fact that the duality of light as both wave and particle was demonstrated a century before the advent of quantum mechanics. Newtonians were aghast.

    I am not so concerned about how the lash marks were preserved as to when the body parted company with the Shroud. Does this debate have anything to offer on that issue? Although it is subject to some deviations, to me the most important thing about the image is this: the body of the Man in the Shroud shows signs of rigor mortis and no signs of putrefaction. Rigor mortis begins upon death and is released approximately 48 hours later. The evidence of putrefaction bi-products emerge from the body approximately 48 hours later (there is a relationship between putrefaction of the muscle tisue and the release of rigor mortis.)

    The time of Christ’s death was Three PM Friday. 48 hours after Christ’s death would have been Three PM Sunday afternoon. Does anybody have any idea what might have happened to Christ’s body during that period of time? I do, and more than a billion people since that time have had the same idea.

    Applying Occam’s Razor to the mystery of the Shroud’s image and the evidence of the blood residue there is one simple explanation: the Resurrection. To paraphrase Rabbi Hillel: Every thing else is commentary.

  2. July 28, 2013 at 9:03 am

    I VERY MUCH SO AGREE WITH YOU I DONT THINK THE BODY WAS WASHED EITHER THERE WOULD BE NO DIRT ON THE SHROUD IF IT WAS WASHED THANKYOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR VIEW POINT I DO AGREE

  3. jesterof
    July 28, 2013 at 9:51 am

    to “score again” one has to understand what he is talking about. This is not a basketball game, btw.

    Yannick is NOT.

    he stubbornly insists on the statements which he attributes to researchers who did not state that, He does not know either anatomy, nor physiology, nor hematology but still insists on his perception of them.

    Funny to observe this.

  4. jesterof
    July 28, 2013 at 9:57 am

    P.S. Zugibe IS right.

    And his conclusions in no way conflict with Barbet et al – only in somebody’s very closed mind as Yannicks, who, for some odd reason thinks it is “either – or”, whereas it is “this AND that”, which was obvious both for Zugibe and all others involved – as physicians, pathologists and other medically trained professionals.

    Blood imprints on the Shroud are not and can not be made by the same process as the nature of the wounds of the man of the Shroud are not the same and the mechanism and anatomy and physiology of those wound are DIFFERENT.

    But I guess I takes a medical school and a residency to complete to understand this simple concept.

  5. Hugh Farey
    July 28, 2013 at 10:09 am

    Ho hum, good Ol’ Yannick…

    First, I want to categorically state this:
    Pellicori and Miller were certainly not “clear about the fact that almost every single scourge mark on the cloth was showing an halo of clear serum around them.” They present seven photos of the shroud, from Dorsal Foot to Ventral Foot, and comment on the features of each one. No reference is made of fluorescence around the scourge marks is made until the third photo (the back), when they say “Many scourges have fluorescing bordering areas.” That’s all.
    Next, “almost all the scourge marks are showing the same precise dumbbell-like shape, the same presence of halos of serum around them, the same color, etc.” This is another generalisation clearly not borne out by observation. There are at least two different marks that might be described as dumbbell shaped, and a large proportion of the ‘striated’ kind. The presence and extent of the serum haloes is even more various.

    Next, Yannick finds an irreconcilable difference between “Barbet, Adler, Lavoie and others” who think that the scourge marks were caused by a transfer of exudates from still moist or remoistened blod clots, and Zugibe, who thinks that the clots were dry and were re-activated by washing. I don’t understand the difference.

    However, Yannick’s main point is that it is impossible to wash a body with an accuracy finer than 2cm. “How in the world does the person who did this rapid washing (remember that it if the Shroud man is Jesus, this would have been an hasty burial) could have dared to wash the immediate region surrounding the post-mortem blood flow (including the area located at less than 2 cm.” Well, I would. In fact, if I wanted to wipe away an overall smear of blood across the entire back (as we see in those photos of Philippine flagellants), but leave a specific mass of blood in place for religious reasons, I think I could do it with an accuracy of about half a centimetre. Would I use a sponge? Probably not. I’d use damp cloths.

    “Seriously, does that sound credible and rational to you in the context of a Jewish burial that would have been done in a way to prevent any disturbance of the post-mortem blood that was still present on the corpse because it was considered impure by the Jewish Law? One thing’s for sure: Not for me! This idea of a very precise (almost surgical) washing in this zone is quite simply ludicrous to me.” Well, that’s fine for Yannick, but it seems both possible and perfectly normal to me.

    “I prefer by far my own hypothesis.” Well that’s fine too, but I don’t think it’s credible. Basically you seem to accept that the image was formed from emanation from the body, through a coating of dried blood, without the blood affecting the image formation. You go to the most elaborate details in trying to find a difference between dried blood on the body, the cloth, the hair and so on, without any evidence that the image shows any such difference.

    Next, the discovery of a few minute fragments of stone in some parts of the shroud is given as evidence that the body wasn’t washed, whereas it could be equally good evidence, given that so little has been found, that in fact it was washed, but not very thoroughly.

    Overall, the bloodstains are a complex part of the mystery of the shroud, and I think any explanation for them is likely to be fairly complex itself. Even Occam would have had some difficulty in knowing exactly how to wield his razor. For me though, given the choice, Zugibe beats Clement hands down.

    • Ron
      July 28, 2013 at 1:14 pm

      Well said Hugh! Many of the ideas you mention I’ve contemplated for a long time, but have been unable to put them to so clear words….Thank you.

      The remnants of dirt on the knee, feet and nose can easily be explained away as you so mentioned. So no issue there, and it definitely should not be used as a ‘clue’ the complete body had not been washed.

      R

  6. jesterof
    July 28, 2013 at 10:15 am

    http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi08part3.pdf

    the description by Lavoie of the experiment is based on the false premise – that the blood clots in the wounds after scourging are hematologically identical to the clots formed after WHOLE blood withdrawal from the vein by vaccutaine tubes.
    There is a fundamental difference between them, though.
    And the anatomy/pathology of the wounds are totally different – the clear cut wound or a punch wound of the experiments differs from the concussion/blunt trauma wound of the scourging.
    The clear markings of the scourging wounds actually prove that the body had to be washed in order for them not to have smeared edges.

    • Hugh Farey
      July 28, 2013 at 10:26 am

      I don’t think that’s fair to Lavoie. The paper you quote specifically excludes any reference to the scourge marks, stating “Other blood marks, such as the scourge marks and the blood flow on the dorsal image, fit into a different category regarding their formation and moisture content. Therefore, they should be evaluated separately; they go beyond the scope of this paper.” He clearly agrees with you!

  7. jesterof
    July 28, 2013 at 10:26 am

    Hugh Farey :

    Next, Yannick finds an irreconcilable difference between “Barbet, Adler, Lavoie and others” who think that the scourge marks were caused by a transfer of exudates from still moist or remoistened blod clots, and Zugibe, who thinks that the clots were dry and were re-activated by washing. I don’t understand the difference.

    because there is no difference. You can re-moisten the clots by washing the body and if taken into consideration that the scourge wounds are mostly blunt wounds which cause supepidermal/intradermal/hematomas which are different from the clots formed by a clean cut or punch, then washing of the blood/sweat/dirt cover from the body is almost necessary to result in a relatively similar shaped scourge wound markings on the cloth.

    • Ron
      July 28, 2013 at 1:22 pm

      Why would one think the scourge wounds would be mostly ‘blunt’? From the descriptions I have read of the Flagrum, the balls were definitely not smooth “ball bearing” in their shape, but rough pitted and sharply edged metal balls or rough edged bone. These would have ripped at the skin and muscle underneath, in most cases, inflicting some major damage.
      I think many including our friend Yannick here have underestimated the damage inflicted by the Flagrum, most definately.

      R

  8. jesterof
    July 28, 2013 at 10:34 am

    Hugh Farey :
    I don’t think that’s fair to Lavoie. The paper you quote specifically excludes any reference to the scourge marks, stating “Other blood marks, such as the scourge marks
    and the blood flow on the dorsal image, fit into a different category regarding their formation and moisture content. Therefore, they should be evaluated separately; they go beyond the scope of this paper.” He clearly agrees with you!

    I read it under the influence by Yannick :-)

  9. Hugh Farey
    July 28, 2013 at 1:36 pm

    Ron, perhaps they were a mixture. Some marks on the shroud look like scratches, some like round bruises. A very few seem to have created open wounds.

    • Ron
      July 28, 2013 at 1:51 pm

      The scratch marks have been attributed to possibly the thongs from what I have read and also show as what appears to be welts. The actual ball remnant markings could actually be segments of torn skin. Anyone here ever experience having skin torn off to the muscle? I have unfortunately and the wounded areas were very reminiscent of what I see on the Shroud. These wounds would not stop releasing small amounts of blood throughout the surface of the wound, even with pressure added. For this reason I believe they are torn skin wounds.

      R

  10. Ron
    July 28, 2013 at 1:40 pm

    According to Jewish customs, criminals or victims of violence would not be washed is what many are relying on here. This we can not be absolutely sure of, as we get our knowledge of from laws drawn up well after Jesus’s time, when the Jews were in exile. Even if it were true, Jesus was buried by loved ones, ones that honoured him. I would think it dishonourable in their minds to NOT give him a ‘proper’ burial, which included proper washing. It would have been done in haste surely, but still done.

    PS; I find the idea that a body could not be washed to a finer detail accuracy of 2cm is laughable. Maybe stated by someone whom has never actually done any fine detailing in their lifetime lol?

    R

  11. jesterof
    July 28, 2013 at 3:32 pm

    Hugh Farey :
    Ron, perhaps they were a mixture. Some marks on the shroud look like scratches, some like round bruises. A very few seem to have created open wounds.

    Of course, they were. That is the whole point. The injuries involved will ALL be a mixture of many types of wounds therefore many types of bloody material involved and many types of mechanics of imprints to be made. I have always been so amazed that some clinch to the specific type of “blood transfer” as the only one, unique possible and putting it in contrast to all others.

  12. jesterof
    July 28, 2013 at 3:35 pm

    Ron :
    Why would one think the scourge wounds would be mostly ‘blunt’? From the
    descriptions I have read of the Flagrum, the balls were definitely not smooth “ball bearing” in their shape, but rough pitted and sharply edged metal balls or rough edged bone. These would have ripped at the skin and muscle underneath, in most cases, inflicting some major damage.
    I think many including our friend Yannick here have underestimated the damage inflicted by the Flagrum, most definately.
    R

    Not necessarily.
    The cloth imprints do not support this mechanism at all.

  13. Yannick Clément
    July 28, 2013 at 7:46 pm

    This message is mainly intended to jesterof but also for others. I post it earlier directly to Dan Porter via his email address and, finally, I thought that it could be a good thing also to post it here:

    I know the value of my hypothesis, I know the strength of my arguments against Zugibe, and unlike what jesterof can think, I know that Zugibe’s hypothesis cannot fit with Barbet’s own hypothesis for the good and simple reason that, in Zugibe’s scenario, the outcome of a washing of the body would be a removal of the dried blood clots over the scourge wounds, which would produce an oozing of post-mortem blood in a LIQUID FORM (you just have to read carefully Zugibe’s paper on the subject and to watch closely the pictures of an experiment he did, especially the one called “figure 2”, to understand this) and that’s completely different than the kind of transfer described by Barbet from exudates of re-moistened blood clots.

    In Zugibe’s mind, after the supposed washing, there would have been no more blood clots over the wounds and this would have caused an oozing of post-mortem blood in liquid form. It’s only in the case they would not have placed the body Inside the Shroud right or soon after the washing that the oozing of post-mortem blood would have started to produce a blood clot again that could eventually have stained the cloth in the way described by Barbet in his book, but seriously, such an idea is not rational at all, especially in the context of an hasty burial…

    Just think about it: What would have been the most rational thing to do after the washing? To place the body Inside the Shroud of course! Or to rub the body with some burial products and then, placed it Inside the Shroud. And in both scenarios, it is liquid blood that would have stained the cloth in all the places where there were scourge wounds because, in both cases, there is no way the oozing of liquid post-mortem blood could have had the opportunity to produce a blood clot that would have been “solid” enough to cause a very good mirror imprint on the fabric…

    Nevertheless, Zugibe thinks such a liquid transfer from an oozing of post-mortem blood (see “figure 1” in his paper to see the result of a transfer experiment he did and see “figure 2” to be convinced the oozing in question would be in LIQUID FORM) can produce a pretty good and precise imprint of the wound. I agree with him that if the oozing of liquid post-mortem blood is not too huge and if it stays in the vicinity of the wound and if the piece of fabric is not pressed hard at all on it (very gently in fact), then yes, you can obtain a pretty good imprint of the wound in question. But nevertheless, as Barbet said very clearly in his book, for any blood transfer that happen in a liquid form on a piece of fabric, inevitably, you will see some preferential directions in the blood stain that will tend to follow the weaving of the fabric that has been stained. And if you check closely “figure 1” in Zugibe’s paper, it’s pretty easy to notice just that: there are some little lines of blood that are going away from the central stain because they the oozing of blood from the wound had a tendency to follow the pattern of the paper towel used by Zugibe for his experiment… As Barbet said: this is what always happen when a blood transfer on a fabric is done with a blood in a liquid form. Zugibe’s experiment proved that Barbet was right about that and sorry but it is not what we see on the Shroud concerning the scourge marks, which have no tendency at all to follow the direction of the weave herringbone pattern. This is a clear indication that these stains were produced by exudates of humid blood clots and not from a transfer that would have been made with liquid blood (like it was the case in Zugibe’s experiment).

    And even if I agree with Zugibe that, in the context of a very gentle contact between the oozing of blood and the fabric, you can obtain a pretty good imprint, I ask you the question: what would have been the result if his experiment would have been done to simulate the high body weight pressure that would have been present on the back side of the corpse when it was laid into the Shroud??? The answer is easy to determine: SMUDGES ALL OVER THE PLACE ! And there is absolutely none on the Shroud, not even on the back region! This is a sure proof that the scourge wounds came from exudates of humid blood clots as described by Barbet, Adler, Lavoie and others and not from a transfer from an oozing of liquid post-mortem blood as described by Zugibe. Again, you must remember that the body should have stayed untouched for several minutes if you want to believe that the oozing of liquid post-mortem blood had enough time to produce a humid clot prior to the deposit of the corpse inside the Shroud and such a scenario seem pretty ridiculous in the case of an hasty AND INCOMPLETE burial, while those who were there knew full well they had to come back anyway on Sunday morning to complete the burial rite correctly.

    All this just don’t sound right to me. It much easier for me to believe the scourge wounds get infected while the Shroud man was still alive on the cross, thus producing some oozing of lymph with maybe other bloody material, which would have kept these wounds (and probably others like some puncture wounds in the scalp) humid enough for a long time, and this would have cause a great delay in the clotting process, with the result that when the body was laid Inside the Shroud, these particular blood clots were 1- still humid enough to stain the cloth at the very moment the body was laid Inside it or 2- dried after death but they became re-moistened before or, more probably, after the body had been laid Inside the Shroud. Such a scenario, on the contrary to the one proposed by Zugibe, would have no problem at all to explain the presence of precise scourge marks located less than 2cm away from a post-mortem blood flow, which could not have been washed.

    On this subject, it’s fun to note that Hugh, who desperately wants to defend at all cost Zugibe’s hypothesis, don’t seem to have any problem believing such an irrational scenario, while, in the very same comment, he dare to state this truth: “…that in fact it (the body) was washed, but not very thoroughly.” Sorry Hugh but if the washing was not done very thoroughly (note: this is by far the most rational scenario in the case of the Shroud man), how in the world such a rapid washing was able to completely remove the blood clot of some scourge marks located at less than 2 cm from a post-mortem blood flow in order to produce an oozing of post-mortem blood in a liquid form (such an oozing was necessary to produce the scouge marks on the cloth if we believe Zugibe), while at the same time not touching at all the nearby post-mortem blood flow! Imagine the precision that would have been necessary to accomplish such a feat very rapidly!!! Sorry, but to believe such a scenario is more probable than mine (which is pretty much the same than the one described by Barbet), you must still believe in Santa Claus… Seriously, if we stay honnest here, don’t you see that such a scenario is very improbable in the context I described in my challenge (especially in the light of all the facts, data and observation I brought in, particularly the presence of some precise and well-defined scourge mark in the immediate vicinity of a big post-mortem blood flow)?

  14. Chris
    July 28, 2013 at 8:40 pm

    I am not sure. Yannick, Hugh, Ron et al make many good points. I’ve always thought that the body was unwashed because the most obvious blood flows are still present (down the arms).

    The Gospels mention Jesus was redressed after the scourging and crowning. I assumed that the garments he was redressed in became covered in this blood and clots. When He was stripped again at the crucifixion wouldn’t everything be dry? If so how would crucifixion open these wounds?

    • Ron
      July 29, 2013 at 10:03 am

      I have taken it to understand ALL blood flows from the MAJOR wounds would not have been washed, since there would have been life’s blood mixed within them. Hence no washing of the arms, hands, feet, head or specifically the chest wound area. All other areas are suspect, I have mentioned in another post the idea that when the garments were removed when they reached the cross, that this alone could possibly be a reason for the re-opening of many of the scourge wounds. Once wounds are reopened, they tend to want to stay open. I doubt Jesus’s body or garments would be completely dry also, especially taking into mind he carried a heavy cross, or cross beam for hundreds of meters.

      R

  15. jesterof
    July 28, 2013 at 10:02 pm

    Yannick, you do not know what was in Zugibe’s mind.

    It is what you THINK based on YOUR understanding of what he writes that you attribute to “Zugibe’s mind”.

    And that is the whole problem here.

    It is not the first time this discussion arises.

    you stubborn perception that there is only ONE way the blood clots are formed, only ONE way the wounds are inflicted and only ONE way the imprints on the cloth could be made by the body is simply INCORRECT and it is not the perception of the researchers you are lining up as “on your side”.

    Neither of them ever stated that there is one way to all of this.

    In the last 4-5 months I, personally, repeated this and explained in details, at least 3 times.

    But few weeks passes and you return to the same wrong point of non-start.

    There is no point in further discussion. You remind me Walter McCrone :-)

  16. Matthias
    July 29, 2013 at 3:53 am

    well, another possibility is that the scourge marks are authentic and some or all of the other blood stains are later add ons.
    I’m not saying that is the answer, rather just a possiblity.
    eg wouldn’t blood stains down the forearm more likely be a pre-mortem feature (whilst Jesus is still alive on the cross) as opposed to post-mortem phenomenon ie. the forearm flows

  17. Matthias
    July 29, 2013 at 4:33 am

    In the dorsal image, there is an absence of scourge marks around the region of the small of the back. I would suggest this is due to the fact that the small of the back region would not have pressed down onto the shroud unlike the central back region and buttocks, hence the scourge marks which would have also been on Jesus’s body on the lower back did not transfer onto the shroud.
    Now if the scourge marks on the small of the back did not transfer, because there was no contact between the small of the back and the shroud, then where does that leave the horizontal trickle of blood running along the lower back? This would mean that either this trickle somehow flowed down from the dead man’s ribs and dripped down and ran along the shroud AFTER he was placed in the shroud, or it is a later fabrication (it wouldn’t make sense that the body was washed first, except for a post mortem trickle of blood across the lower back, then the flow we see on the lower back region on the shroud was transferred by contact between body and shroud when the absence of scourge marks strongly indicate there was no contact – if you get my drift!) .

    If it was the former, then that could explain why the trickle is so close in one or two spots to the scourge marks, getting around Yannick’s questions around the precision of the clean up.
    Think about it, only really (impossibly?) thick blood might run down the ribs of a horizontally laid out corpse and run all the way along the small of the back. More likely is the blood fell off the side of the body and trickled along the shroud, carried by the momentum and velocity of a flow across the ribs and the fall of the blood, and presumably more fluid blood (possibly with water?)
    I don’t know, there’s something odd about the lower back trickle relative to scourge marks.
    But question for people more biology-literate than me… if Jesus was hours dead by the time he was placed in the shroud, what chance there might be of more trickling out of blood that far after the death event??? it seems quite unlikely that there would be post mortem blood flows maybe 2-3 hours after Jesus had died on the cross…
    Thoughts????

    • Ron
      July 29, 2013 at 10:22 am

      In one of his papers, Zugibe states ‘clearly’ that corpse’s can still bleed, even many hours after death, as he witnessed this many times during his numerable autopsies. The trickle of blood on the lower back is interesting, consider the body already wrapped in the Shroud being shifted from side to side as it is now being ‘bound’, whilst a flow from that particular wound is present and being most likely a mixture of blood and pulmonary fluid, making it very viscous. Probable? I think so. The Shroud itself shows signs of this from other wounds, especially the feet. So not so hard to discern.

      R

  18. Hugh Farey
    July 29, 2013 at 4:59 am

    Bit by bit…

    It is perfectly true that Zugibe seems to attribute the bloodflows down the arms, across the back and specifically from the spear wound, to post-mortem, post-washing, liquid flows, resulting in a transfer of whole blood, unsmeared, onto the cloth of the shroud. He finds it difficult to understand how, from a body literally matted with blood from head to foot, only a few pre-mortem trickles have managed to transfer images of themselves, very neatly and without smudging or smearing in spite of the handling the body received both pre- and post-mortem. Yannick hopes that some very special circumstance arose in which this was exactly the case. It is, I think, precisely this problem which led Barbet and others to suppose that the body was indeed more or less dry until shortly before being enshrouded, when, by another special circumstance, the dried blood was sufficiently moistened to permit exudations to transfer an exact pattern onto the cloth. The supposed serum rings were, to Barbet, a verification of that, although serum exudes from whole blood as well. The only real finding in favour of the exudation hypothesis is the lack of potassium in the minerals of the ‘blood,’ which Adler attributes, not very convincingly, to the retention of erythrocytes in the body.

    Yannick dismisses the possibility that the post-washing blood may have been allowed to semi-clot again before the body was enshrouded, which I think is fair. It is clear that Zugibe thinks whole blood, not serum clot retraction exudate, is on the shroud. In that case, says, Barbet, the blood would have seeped outwards across the cloth (by capillary action), and not leave those very neat-edged shapes that in fact we see. I don’t think this is necessarily true. The viscosity of blood seems very variable, as evidenced by the different shapes of the wrist-wound (very slow) and the arm-trickles (very runny).

    Yannick does not seem to notice that Zugibe differentiates between the blood-flows and the scourge-marks, although, to be fair, the point is not really clearly made. Zugibe says that having washed and re-opened the scourge wounds (which are more like contusions than cuts) there would be “an oozing of bloody material” which I think is intended to be different from a liquid blood flow.

    The whole subject of exudates, while apparently solving some of the problems with the blood images, is mired in complications which neither Barbet nor Yannick clarify at all well. The fact that they clearly contain a good deal more red colour (hemolysed erythrocytes) than serum is a serious objection, the neat way in which even long-dried trickles suddenly produce neat images of themselves, the attempt to keep the wounds moist by bacterial infection – none of these have any basis in reality. Googling “wound dressing removal” shows what real exudates look like!

    Finally, I see that I “desperately want to defend at all cost Zugibe’s hypothesis.” Not only is this nonsense, but it illustrates Yannick’s mindset much better than it illustrates mine. Scientists do not desperately defend things, not become so convinced of their own hypotheses that they do not admit of any problem with them that needs refinement. As it stands, the serum clot retraction hypothesis, while possibly useful as an explanation for the scourge wounds, makes little or no sense for the blood-trickles, and is directly refuted by the marks over the purported holes in the wrist, chest and feet, which look nothing like clot retractions at all.

  19. jesterof
    July 29, 2013 at 10:26 am

    Ron :
    In one of his papers, Zugibe states ‘clearly’ that corpse’s can still bleed, even many hours after death, as he witnessed this many times during his numerable autopsies. The trickle of blood on the lower back is interesting, consider the body already wrapped in the
    Shroud being shifted from side to side as it is now being ‘bound’, whilst a flow from that particular wound is present and being most likely a mixture of blood and pulmonary fluid, making it very viscous. Probable? I think so. The Shroud itself shows signs of this from other wounds, especially the feet. So not so hard to discern.
    R

    Post-mortem blood is not the same as whole blood in alive person and it’s characteristics differ.

    In any textbook in forensic pathology the basics of blood patterns post-mortem are described.

  20. Yannick Clément
    July 29, 2013 at 11:01 am

    Seriously, I think Hugh understand the hypotheses proposed by Zugibe and Barbet-Adler (which are two irreconcilable hypotheses by the way) versus the blood transfer on the Shroud much better than jesterof. But nevertheless, I don’t understand why you come up in favor of Zugibe!

    Answer these four questions for me please (jesterof, you can too) :

    1- If Zugibe’s hypothesis is correct, how can you rationally explain the absence of any smudge on the Shroud, especially in the back region where there was obviously an intense body weight pressure that was active on the cloth?
    2- If Zugibe’s hypothesis is correct, how can you rationally explain that there appeared to be no scourge stain that tend to follow the herringbone weave pattern of the cloth?
    3- If Zugibe’s hypothesis is correct, how can you rationally explain the presence of distinct halos of serum around much of the scourge marks?
    4- If Zugibe’s hypothesis is correct, how can you rationally explain the presence of some precise scourge marks at less than 2 cm of an evident post-mortem blood flow, while you know that it was against Jewish law to remove or disturb such a post-mortem blood and while you also know that if there was a washing, it would have been done rapidly (you even mention in a previous post that the washing was most probably “not done very thoroughly”)?

    To answer these questions correctly, it’s truly important to note that, if Zugibe’s hypothesis is correct, the oozing of post-mortem blood would certainly have been in a liquid form, unless, as I said in my previous post, that they would have left the body alone and untouched for several minutes after the washing, which is very improbable in the context of an hasty burial (Hugh, you agree with me on this). And if you want to be convinced that the removal of a dried blood clot over a wound will produce an oozing of post-mortem blood in a liquid form, please check again “figure 2” in Zugibe’s paper… Even a close look at “figure 1” is enough to see that this kind of post-mortem oozing is in liquid form because this picture surely don’t present a solid blood clot!!!

    It’s also truly important to note that Zugibe developed his hypothesis on a probable false premise, which is that if there was a lot of dried blood flows on the body of the Shroud man when he was placed in the Shroud, there would not have been any body image formed on the cloth because it is a fact that the bloodstains on the cloth were able to prevent the formation of a body image on the cloth. I already addressed that point in a previous post (https://shroudstory.com/2013/07/15/stephen-jones-newest-addition-to-his-shroud-of-turin-series/#comment-39120) and I said that if the body image was caused (at least partially) by the natural released of post-mortem gases and molecules that were left on the skin, the hair and the dried blood clots after the drying of the sweat, there would be no reason at all to think that the presence of such dried blood flows on the skin of the Shroud man would have been enough to prevent the formation of a body image in these areas, since the « active agent » (i.e. the biological products left on-top of these dried clots by the drying sweat) would have been present OVER these blood clots and not UNDER them, with the result of being able to react directly with the surface of the cloth without the dried clots being able to act as a shield between these biological products and the cloth. In such a truly possible context (sorry for those who are members of the supernatural fringe), there is no way to categorically state something like Zugibe said, i.e. that the presence of dried blood flows on the skin of the Shroud man would have surely prevent the formation of a body image. THIS IS FAR FROM BEING A SCIENTIFIC FACT and, nevertheless, Zugibe base is whole hypothesis on this shaky premise…

  21. Yannick Clément
    July 29, 2013 at 12:03 pm

    Another important thing to understand and to consider before someone wants to answer the four questions I asked in my previous post (especially questions #1 and #2), is the fact that Zugibe never tried to reproduce the important body weight pressure that was surely present in the back region when the blood transfer occurred in this area… What a MISTAKE! If you look at the back region on the Shroud, you will noticed that there are many precise scourge marks that never tend to follow the weave pattern of the cloth, along with absolutely no smudges of blood… Nevertheless, Zugibe never tried to reproduced the conditions in which these scourge marks would have been formed on the cloth (i.e. while a high pressure would have been present on the cloth because of the body weight). Here’s what Zugibe said about this : « In order to test this hypothesis, pieces of linen and paper towels were gently touched (not pressed) against wounds from accident victims who lived for several hours following the accident. »

    There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if he would have tried to reproduce the most probable conditions in which the scourge marks in the back region were formed on the cloth, he would never had succeed with his « method » of « after-washed » oozing of post-mortem blood.

  22. Yannick Clément
    July 29, 2013 at 1:05 pm

    Last thing that surely will not pleased the fan of the supernatural: If my own hypothesis is correct versus the blood transfer and if there really were many dried blood flows that never became re-moistened enough to leave a distinguishable mark on the cloth, then I’m affraid that this would have to be understood as being a great clue in favor of a natural process of image formation that involved, at least partially, the release of post-mortem gases and/or molecules coming from some biological substances that were left over the skin, the hair and these dried blood flows after the drying of the important quantity of sweat that was shed by the Shroud man before he died… Then, we could think of the kind of process described by De Salvo in his paper for Shroud Spectrum (http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi06part4.pdf)and/or the hypothesis that was once described by Thibault Heimburger in a paper he first published on the SSG, which was in fact an alternative and complementary hypothesis versus Ray Rogers’ own Maillard reaction hypothesis… I truly believe making such a link between the blood transfer that really occurred on the Shroud and a probable natural process involving the release of post-mortem gases and/or molecules coming from biological products left on the skin, the hair and the dried blood flows by the drying sweat is far from being dumb and should be investigated in deep by a CSI expert or someone like that…

  23. jesterof
    July 29, 2013 at 5:13 pm

    Yannick, oozing of post-mortem blood is ALWAYS liquid.

    But it has nothing to do with scourge marks imprints and Zugibe never referred to them.

    One can’t answer to the questions which are asked from a fault presumption.
    Why is it faulty I have answered at length previously – you may re-read those threads.

    There are more than one methods of transfer of the blood form the body to the cloth, depending on the wound.

    The more or less exact markings of the scourge wounds on the back actually are the proof that the body was washed, otherwise the edges would be smeared.

    • Yannick Clément
      July 30, 2013 at 8:47 am

      I think you should read again Zugibe’s paper and Watch closely the 2 pictures he shows about what come out of a wound right after the washing of the blood clot that was over it! It is a post-mortem blood in LIQUID FORM and that’s what Zugibe thinks was responsible for the scourge marks on the cloth. See is picture 1 and you will clearly see that it is not at all a solid blood clot from an oozing of liquid blood but that it is truly an oozing of liquid post-mortem blood. It is from this oozing that Zugibe tried to reproduce the scourge marks on the Shroud by very gently touching this liquid blood with a paper towel. As I said, that produce a pretty good imprint in this context but what would have been the result if he would have reproduced the high pressure in the back region due to the body weight? Of course, there would have been evident smudges with no precise serum halo around the stain and the main stain would have had a clear tendency to follow the pattern of his paper towel. Look, even with the gently touch he used for his experiment, you can see some tiny parts of the stain that tend to follow the pattern of the paper towel! And that’s exactly what Barbet said in his book versus a blood transfer that would imply liquid blood…

      You said: “The more or less exact markings of the scourge wounds on the back actually are the proof that the body was washed, otherwise the edges would be smeared.”

      Read my hypothesis again (based on Barbet’s ideas) and you will see that the blood transfer I proposed, that would come from exudates of re-moistened blood clots, would not produce any smudges on the cloth, but on the contrary, would produce a very precise Mirror imprint just like we see on the Shroud. And I know this by experience! Remember the experience I’ve done with a dried blood clot that had formed on my arms about 5 hours before? I just had to put some saliva over it and it was enough to produce a very precise Mirror imprint of the wound on a paper without any smear or smudge! This is a good proof that the kind of blood transfer proposed by Barbet (which is totally different than the one proposed by Zugibe, unless they would have leave the body alone for several minutes after the washing) is able to explain the precise scourge wounds on the Shroud.

      I think your opinion on the subject is somewhat biased by the idea that the metal balls or the bones at the end of the flagrum would not have produced any superfical cuts on the skin, which I think it’s false, just by looking at the scourge marks. If there would have not been any superficial cutting of the skin there, there would not have been any blood clots over the contusions wounds and consequently, there would not have been any blood markings on the cloth. I think it’s fair to conclude that some superficial cuttings in the form of a dumbbell must have been produced by the flagrum, which would have caused some bleeding and eventually many blood clots over these wounds later on… If we don’t agree on this, it’s evident that we would never be able to agree on the kind of blood transfer that occurred on the cloth.

    • Yannick Clément
      July 30, 2013 at 9:08 am

      Last note to jesterof: I hope you can agree with me that the idea that the body would have been left alone without anyone touching it for several minutes after a potential washing is far from being probable in the context of the hasty burial of Jesus… That’s important because, if Zugibe was right, this is the only way the after-washing oozing of post-mortem blood he proposed could have produced a precise mirror imprint on the cloth. Effectively, it’s only if the body would have been left alone for a quite long time (left completely alone… not rub with burial products or any other action that would have produced some touching of the body) that the liquid oozing of blood could have clot enough to become enough “solid” to produce the kind of mirror imprints we see for the scourge marks. Again, such an idea, in the context of the Shroud man, is very improbable… And if we use Occam’s razor, we must conclude that the hypothesis proposed by me and Barbet is much more probable in such a context.

  24. Hugh Farey
    July 30, 2013 at 7:58 am

    OK, Here goes…

    1- If Zugibe’s hypothesis is correct, how can you rationally explain the absence of any smudge on the Shroud, especially in the back region where there was obviously an intense body weight pressure that was active on the cloth? I don’t think pressure in itself will produce smudges, if the body is not moved. If the scourge marks are not deep cuts, but contusions or grazes (even if some of the skin has been scoured off), then the surfaces would exude not liquid blood, but, as Zugibe describes it “an oozing of bloody material,” which I take to mean the seepage that you find on a healing wound after pulling off a scab. It could be quite viscous, and it may be the clarity of the marks is because of, not in spite of, the pressure. Zugibe’s wound photos are not particularly relevant here, but his upper photo does not show blood flow, only transfer from the wound to paper towel. I don’t think the scourge wounds would have been as bloody myself. His lower photos are of actual holes, and they are the ones oozing blood.

    2- If Zugibe’s hypothesis is correct, how can you rationally explain that there appeared to be no scourge stain that tend to follow the herringbone weave pattern of the cloth?
    This depends on the viscosity of the liquid, which depends primarily on its water content. Barbet was, I suppose, dripping fresh blood directly onto a cloth. The Lavoies’ experiments on the transfer of blood from plastic to cloth after half an hour showed remarkably that the blood clots did not spread out at all, unless it was specifically moistened beforehand. Having said that, since the plasma part of the blood is invisible to the naked eye, we do not know that it has not spread out along the fibres by capillary action.

    3- If Zugibe’s hypothesis is correct, how can you rationally explain the presence of distinct halos of serum around much of the scourge marks?
    I wish you could see Miller and Pellicori’s photos. There are NO “distinct haloes of serum” around the scourge marks. There are some indistinct fluorescent bordering areas, which are entirely consistent with some serum seeping out into the fibres by capillary action.

    4- If Zugibe’s hypothesis is correct, how can you rationally explain the presence of some precise scourge marks at less than 2 cm of an evident post-mortem blood flow, while you know that it was against Jewish law to remove or disturb such a post-mortem blood and while you also know that if there was a washing, it would have been done rapidly (you even mention in a previous post that the washing was most probably “not done very thoroughly”)?
    Just for you, I have laid a trail of ketchup on my kitchen table, and then smeared more ketchup onto the table close to it. I can confirm that I can remove the entire smear, without disturbing the original trail, with a few pieces of absorbent paper towel. If there happened to scourge marks under the smear, they would have been exposed by my wiping.

    • Yannick Clément
      July 30, 2013 at 12:59 pm

      Hugh, I will answer your points one by one :

      1- You said that you don’t think the pressure in itself would produce smudges if the body was not moved. Ok, but here’s the truth: the body WAS moved! It had to! Seriously, do you think they placed the body inside the Shroud right on the little stone bench that was carved in the rock of the tomb? Of course not! First, they must have placed the body inside the Shroud in a central place in the tomb where there was enough space to do that (especially the covering of the frontal part of body) and then, they must have moved the enshrouded body to his final resting place, which was most probably, as I said, a stone bench carved inside one of the wall of the tomb. That’s you first bad understanding of the burial context. Just with this moving of the enshrouded body, if the scourge marks would have been caused by an oozing of bloody material in liquid form instead of exudates of moistened blood clots, it’s evident that some smears and smudges would have been produced on the cloth. There is absolutely none on the Shroud! Using Occam’s razor, the most probable way for this to happen is still the kind of transfer described by Barbet, Adler, Lavoie, etc., which is a transfer coming from still moistened or, more probably, from re-moistened blood clots. Also, in your comment, you completely disregard how Zugibe did his transfer experiment, i.e. with only a gentle touch of the oozing of bloody material in liquid form (look again at figure 1 in his paper and you’ll clearly see that the bloody oozing was not solid and was not looking like a blood clot, but instead, was looking like an small oozing of liquid post-mortem blood). As I said, of course, with that kind of gentle touch that exclude high pressure, you can obtain a pretty good imprint on a piece of fabric! BUT… That’s not at all the situation that would have been present on the back region when they would have placed the body that would have been recently washed on one part of the Shroud! NOT AT ALL! Zugibe completely failed to reproduce this very particular condition and that’s one of the biggest mistake he made. You just can’t pretend having obtain a very good result that look like the scourge wounds on the Shroud if your transfer experiment doesn’t account for the high pressure that was present on all the back region, due to the body weight! Sorry but only exudates from moistened blood clots can produce a precise mirror imprint with no smears or smudges in such a context. This fact, alone, should be enough for you to rethink your conclusion and start thinking that Barbet et al. were maybe right after all…
      2- Barbet never pretend that the bloodstains made from pre-mortem blood clots were obtained with some liquid blood but with an exudates of re-moistened blood clots, probably due to the damp atmosphere inside the tomb and inside the Shroud, as well as a very probable released of water vapor by the dead body. This is the only way, in my mind, you can obtain such precise mirror imprints, especially in areas like the buttocks and the back region, where there was a high pressure due to the body weight. Concerning the Lavoie experiment, the simple fact that some moisture was needed on the clots in order to produce a good imprint is a good confirmation of the validity and the strength of Barbet’s hypothesis (which is pretty much the same as mine). Again, if Zugibe was correct about the oozing of liquid post-mortem blood, it’s evident that there would have been a tendency for the scourge marks to follow the weave pattern of the cloth, while we don’t see that on the Shroud. And again, let me ask you to check another look at the result of Zugibe with a paper towel… Don’t you see some clear lines going off the central stain because the blood material had some tendency to follow the pattern of the paper towel, even though he touched it very gently? I see it easily and you must see it also… The stain look a bit like a little star with those small lines of blood going away from the central stain. We don’t see that on the Shroud concerning the scourge wounds (and also concerning any other bloodstains coming from pre-mortem blood, like the blood flows in the hair or on the forearms).

      Ok, that’s all for today. I don’t have enough time to answer your 2 other points. I will tomorrow morning… Just be patient!

      • July 30, 2013 at 1:42 pm

        I think your reasoning is logical and has a good probability of being correct. However may I ask you, and everyone else here, to stop appealing to Occam’s Razor. There are too many unknowns and variables with the Shroud to apply Occam’s Razor. When both sides of an opposing argument can appeal to it it demonstrates its irrelevance to the discussion.

        Sorry, it’s a small pet peeve.

      • Yannick Clément
        July 30, 2013 at 2:11 pm

        I just use Occam’s razor when I bring in a scenario which I think is obviously the more probable or, on the contrary, is obviously much more improbable. But I agree that what is obviously improbable or very probable to me is not always seen like that by everyone else. I just hope there will be some open-minded people, like you seem to be, who will read my arguments in favor of Barbet’s hypothesis concerning the blood transfer that occurred on the Shroud (without the help of any washing) and will come up to the same conclusion as me (even if some might had a tendency to favored Zugibe’s hypothesis in the past): this is the most probable scenario in the case of the blood transfer that occurred on the Shroud, including the scourge marks. By the way, to my knowledge, Barbet, Lavoie, Adler and others medical or blood experts have never considered the possibility that the pre-mortem bloodstains on the Shroud could have come from more than a single transfer mode, unlike what jesterof and Hugh seem to believe… And the presence of a serum halo around a vast majority of all these pre-mortem bloodstains (sorry for Hugh but Pellicori and Miller were clear about that fact, even though it’s truly possible that in many cases, you don’t see a perfectly round serum halo) in the best clue we have to think that, effectively, all these bloodstains were transferred to the cloth with the same exact transfer mode.

      • Yannick Clément
        July 30, 2013 at 2:13 pm

        I write again my last sentence because there was a typing mistake: And the presence of a serum halo around a vast majority of all these pre-mortem bloodstains (sorry for Hugh but Pellicori and Miller were clear about that fact, even though it’s truly possible that in many cases, you don’t see a perfectly round serum halo) IS the best clue we have to think that, effectively, all these bloodstains were transferred to the cloth with the same exact transfer mode (exudates of still moistened or re-moistened blood clots).

    • Yannick Clément
      July 30, 2013 at 3:46 pm

      Hugh, I got some time to answer your point #3:

      As I said to David, even though it’s truly possible that in many cases, you don’t see a perfectly round serum halo around many scourge marks, this cannot be taken as a fact that goes against the hypothesis of Barbet, Adler and Lavoie of a transfer from exudates of still moistened or re-moistened blood clots… Not at all in fact. Look… It’s evident that, in the case of tiny blood clots such as the dumbbell-shape scourge wounds, you have evidently more chance that not a lot of the serum was able to transfer and stain the cloth around the stains of blood exudates. So, if it’s true (I don’t know for sure about that but I assume you’re right) that, around many scourge marks, you cannot see a perfectly rounded serum halo, that surely not mean that these stains do not come from exudates of still moistened or re-moistened blood clots.

      And here’s the main point versus this subject: To my knowledge, no Shroud researcher (not even Zugibe!) has ever been able to produce a bloodstain on a piece of fabric (linen or something else) that would be made of post-mortem blood and that would present the same kind of serum halo than those that were clearly seen around a vast majority of pre-mortem bloodstains (including most of the scourge marks) by Miller and Pellicori on their UV fluorescent photos.

      Have you noticed how Zugibe kept a dead silence concerning the fact that there really is an halo of serum around most of the scourge marks on the Shroud, as well as he kept a dead silence versus the fact that he was probably not able to reproduce such serum halos with the oozing of post-mortem blood he used for his transfer experiments? This dead silence speak very loud to me! And if I’m wrong about that, then explain to me why he do not said a damn word concerning this crucial question!!! To me, it’s evident he wasn’t able to reproduced these clear stains that surround most of the scourge marks because if he would have been able to achieve that feat with post-mortem blood (I really don’t think this is scientifically possible anyway), he would surely have talked about that in his paper.

  25. jesterof
    July 30, 2013 at 3:53 pm

    Yannick Clément :
    Last note to jesterof: I hope you can agree with me that the idea that the body would have been left alone without anyone touching it for several minutes after a potential washing is far from being probable in the context of the hasty burial of Jesus… That’s
    important because, if Zugibe was right, this is the only way the after-washing oozing of post-mortem blood he proposed could have produced a precise mirror imprint on the cloth. Effectively, it’s only if the body would have been left alone for a quite long time (left completely alone… not rub with burial products or any other action that would have produced some touching of the body) that the liquid oozing of blood could have clot enough to become enough “solid” to produce the kind of mirror imprints we see for the scourge marks. Again, such an idea, in the context of the Shroud man, is very improbable… And if we use Occam’s razor, we must conclude that the hypothesis proposed by me and Barbet is much more probable in such a context.

    No, I would not agree.

    • Yannick Clément
      July 30, 2013 at 4:42 pm

      Of course…

  26. jesterof
    July 30, 2013 at 3:58 pm

    “3- If Zugibe’s hypothesis is correct, how can you rationally explain the presence of distinct halos of serum around much of the scourge marks?
    I wish you could see Miller and Pellicori’s photos. There are NO “distinct haloes of serum” around the scourge marks. There are some indistinct fluorescent bordering areas, which are entirely consistent with some serum seeping out into the fibres by capillary action.”

    Why on earth SHOULD NOT there be a “serum halo”?

    plasma is integral part of any bloody material and postmortem blood contains it too.

    This one “objection” I had addressed already at least three times , but Yannick keeps repeating it again and again and again – clearly he does not know what he is talking about.

    • Yannick Clément
      July 30, 2013 at 4:44 pm

      Look… Around the vast majority of the scourge marks on the Shroud, there are halos of serum. THIS IS A FACT. And you want to know another one: It’s virtually impossible to reproduce such serum halos with an oozing of post-mortem blood. If I’m wrong, then I dare you to show me a proof of this…

  27. jesterof
    July 30, 2013 at 4:08 pm

    “1- If Zugibe’s hypothesis is correct, how can you rationally explain the absence of any smudge on the Shroud, especially in the back region where there was obviously an intense body weight pressure that was active on the cloth? I don’t think pressure in itself will produce smudges”

    Pressure does not produce any smudges and Zugibe has never addressed the scourge marks and never said they were “oozing liquid blood”.

    Because they were not.

    They started oozing to the cloth only when the pressure was applied – in the tomb, after the body was already buried. Scourge marks are the blunt wounds, which means that they have mostly bruising , or hematomas inside the skin – the scratches and rips are there, too, but it is sub-epidermal, sub-dermal or intradermal hematomas which resemble the shape of the flagrum, not the rips or cuts. The rips and cuts are the outflow route for the hematomas to sip out when pressure is applied while laying the body.

    The more or less uniform shapes of the scourge marks are the exact proof of this, not the other mechanism.
    Plus this can happen only if the body is washed, otherwise there would not be any similar shapes but one bloody/dirty cloth.

    • Yannick Clément
      July 30, 2013 at 4:52 pm

      “Pressure does not produce any smudges”

      My answer: try this at home with some liquid blood on your back ! THIS IS LUDICROUS. Of course their would have been a lot of smudges is Zugibe was correct and an oozing of liquid post-mortem blood would have stained the Shroud after the removal of the blood clots by a washing of the body. This is so evident that thinking otherwise is ludicrous, except if you think that the washed body was left alone for several minutes after the washing in order for the oozing of liquid blood to clot enough, so it could avoid to produce evident smudges when a big pressure would be applied on them… That’s the only rational scenario to avoid big smudges with Zugibe’s transfer mode but, in the context of the Shroud, IF WE USE OCCAM’S RAZOR CORRECTLY, it’s evident that such a scenario is very improbable. Remember that the Shroud man’s burial was incomplete and done in haste…

    • July 30, 2013 at 4:56 pm

      I’ve brought this up before, so please indulge me. But what would be the effect on the body if it was not washed but had been rained on? Perhaps the rain lands more heavily on some areas than others. It leaves the head wetter because the hair retains moisture. The rain washes some blood away, but perhaps causes other wounds to moisten and weep. The rain may have made the body cleaner, though not as clean as a manual washing. It would be sporadic compared to human washing. But it also may have meant the mourners did not feel as obliged to manually wash the body since it had been rain-washed.

      Just thinking out loud here. Total conjecture. But the Gospel does mention a storm (which may not even have been a rain storm) but if it was a rain storm what effect would rain have on a body on a cross, on the wounds? Any thoughts?

      • Yannick Clément
        July 30, 2013 at 5:13 pm

        First David, the idea of rain in Jerusalem during or after Jesus death is a pretty wild guess (a special assumption that is not loved by Occam) and I would certainly bet a lot on this… The fact that the Gospel of Matthew (if I’m correct) is talking about a storm cannot be taken as sure historical fact… It can well be just a litterary creation used in a theological and biblical sense.

        Also, if the body would have been all soaked by rain and put in the Shroud that way, I’m almost sure this would have caused some evident smudges of blood because the water on the body would surely have started to become mixed with the blood material present in the blood clots that were still not completely dried at the moment of the burial. I’m sure that kind of water-blood mixture would have then caused evident smudges and smears on the cloth when the body would have been placed in the Shroud. That’s what I think.

    • Yannick Clément
      July 30, 2013 at 5:04 pm

      “They started oozing to the cloth only when the pressure was applied – in the tomb, after the body was already buried. Scourge marks are the blunt wounds, which means that they have mostly bruising , or hematomas inside the skin – the scratches and rips are there, too, but it is sub-epidermal, sub-dermal or intradermal hematomas which resemble the shape of the flagrum, not the rips or cuts. The rips and cuts are the outflow route for the hematomas to sip out when pressure is applied while laying the body.

      The more or less uniform shapes of the scourge marks are the exact proof of this, not the other mechanism.
      Plus this can happen only if the body is washed, otherwise there would not be any similar shapes but one bloody/dirty cloth.”

      My answer: What you described is not at all related to the hypothesis developed by Zugibe. Let’s consider this as a third one ok?

      Here’s the sure proof of this: Zugibe state this in his paper: “However, if the body was washed, the DRIED BLOOD around the wounds would be removed causing an oozing of bloody material within the wounds resulting in the production of relatively good impressions of the wound.” That’s the heart of Zugibe’s hypothesis. This IS NOT at all the same scenario as the one you described because Zugibe is clear about the fact that he believed there was already DRIED BLOOD (blood clots in sum) on the skin of the Shroud man when his body was carried to the tomb. Barbet, Lavoie and Adler thought the same but had a completely different hypothesis for this transfer of blood material from the skin to the cloth… And it was also different than your own scenario that seem to involved a sort of superficial bleeding UNDER the skin without any cuts made by the metal balls or the skin bones at the end of the leather tongues of the flagrum.

      Question: If your hypothesis was right and a certain pressure would have been needed to produced the precise dumbbell shape marks on the cloth, then how can you explain those located in the frontal part of the body where there was most certainly no pressure whatsoever present on the cloth and on the wounds???

    • Ron
      August 4, 2013 at 9:18 am

      Thanks for this explanation. I was a little confused about the hematomas. But now understand clearly.

      Q; What is it called if only a thin layer of skin is ripped off and blood is emanating slowly and pooling slightly in the wound?

      Thanks,

      R

  28. jesterof
    July 30, 2013 at 4:16 pm

    David Goulet :
    I think your reasoning is logical and has a good probability of being correct. However may I ask you, and everyone else here, to stop appealing to Occam’s Razor. There are too
    many unknowns and variables with the Shroud to apply Occam’s Razor. When both sides of an opposing argument can appeal to it it demonstrates its irrelevance to the discussion.
    Sorry, it’s a small pet peeve.

    Occam’s razor is absolutely inapplicable to this situation, since it is neither enigmatic, not contradictory, nor either-or from one way or the other, and there are many other possibilities which do not contradict each other.

    Patterns of blood staining is one of the fields of forensics and forensic pathology.

    Why does Yannick fail to understand this and makes it a detective story ( which it is not) is hard to grasp. because he is everything, but dumb :-)

    • July 30, 2013 at 4:45 pm

      It’s not a detective story in a pulp fiction sense, but it does share elements found in real police detective work. One gathers evidence, one analyzes it, and forms conclusions accordingly. The Shroud is a mystery and we are trying to solve it – hopefully relying on science and reason, though faith plays its part by adding intuition that can guide science and reason. Being open minded means ‘me’ being open to others’ theories not just them being ‘open’ to mine. This has been a good thread though, very thought provoking.

    • Yannick Clément
      July 30, 2013 at 4:47 pm

      Occam’s razor is truly a good tool when it is used without preconceive notions about a debatable subject like the blood transfer on the Shroud. And of course, the debate is: who is right about that? Barbet-Lavoie-Adler or Zugibe? Sorry but their hypothèses are hard to reconcile in the case of the Shroud.

  29. Yannick Clément
    July 31, 2013 at 8:23 am

    Here’s my answer to Hugh’s point #4 :

    Of course Hugh, it is possible to think that the person who did the washing was a total perfectionist about work and that he was calm and had hands of a surgeon in order to wash the pre-mortem blood at about 1.3 cm from a post-mortem blood flow that he could not even touch or disturb!

    But that’s where Occam’s razor takes all his value! Just by trying to put yourself in this Jew’s shoes (or sandals if you prefer) and you will surely come up with the conclusion that it was a very dangerous and quite unnecessary move to make, especially when you try to beat the clock before the coming of the Sabbath and you do this while you were totally unprepared to do so, because prior to the night before (less than 24 hours), nobody (except Jesus himself and maybe Judas) knew that Jesus would end up on a cross! Seriously and honestly, in such an hasty and unprepared burial context, it’s truly improbable that this anonymous person would have dare to make such a precise washing… This just doesn’t fit right with the context! And I’m not even talking about the true possibility that such a partial washing was not even allowed by the Jewish Law when it come to the dead body of a crucified criminal or the other true possibility reported by Lavoie in a paper he wrote years ago (in 1982 exactly) about the fact (he did a pretty good historical research in order to write down this conclusion) that “if a man dies a violent death and blood his shed, the blood is not washed from the body.”

    Seriously, the presence of some precise scourge marks in the immediate vicinity of one evident post-mortem blood flow should be enough to understand that the body of the Shroud man, if he was Jesus of course, was most probably not washed at all… It’s true that it is possible to make such a precise washing, but it is simply not rational in the particular context of Jesus’ burial, especially when you consider that he had been condemned to the cross as a public criminal. Note that this is precisely the kind of problem that can be better resolved with the use of Occam’s razor and in this case, Occam say that a surgical type of washing could have been performed in the vicinity of the post-mortem blood flows in the lower back region is far from being the most rational and probable scenario in the context of Jesus’ burial…

    Finally, here’s another problematic fact for Zugibe’s hypothesis that we must consider: The surgical washing that would have been needed to remove the dried blood clots over the 2 scourge wounds that are located at 1.7 and 1.3 cm from an evident post-mortem blood flow would have been performed in the lower back region of a man of 5’10” and 175 pounds (more or less), which is an area that would not have been easy to reach! This fact is often forgotten when people discuss the probability level of such a precise washing in this particular place! Obviously, when we consider this additional problem, it’s easy to conclude that such a surgical washing in this zone is very far from being probable.

  30. Yannick Clément
    July 31, 2013 at 8:29 am

    Here, I would like to give my thoughts concerning the 2 major arguments that are constantly brought in to support Zugibe’s hypothesis of a partial washing of the body:

    Argument #1: Logically, we must assume that there was much more clotted blood on the skin of the Shroud man when he died than what is seen on the Shroud (especially in the regions where there were some scourge hits that should have cause some important blood flows coming from the leather tongues) and because we know for a fact that the blood that is on the cloth was able to prevent the formation of a body image on its surface, we have to conclude that if the Shroud man’s body would not have been washed, in a lot of places, no body image would have been imprinted on the cloth because of all the assumed dried blood clots on the skin.

    My answer: I already wrote about that, saying that the idea that clotted blood on the skin could act like a shield during the image formation process, just like the bloodstains on the cloth did, is a shaky premise that is far from being proven, for the simple and good reason that we still don’t know what was the exact image formation mechanism. As I said, if this mechanism involved (even just partially) the released of post-mortem gases (like ammonia) and/or reactive molecules (like lactic acid) that would have come from the presence of some reactive biological substances that would have been left over the skin, the hair and the drying of the intense sweat of the crucified man, then we must conclude that such a mechanism would NOT have been disturbed by the presence of a lot of dried blood clots on the skin. In such a scenario, the release of post-mortem gases and/or reactive molecules would not have encountered any obstacle (except where there would have been already some bloodstains on the cloth) between the surface of the skin, hair or dried blood clots and the surface of the cloth. The outcome of this would have been the formation of a body image even in the places where there would have been some dried blood clots. Logically, in such an image formation process, there would have been no noticeable difference between the coloration of the linen fibers in areas where the skin was free from any blood clots and in areas where there would have been some, since the reactive substances would have been exactly the same. That would explain that we see the entire body of the Shroud man on the cloth, despite the probable fact that there was much more blood (clotted and dry) on his skin than what appears on the Shroud. Also, we must consider this other true possibility: In the kind of image formation process I just described (completely natural by the way), it is truly possible that a portion (hard to quantify) of the assumed post-mortem gases and/or reactive molecules could have come directly from these clots of dry blood that would have been present on the skin of the Shroud man and that would have stayed that way (dry) all along, thus preventing any noticeable bloody imprints on the cloth in these areas, but contributing (a lot?) to the formation of a body image in all these places where they were still stuck to the skin (or the hair). Last note on the subject: If it would be true that any clotted blood present on the body would have acted like a shield during the image formation process, thus preventing the formation of a body image in these areas, then you must explain to me why most of the hair of the Shroud man was able to “produce” an image on the cloth, while it is pretty evident that there was much more blood (dry) that was present there than what appeared on the Shroud and while it is also pretty evident that the hair WAS NOT WASHED since all the bloodstains in the area of the head (both on the frontal and on the dorsal side of the cloth) are showing all the characteristics of blood that was shed while the Shroud man was still in a vertical position of crucifixion!!! The simple fact that the image of the hair was able to be imprinted on the Shroud while it’s evident that no washing of the hair occurred prior the deposit of the body inside the Shroud should be enough for you to understand that the argument #1 is most certainly wrong. Note that the same exact reflection is also true for the region of the forearms where we can also see pre-mortem blood flows, even though it’s evident that no washing was performed there, because of the direction of these blood flows that are all consistent with a vertical position of crucifixion… But despite these very strong arguments that are going against the argument #1, it is mainly on this particular premise that Zugibe based his whole partial washing hypothesis!!! I hope now you will understand better why this argument and the whole partial washing hypothesis doesn’t satisfy me at all…

    Argument #2: There was surely a lot of dirt covering a good portion of the body of the Shroud man when he get to the tomb and this would have prevent any precise blood transfer on the cloth if no washing of the body would have been done.

    My answer: Again, to contradict this argument, we can firstly reflect upon the blood transfer that occurred in the regions of the head and the forearms! Since it’s evident that no washing was performed there (for the reason I gave you in the previous point), we must then assume that there were most probably not a lot of dirt stains in these whole areas when the body was laid in the Shroud. Or else, it’s evident that a lot of dirt would have prevents a major part (if not all) of the blood transfer that occurred there. So, if we can conclude with some insurance that the head and the forearms were probably mostly free from dirt stains, why would we have to think otherwise for the rest of the body? I truly think that the assumption that the body would have been covered with dirt stains all over it when the corpse would have reached the tomb is a very special assumption that can be logically contradict (or at least challenged) by these historical and archaeological facts related to the Passion of Jesus: 1- Jesus was probably scourged and beaten in the Roman Antonia fortress or in the palace of Pilate, and it’s fair to assume that this was not done in a dirty and sandy place but on a stone paving. Then, Jesus had to carried his cross all the way to the place of crucifixion and probably felt to the ground a few times. That’s when many people assume that his body could have become very dirty… But these people forget one important historical fact: Jesus’ body was covered during this walk to Golgotha by a long tunic! Because of this, it is not so sure that his body could have become very dirty during this walk, even if we consider as very probable that he could have fall to the ground a few times. And even if we still think that his body would have become dirty anyway during that walk, we must consider another very probable medical fact: Especially in the minutes prior to his death on the cross, the body of a crucified man produced a very intense sweating that was literally like a shower! Such an intense sweating would certainly have been enough to remove a good portion of the supposed dirt stains that could have been left on the body after the walk to Golgotha. Of course, we must assume that no important dirt staining occurred while the crucified man was on the cross, since all his body was placed over the ground. Finally, some persons think that a new dirt staining occurred when the body was removed from the cross and probably laid on the ground. But again, these persons forget another important archaeological fact: The place of execution known as the Golgotha was not a hill of sand but a rocky elevation outside the walls of Jerusalem! We know this from the archaeological finding of this place, which is located nearby the Holy Sepulchre Basilica in Jerusalem. So, even if the body would really have been placed on the ground for some time before it was carried to the tomb, we must assume that this ground was in fact a rock! On such a rocky surface, it’s not very hard to presume that no important dirt staining of the body would have occurred. Then, for the moving of the body to the tomb, it’s not hard to believe that this was done by a few men and maybe with the help of a cloth that would have been twisted under the lower back region in order to facilité le déplacement of the body. Again, in such a context, we must assume that no important dirt staining of the corpse would have been done prior to its arrival to the rock tomb. So, if this reflection of mine is correct (note: this reflection is mainly based on historical and archaeological facts and not just my imagination), then we can conclude that the corpse that reached the tomb was not very dirty, except for the 3 areas where STURP have found some evident traces of dirt, i.e. the region of the ankle, the region of the left knee and the nose areas. This kind of minor dirt staining would not have been enough to prevent most of the blood transfer and most of the image formation process that eventually occurred on the Shroud. Final note: if you don’t agree with this reflection, that’s ok. But I still hope you will seriously consider the first argument I gave you at the beginning of this point, which shows that there was most probably not a great quantity of dirt in the regions of the forearms and on the head… Concerning this argument of mine, let me ask you again this crucial question: Since it’s very probable that the areas of the head and the forearms were mostly free of dirt stains when the body was laid in the Shroud, even though it’s evident that no washing was done there, then why thinking that it was different for the rest of the body?

    Important note: Even though I’m still truly convinced that there was no partial washing performed on the body of the Shroud man before he was placed in the Shroud (because of the probable fact that it was an hasty burial, the probable fact that it was against Jewish Law to wash even partially the blood stained body of someone who died a violent death, and also the fact that there are some scourge marks in the immediate vicinity of an evident post-mortem blood flow in the lower back region), I have to admit that after reflecting upon jesterof comment of yesterday, the hypothesis of blood transfer he described is truly interesting! And I wonder if there would be a way that we could make an unwashed body fit with that kind of transfer… For example, is it possible that the most probable intense sweating of the Shroud man just before his death on the cross could have been enough to “wash” the areas where these contusion wounds were located, so that an oozing of blood could have occurred later on, while the body was placed inside the Shroud, and cause, with the help of some natural and/or manual pressure, the very precise dumbbel shape imprints we can see?

    Nevertheless, because it’s very hard for me to believe that a contusion that would have only provoke some under-the-skin bleeding with no superficial cutting and bleeding of the skin could have eventually caused an oozing of blood on the skin, along with an oozing of clear serum on its fringes, I still think the hypothesis proposed by Barbet and me concerning the scourge marks on the Shroud is the most rational and probable… Having said this, I still admit that jesterof’ hypothesis is truly interesting but he would need to show me some proofs of this by making (or showing me) a blood transfer experiment that would give the same result has we see on the Shroud, INCLUDING THE PRESENCE OF A SERUM HALO around most of the scourge wounds. I can believe quite easily that the transfer process he described could eventually cause a precise bloody imprint on a cloth if there is enough pressure put on the contusion and on the cloth, but, as I said, I doubt that such a transfer could also cause some oozing of clear serum almost each time and that this serum would not be mixed with the oozing of blood, thus making it impossible to distinguish from the bloodstain on the cloth. It’s very important to understand that Pellicori and Miller had no problem to distinguish these two very different stains on their UV fluorescence photos…

    Honestly, the observation reported by Miller and Pellicori that “many scourges have fluorescing bordering areas” (this was reported for the back region) is seen by me (and also by Lavoie and Adler) as a clear sign of a blood transfer done with exudates of moistened blood clots because such an evident separation of the blood and the serum on the cloth must have come from the clot retraction process that could only have been active on the skin. Even though it is maybe possible that there could be a separation of blood and serum for a bleeding under the skin, I seriously doubt that an oozing of these two substances could form the kind of stains observed by Miller and Pellicori, which shows a bloodstain surrounded by a serum stain that is easy to distinguish from the bloodstain… If I’m wrong about that, then jesterof must show me some images where we can see a bloodstain on a piece of fabric that would have been formed the way he described and that would show a clear serum stain on its fringes (a stain that we can easily distinguish from the central bloodstains).

    Last thing: The absence of potassium in the blood from the Shroud could be seen, as Adler said, as another good clue to think the bloodstains on the cloth came from exudates of moistened blood clots and not from the kind of transfer proposed by jesterof. But having said this, I still wonder if this absence of potassium is a proven fact for the blood that caused the scourge marks or if it is just a proven fact for some other bloodstains (like the pre-mortem blood flows of the arms or the post-mortem blood flows in the lower back region)… I would like to get a precise information about that. On that question, it would be nice to know where exactly came the blood sample (or samples) that was (were) analyzed by Adler. If someone got the answer, please share it with us!

    One thing’s for sure: I hope jesterof will answer this previous question of mine: I wonder if there would be a way that we could make an unwashed body fit with that kind of transfer… For example, is it possible that the most probable intense sweating of the Shroud man just before his death on the cross could have been enough to “wash” the areas where these contusion wounds were located, so that an oozing of blood could have occurred later on, while the body was placed inside the Shroud, and cause, with the help of some natural and/or manual pressure, the very precise dumbbel shape imprints we can see?

    • July 31, 2013 at 9:22 am

      Excellent analysis, Yannick. Some of it made me reflect again on the idea of rain being involved. One of the reasons I’d felt rain wasn’t a good theory is because it would have created mud at the foot of the cross and this mess would likely have found its way onto the body and Shroud. But if it was mostly rocky, as you point out, this is another matter.

      The rain may have been short-lived, just enough to ‘wash’ the body to some degree (the rain’s angle, intensity and position of the body relative to it are the unknown variables). It dries up again by the time Jesus is removed from the cross.

      I don’t think your sweat-wash idea works. I have lived in very humid countries and played sports in them. I would sweat like crazy. But the sweat never acted the same as a ‘wash’. If it anything it merely further cakes any dirt on your body. I also wonder if a severely dehydrated body, as Jesus’ surely was, would have been able to produce that much sweat anyway.

      By the way, I’m not convinced the reference to a storm is a literary device. We accept so many other details of the Gospel Passion accounts as mostly factual. The detail about there being an earthquake is considered a possible fact by some (including the damage to the veil in the Temple), so I don’t see why the storm detail couldn’t be factual as well.

      Perhaps I should apply Occam’s Razor to my rain theory? :)

      • Yannick Clément
        July 31, 2013 at 11:08 am

        First, let me remind you that the reference to a storm in the Bible is very often related to a manifestation of God! When you’re aware of this, it is not difficult to assume that Matthew add such a thing in his Passion account as a pictorial way to state that the death of Jesus was another kind of manifestation of God… Seriously, I doubt that the storm was truly an historical fact, mainly because of the literrary context of the Gospel account in which we found this mention.

        Now, concerning my idea of an intense sweating being able to “wash” the zones where the dumbbel shape wounds were located, I have to say that by doing that, I was playing the game of jesterof (very willingly I must admit, because I think his hypothesis for blood transfer is interesting). But here’s the fact: Barbet in his book reports that, in the concentration camp of Dashau during WWII, the Nazi tortured and killed some prisonners by strapping their hands with cords and by lifting them off the ground. He said that near the moment of death by suffocation (which is the most probable cause of death for the Shroud man), a very intense sweating occurred which was so intense that it was very much like a shower and was able to cause a small puddle of water on the ground! Look, even myself, I almost experimented this when I had some form of a shock after having receive a vaccination when I was Young. I remember that I almost get unconscious and while I was seeing dark, a very intense sweating occurred that wet my cloths in an incredible manner. So, I have no problem to believe Barbet on this point…

        So, along with the true possibility that the body was much less dirty after the crucifixion than many persons think, I believe this kind of “shower of sweat” that could well have occurred at the time of death could have been enough to “wash” the regions where the scourge marks are located, thus contributing to help these wounds to stained the Shroud later on (and I believe this even in the case jesterof’s hypothesis would be correct instead of mine). In sum: I don’t think a partial washing was essential for the transfer of the scourge wounds, no matter if the best hypothesis is the one proposed by jesterof or mine.

      • Yannick Clément
        July 31, 2013 at 12:01 pm

        Additional note : The opinion I just expressed in the previous comment is mainly based on my personal conclusion that the body of the Shroud man was probably not very dirty when he reached the tomb, before his enshrouding (and this is true in my mind no matter if there was or not an intense sweating). People can read my arguments about that in the point #2 of my comment #51 above.

  31. Yannick Clément
    July 31, 2013 at 1:05 pm

    After more reflection, I must admit that, because I’m pretty sure there was no partial washing of the body (for the numerous good reasons I already exposed), I have to admit that my own hypothesis seem to be more probable than the one proposed by jesterof for one good reason: Even if there was an intense sweating before the death of the Shroud man, we have to think that there were still some ancient blood flows stuck to the skin of the man after death (coming from the leather tongues of the previous scourging) and, if that’s really the case, it would have most probably been much easier for these ancient blood flows to covered many wounds in the form of a dumbbell if these wounds would only have been contusion without any cutting of the skin. I Wonder what jesterof would think of my analysis (if he could, for a second, imagine that there was no washing). I still believe that, in such a context, the hypothesis proposed by Barbet could work because I believe these external clotted wounds could have stayed uncovered with the blood coming from the blood flows of the leather tongues, thus becoming able to eventually stain the cloth if their surface would have become moistened again…

    • July 31, 2013 at 1:31 pm

      Though I have not put the hours of research into this, as both you and jesterof have, I do find the washing theory less compelling. You have raised good points about Jesus being clothed in a tunic when he trudged (and fell) to Golgotha. This would have indeed kept the dust of the city streets off much of his body, and rock paths are not as prone to producing grime as sandy ones. The sweat-wash I’m still not sold on but certainly sweat would have been a contributing factor. So many variables, most of which we can never know one way or another. What details might the Gospels have missed, or left out for some reason?

      God must love jigsaw puzzles.

  32. Yannick Clément
    July 31, 2013 at 2:06 pm

    And I think that, among many other things, the most compelling piece of evidence concerning the fact that the body was unwashed come from the historical study done by Lavoie et al., in which they conclude that normally, it was part of a normal Jewish burial to wash a dead body but that there was one important exception to this rule : when the body in question was the one of a dead man who had died of a violent death. Lavoie et al. don’t talk about that but I would not be surprise to learn that this was even more true when the body in question was the one of a criminal who just died on the cross! It would be very logical if this kind of blood stained body would have been left totally unwashed…

    Having said that, I must admit that the potential problem coming from the probable clotted blood flows that could well have been present in the regions where we see scourge marks in the form of a dumbbell and that could have covered up many of these dumbbell shape wounds is not easy to resolve once you admit that there was most probably no washing at all… But I still think the probability is good that these dumbbell shape wounds could have got infected during the crucifixion and this could have been the most important factor that lead to their imprint on the cloth…

  33. daveb of wellington nz
    July 31, 2013 at 9:54 pm

    The “rain-storm” is an invention, and sure, it made the film version more dramatic. The synoptics mention an earthquake, and that the sky was darkened, Luke incorrectly interpreting it as the sun being eclipsed. The likeliest explanation was one of the frequent dust-storms blowing from northern Africa. If you want to write a novel, bring in a rain-storm by all means. But there’s no scriptural evidence for it, even if it was the spring season.

    • Yannick Clément
      August 1, 2013 at 8:33 am

      The earthquake is also most probably a litterary invention used by the Gospel writters as a symbolical way to describe an intervention of God. Read again the Old Testament and you’ll see that it was pretty usual to see an earthquake or a thunder storm to described in symbolical terms God’s intervention on earth. It would be a very bad mistake to take all these things that described a manifestation of God as being a sure historical fact… A very bad mistake.

    • Yannick Clément
      August 1, 2013 at 8:53 am

      To complete my thoughts, I just want to say that if we could not find any reference to a thunder storm or an earthquake in the Old Testament in the context of an earthly intervention of God for his people Israel, it would be much easier to believe these references that we find in the Gospels accounts of the Passion concerning an earthquake or the darkness (which can be seen as a reference to a storm) can be really historical… But this is far (very far) from being the case! In fact, the images of the earthquake and the darkness (or the storm) are commonly used in the Old Testament to described in a symbolic way an intervention of God. Ask any good bible expert about that and he will tell you the same thing. For this reason, it would be a very big mistake to take all these images for granted and considered them as sure historical facts. Here, it’s important to put things in their right perspective and always keep in mind that ancient Middle Eastern writers had a very strong tendency to use images as a way to described spiritual realities (just like Jesus himself did with all his parables).

    • August 1, 2013 at 9:51 am

      I suppose if there had been a significant rain this would have been mentioned in the Gospels more specifically – simply because it would have been, as we’ve said, very dramatic. I mean if Gibson added it because of its incredible symbolism, I’m sure the Gospel writers would have certainly put it front and center too. When reality provides a perfect symbol, you use it in the foreground. When it doesn’t, you add it artistically to the backdrop.

      • Yannick Clément
        August 1, 2013 at 10:43 am

        Your reflection is probably true in most cases, especially if the writer in question was on location, as an eye-witness of the event he discribed. In this context, yes, it’s probable that he could have used some material realities that could speak loud to his readers. On this subject, it’s very important to understand that, beside St John, the other 3 Gospel writers were most probably not on location as eye-witnesses of Jesus’ Passion, death and entombment. Note also that St John, as the only writer who was an eye-witness doesn’t talk about a storm or darkness or an earthquake…

        And concerning the 3 others writers, I seriously doubt that they were very interested to described in details the real temperature on Golgotha that day… They were much more interested to described the spiritual reality that was going on at that moment (i.e. the revelation of the true face of God – Love and Mercy and nothing else – and the revelation that the eternal Salvation of all humanity was real and not a joke).

  34. Yannick Clément
    August 1, 2013 at 8:33 am

    After the long brainstorming we did in the last few days on the subject of the scourge marks and the blood transfer on the Shroud (which is, by the way, one of my favorite subject versus the Shroud), I can now summarize my thoughts like this :

    1- I’m more convinced than ever that there was no washing of the body (partial or complete) that had been done prior to the deposit of the body in the Shroud.
    2- I’m more convinced than ever that the dead body was not very dirty when he reached the tomb and the only areas that were really dirty are probably only those where some dirt was found on the Shroud (i.e. the regions of the ankle, the left knee and the nose), along with probably the palms of the hands. I’m pretty sure all these dirt stains only happened when the Shroud man felt on his way to Golgotha and no other important staining came after that.
    3- I’m more convinced than ever that the whole hypothesis described by Zugibe is incorrect.
    4- I’m still unsure about who is correct between me and jesterof, but I tend to still favored mine, mainly because of the presence of serum halos around many scourge marks (on the back region as well as on the frontal region, if we trust Pellicori and Miller observations), which are very characteristic of external blood clots that had time to become solid enough through a clot retraction process. Reminder: jesterof’ hypothesis involved a post-mortem oozing of blood material through a skin that would have only been contused (and not cut) by the metal balls or animal bones located at the end of the leather tongues of the flagrum. In such a context that would not have involved a clot retraction process, it is hard for me to believe that a transfer through the skin like that could have produce the same kind of very distinguishable serum stains on the Shroud that are located at the vicinity of the bloodstains instead of being mixed within the blood. On the contrary, I have no difficulty to believe such a transfer process could produce very precise blood imprints… But I have a strong tendency to believe such bloodstains would not show the same kind of very distinguishable serum stains around the scourge marks like it is visible on the UV photos. And if I’m wrong about that, then please show me some pictures of that kind of blood transfer that would show the same kind of resulting imprint as we see on the Shroud. Note that Lavoie et al. have been able to reproduce with good success some bloodstains very similar to what we can see on the Shroud with an exudates of moistened blood clots and also made one very important finding: it is much easier to produce a bloodstains with some distinguishable serum stains on their borders while the clot retraction process occurred in a vertical position (which is very coherent with the idea that most (if not all) of the clotting of pre-mortem blood on the Shroud man (including the scourge wounds) occurred while he was still in a vertical position of crucifixion (and this could have happened before death for some stains as well as after death for others, because it’s truly possible that the dead body was kept on the cross for some time after the death of the Shroud man). This finding is another fact that tends to support my hypothesis (which is mainly based on Barbet’s hypothesis).
    5- Since it’s probable that there was no washing, I still wonder what exactly have caused the imprint of most of these scourge wounds on the cloth, even though they were inflicted several hours before the enshrouding of the Shroud man’s body. On this enigma, I still favored the idea of Barbet, who conclude that these wounds could well have stayed somewhat humid a very long time after the scourging because they probably get infected, which would have caused an oozing of lymph (along with maybe other liquids) in the vicinity of these wounds. If Barbet was right about that, there is still one question to resolve: Why the assumed blood flows resulting from the cuttings made by the leather tongues of the flagrum have not been able to completely covered the dumbbell shape wounds after the scourging? Note that if this would have happened and if part of this free blood would have clotted over these wounds, it’s highly probable that none of them would have been able to leave a distinguishable mark on the cloth… I think the most rational way to explain this “mystery” is to think that the probable very intense sweating of the Shroud man prior death was able to wash enough these areas, thus leaving these wounds free of blood flows over them. And if they remained infected for some time after that, I think it’s truly possible that the eventually clotting of these wounds only concerned the wounds and their immediate vicinity, thus producing blood clots over most of them in the shape of a dumbbell. Then, later on, when the body was placed inside the Shroud, these clotted dumbbell shape wounds were able to get re-moistened again on their surfaces and then left a good mirror imprint on the cloth. I still think this is the more probable scenario in the case of the scourge marks, but it’s evident that this represent only a possible explanation, which could only be confirmed one day if an expert could do some more blood transfer experiments, while pushing the work of Lavoie et al. even further… On this subject, I have to say that I found it very sad to note that no one these days seem to care about making such interesting experiments under proper lab control. I’m sure we could get some surprise out of an experiment like that, if it could be done the right way versus the most probable context in which the burial of the Shroud man occurred. Finally, it’s also important to note, as David pointed out the other day, that, along with the 2 probable factors I just described (infection of the wounds with a release of lymph for a long time and a very intense sweating of the Shroud man during his crucifixion that was related to his state of slow and gradual asphyxia, which acted like a shower on his body and his hair), there can be some other unknown factors (not related at all with an improbable partial washing of the body) that could have played an huge part in the fact that these scourge wounds were able to leave a distinct mirror imprint on the cloth… Again, to find them, this would need some experiments under proper lab control done by a CSI or a medical expert.

    If had to summarize my thoughts in one sentence, I would say: I’m still not completely sure what was the most important factor that lead to the bloody imprint of the scourge wounds on the Shroud, but one thing’s for sure: I know it wasn’t due to a partial washing of the body…

    Of course, this is only my ideas on the subject and every one can think otherwise.

    • Ron
      August 1, 2013 at 11:46 am

      Yes, they are your ‘ideas’ and others can and will think otherwise. You claim my idea of the body being covered in dirt by the time it reached the tomb a Special Assumption? LOL. Reading many of your comments, I see numerous Special Assumptions made on your part, so many I have not the time to refute them all. It seems some of my comments go unnoticed in that I think my ‘assumption’ that the body after being taken from the cross would have been laid on the GROUND and thus dirty makes more sense then many of your assumptions. Remember the body needed to be removed from he cross and the nails removed, this may have taken some time and required the body shifted whilst on the ground. Golgotha, the place he was crucified was apparently an old quarry and being so, would have been conducive to LOTS OF DIRT! …Take a body completely covered in blood, even semi-dried blood, roll it around on the ground and witness the miracle that it does get covered in dirt. Special assumption? I think if you use your Occam Razor, you would conclude it is the most probable conclusion. You make the assumption that there was no storm, you make the assumption the whole head area was not washed. You make I believe the assumption that washing, meant scrubbing when it could have simply been careful ‘dabbing’. You make assumptions of how the body was prepared and how or where it was laid. Especially that those completing the burial would have followed the law and not washed the body, and/or that the burial was not complete. I could go on forever here, but I don’t have the time.

      • August 1, 2013 at 12:28 pm

        You raise a good point about the ground and removal of the body. Was the body lain on the ground itself, or perhaps another cloth different than the shroud (the already soiled tunic from the march to Golgotha), or a piece of wood? Dabbing indeed is much different than washing. I agree that if it was Jesus’ followers who removed him from the cross and prepared his body they would not have cared about any prohibition regarding cleaning the corpse of a man condemned as a criminal. To them he was no criminal.

        As always more questions than answers.

      • Yannick Clément
        August 1, 2013 at 1:07 pm

        That’s your opinion… You always stuck to your preconcieved notions while I was open-minded enough to let the door open to jesterof’ hypothesis, nevermind the fact that there was most certainly no washing. Did you read my arguments against a dirty body? It doesn’t seem to me that you did. Here they are (in my answer to argument #2): https://shroudstory.com/2013/07/28/guest-posting-challenging-frederick-zugibe-on-washing-of-the-body/#comment-40188

        Forget about the Golgotha being a rock and consider only my arguments concerning the forearms and head regions that were certainly not washed, and nevertheless, were able to produce a good body imprint, as well as many bloodstains on the cloth. This tells you that these body parts were certainly not very dirty even though they were not washed. So, if it is like that for these body parts, why thinking otherwise for the rest of the corpse (at the exception of the few areas where STURP have found some dirt)?

      • Yannick Clément
        August 1, 2013 at 1:30 pm

        One last rational argument for Ron that goes against is idea of a washing: It is an historical fact that the burial was incomplete (or else, the women who went to the tomb on Sunday morning would had no reason to want to opening it and the Gospels are clear about the fact that they prepared burial spices to complete the job) and it is also an historical fact that Jesus burial on Friday evening was done in haste. In such a context of a high Sabbath that is coming fast, why would they have wanted to lose precious time in order to do a surgical washing of the body (see the picture again on top of this page to be convinced) while they knew full well they had to come back on Sunday morning anyway (i.e. after the Sabbath that they didn’t break by the way, proving that yes, they were all pious Jews who were following the Jewish Law)?

        Since they knew they had to come back and since they wanted to get home before the coming of the high Sabbath (Sabbath during Passover), the most logical move for them would have been to simply laid down the crucified body that was still covered with blood clots (dried and moistened) and some dirt (not much) in the Shroud without tying the cloth with linen strips (because they knew they had to open it again on Sunday morning) and leave it there still naked Inside the Shroud. That’s the most logical scenario in the context of Jesus hasty burial. You can think what you want but that will never change anything about this truth.

        By the way, have you noticed that the Shroud man’s body was still naked at the time of the body image formation? Clotting the dead was also part of the normal burial procedure (note that I’m pretty sure this was not normally part of the burial of a criminal, no more than the washing of the body). So, taking this into account, tell me why they would have done the washing (which was against Jewish Law for someone who died a violent death) and not the clotting? That makes no sense in the context of Jesus burial…

  35. Ron
    August 1, 2013 at 1:25 pm

    David Goulet :
    You raise a good point about the ground and removal of the body. Was the body lain on the ground itself, or perhaps another cloth different than the shroud (the already soiled tunic from the march to Golgotha), or a piece of wood? Dabbing indeed is much different than washing. I agree that if it was Jesus’ followers who removed him from the cross and prepared his body they would not have cared about any prohibition regarding cleaning the corpse of a man condemned as a criminal. To them he was no criminal.
    As always more questions than answers.

    Well I will admit a lot of my thinking comes from the studies wrought from the Sudarium of Oviedo, which some here might refute, but I believe through much reading, was the actual cloth that covered Jesus’s face/head while on the cross and until reaching the tomb. In the studies of the blood traces/flows, they state that the forehead blood trace was caused by the body being placed face down on the ground and against a hard object. They also deduced the body stayed relatively in this state for almost an hour before being turned over and carried to the tomb. As for the washing; to assume it was done in a wiping motion or that some areas were too tight to actually wash, is simply preposterous and yes, I agree that the followers absolutely would not have considered Jesus a criminal and it is quite possible they did not follow the law when it came to such….he was their Rabbi!

    R

  36. Ron
    August 1, 2013 at 1:30 pm

    Yannick Clément :
    That’s your opinion… You always stuck to your preconcieved notions while I was open-minded enough to let the door open to jesterof’ hypothesis, nevermind the fact that there was most certainly no washing. Did you read my arguments against a dirty body? It doesn’t seem to me that you did. Here they are (in my answer to argument #2): https://shroudstory.com/2013/07/28/guest-posting-challenging-frederick-zugibe-on-washing-of-the-body/#comment-40188
    Forget about the Golgotha being a rock and consider only my arguments concerning the forearms and head regions that were certainly not washed, and nevertheless, were able to produce a good body imprint, as well as many bloodstains on the cloth. This tells you that these body parts were certainly not very dirty even though they were not washed. So, if it is like that for these body parts, why thinking otherwise for the rest of the corpse (at the exception of the few areas where STURP have found some dirt)?

    You accuse me of “sticking to preconceived notions” LOL. I’ll leave it to the others here to decide who is STUCK in his PRECONCEIVVED NOTIONS (Ideas).

    R

    • Yannick Clément
      August 1, 2013 at 1:33 pm

      At least, I bring something solid (arguments based on logic and facts). You just bring your preconcieve ideas that are stuck in the glue. By the way, read this : https://shroudstory.com/2013/07/28/guest-posting-challenging-frederick-zugibe-on-washing-of-the-body/#comment-40262

      Note especially the very strong argument I bring you to show you that all of Jesus followers were all pious Jews who wanted to follow the Law, on the contrary of your preconcied idea…

      • Ron
        August 2, 2013 at 11:26 am

        YC; “Note especially the very strong argument I bring you to show you that all of Jesus followers were all pious Jews who wanted to follow the Law, on the contrary of your preconcied idea…” ….Well there you go Yannick, you just answered the million dollar question; Is the Shroud authentic? ….I guess NOT, since Jesus’s followers wouldn’t dare retrieve, let alone touch the bloody Shroud of a dead man, thus breaking the Jewish laws of the time, and being pious men that is. ;- l

        R

      • Yannick Clément
        August 2, 2013 at 1:12 pm

        In order to buried someone, Jewish or not, you MUST touch his dead body Ron! That’s an obligation that was in order at the time Pilate gave his permission to do the burial… And that’s why I don’t think there were many men who did the job because of the ritual uncleanness they had to take by doing so (by the way, an uncleanness requiring only to observe certain rituals to become purify again): 2, 3 persons at the max in my mind. But the reality is this: someone had to do the job and don’t forget that, by doing this, those who did the burial helped the Jewish Law to be respected concerning the legal prohibition to let the body on the cross after sundown. I know there were others manners to observe this rule but no matter what you think, they helped to accomplish the Law that day by placing Jesus’ body in a tomb…

        But in the end, I don’t care: you can keep up thinking Jesus’ followers were not pious Jews… I don’t care even if I know this is completely false. One thing’s for sure: the simple fact that no one of them dared to go to the tomb to finish the job the next day (i.e. Saturday, which was the Sabbath day) should be enough for anyone with an open-mind to understand how pious these Jews who followed Jesus were…

    • Yannick Clément
      August 1, 2013 at 1:37 pm

      Also, since you never answer my simple question, I give it to you again:
      Did you read my arguments against a dirty body? It doesn’t seem to me that you did. Here they are (in my answer to argument #2): https://shroudstory.com/2013/07/28/guest-posting-challenging-frederick-zugibe-on-washing-of-the-body/#comment-40188
      Forget about the Golgotha being a rock and consider only my arguments concerning the forearms and head regions that were certainly not washed, and nevertheless, were able to produce a good body imprint, as well as many bloodstains on the cloth. This tells you that these body parts were certainly not very dirty even though they were not washed. So, if it is like that for these body parts, why thinking otherwise for the rest of the corpse (at the exception of the few areas where STURP have found some dirt)?

      Please, answer this…

  37. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 1, 2013 at 2:58 pm

    In the hypothesis the TS is Yeshua’s and as far as the scourge marks are concerned, the true fact is Zugibe did overlook the Roman soldiers threw a (dry) cloak over Yeshua’s freshly wounded and sweat-covered body just after they had flogged him (= most likely the cloak more or less stuck to his exuding wounds).
    He also did overlook they took the cloak off, most likely causing some of his wounds to exude again, put “his (dry) woollen seamless tunic, woven in one piece”, upon his re-exuding wound-covered body and carried him to Golgotha (= most likely the tunic more or less stuck to most of his wounds).
    Finally he also did overlook that most likely they took the sweat in-soaked tunic off Yeshua’s wound-covered body causing again most of his wounds to re-exudate and crucified him.

    As far as the head wounds are concerned, Zugibe did also overlook/ignore just after Yeshua died, most likely his buriers covered his head with a dry sudarium/soudara.

    In his comments, Yannick keeps overlooking that according to the Gospels, the Hebrew time markers and archaeoastronomy, the MOST LIKELY time frame for Yeshua’s burial is not half an hour but two hours-two hours and a half. He also keeps overlooking the possibility for more than only two buriers (MOST LIKELY 4-6 in a Judean context).
    He also keeps ignoring MOST LIKELY Yeshua’s body was tightly wrapped in shrouds as far as the koine Greek is concerned.
    He also keeps ignoring MOST LIKELY (and to the sole exception of anointing that was postponed), the Judean burial core procedures namely speedy burial, wrapping in shrouds, specific PURIFYING and DRYING were performed to abide by the Halakha (especially when it came not to wash a post-mortem shed blood-covered body) and honour the deceased.

    The TS man’s dry, freshly dried shed blood was not washed PRIOR TO his body being placed on the Shroud. Most likely, it was simply RE-MOISTENED AND DRIED OUT AFTER on a specific purifying and drying ritual so as to be kept with the body.

    • Yannick Clément
      August 1, 2013 at 3:33 pm

      Just one question Max: If the body was tightly wrapped (which is, by the way, completely ludicrous in the context of people who knew they had to come back to the tomb on Sunday morning to finish the burial), then how can you account for the fact that there is almost no evident lateral distortions in the body image that is on the cloth? In my mind (and in the mind of many researchers), if the cloth was not kept somewhat loose over the body, it would be quite impossible to explain this very particular fact about the image…

      • Yannick Clément
        August 1, 2013 at 3:34 pm

        I forget to add this: At least we agree on one point: the body was surely not washed prior to his deposit in the Shroud…

  38. Yannick Clément
    August 1, 2013 at 3:47 pm

    Another good question for you Max: You seem to think that the scourge wounds are mainly due to the re-opening of those when they remove the tunic off Jesus body at the foot of the cross. On this topic, Ron thinks the same by the way. Even though I have no problem believing that this could have been a factor that facilitated the imprint of many of these wounds, I have a logical problem believing that this could have been the main factor for the scourge wounds located on the legs (note: Miller and Pellicori have even reported scourge wounds near the ankle if I remember well and many are evident on the calves)!!!

    Here’s my question: How can you account for the fact that these scourge wounds too have been able to leave a pretty good imprint on the cloth? It’s pretty evident for me that these particular wounds on the legs were NOT stuck to the tunic after the carrying of the cross. Seriously, how can they?

  39. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 1, 2013 at 5:52 pm

    Yannick you wrote:

    “if the body was tightly wrapped (which is, by the way, completely ludicrous in the context of people who knew they had to come back to the tomb on Sunday morning to finish the burial)”.

    What is REALLY ludicrous is to think the shrouds tightly wrapping a body cannot be soaked in spicy oil perfumes to prevent bad smells as in the Judean ethnic milieu of the time, the tradition was to visit the deceased on the three or seven days immediately following death.

    As far as the absence of panoramicity (‘lateral distortion’) is concerned, you also wrote: “how can you account for the fact that there is almost no evident lateral distortions in the body image that is on the cloth? In my mind (and in the mind of many researchers), if the cloth was not kept somewhat loose over the body, it would be quite impossible to explain this very particular fact about the image”.

    The true fact is the presence of solid objects, medical plants and flower heads laterally pressed against the body together with the presence of “small bridges” between body and inner burial cloth could account for truncated panoramicity. The latter doesn’t preclude a tightly wrapped body front and back at all.

    Finally you asked me “How can you account for the fact that these scourge wounds too have been able to leave a pretty good imprint on the cloth? It’s pretty evident for me that these particular wounds on the legs were NOT stuck to the tunic after the carrying of the cross?”

    Most likely his buriers also wrapped around his bleeding pierced feet and lower part of the legs from about the knees with an additional pre-burial cloth when they took down the body from the cross.

    • Max Patrick Hamon
      August 2, 2013 at 2:55 am

      Reminder for Yannick: in my reconstruction of the bloody body image formation process,the long inner burial sheet in-soaked with an aqueous alkaline solution was tightly wrapped up and stuck back and front to the body (lower parts of legs included) before it got gradually unstuck (as the long inner burial got somehow taut again while shrinking via ritual fumigation).

    • Yannick Clément
      August 2, 2013 at 10:42 am

      Max, if all you said would be true and the enshrouded body was really tight up with linen strips or something similar, then explain to me how the shroud that would have been stuck to the body (both front and back, as you say), can later on have become unstuck… I don’t get it. If the cloth was stuck to the body with the help of a tightly wrapped configuration (most certainly done with the use of linen strips or something similar), then how in the world this cloth could have gradually become much looser around the body??? If it was tight up, there’s no way a cloth like that could become much looser, except if the cloth is untight by someone!

  40. jesterof
    August 1, 2013 at 8:28 pm

    Yannick Clément :

    My answer: What you described is not at all related to the hypothesis developed by Zugibe. Let’s consider this as a third one ok?
    Here’s the sure proof of this: Zugibe state this in his paper: “However, if the body was washed, the DRIED BLOOD around the wounds would be removed causing an oozing of bloody material within the wounds resulting in the production of relatively good impressions of the wound.” That’s the heart of Zugibe’s hypothesis. This IS NOT at all the same scenario as the one you described because Zugibe is clear about the fact that he believed there was already DRIED BLOOD (blood clots in sum) on the skin of the Shroud man when his body was carried to the tomb. Barbet, Lavoie and Adler thought the same but had a completely different hypothesis for this transfer of blood material from the skin to the cloth… And it was also different than your own scenario that seem to involved a sort of superficial bleeding UNDER the skin without any cuts made by the metal balls or the skin bones at the end of the leather tongues of the flagrum.
    Question: If your hypothesis was right and a certain pressure would have been needed to produced the precise dumbbell shape marks on the cloth, then how can you explain those located in the frontal part of the body where there was most certainly no pressure whatsoever present on the cloth and on the wounds???

    Why should it be related to Zugibe if he did not address the scourge marks at all?

    • Yannick Clément
      August 2, 2013 at 8:30 am

      Read again Zugibe’s paper (http://www.shroud.com/zugibe2.htm) and you’ll noticed that, right after the introduction, there is a section in which he address the particular question of the imprint of the scourge wounds on the Shroud and it’s pretty different than your own hypothesis. That’s why I prefer to consider yours (which I found much more plausible than Zugibe’s own hypothesis) as being a third hypothesis, after mine (which is based mainly on Barbet’s hypothesis) and Zugibe’s own hypothesis on the subject.

  41. jesterof
    August 1, 2013 at 8:35 pm

    ” And it was also different than your own scenario that seem to involved a sort of superficial bleeding UNDER the skin without any cuts made by the metal balls or the skin bones at the end of the leather tongues of the flagrum.”

    AH! FINALLY! you get it :-)

    because those types of wounds which are called BLUNT do cause bleeding “under the skin” not outside – it is called HEMATOMA.
    Or bruise.

    scratches over those bruises will exist – not uniform, not equal, some cuts, some lacerations, some without any visible disruption.

    I’ve repeated this for the last 4 months and finally you are paying attention )))))

    On a side note – since you clearly do not listen to anybody, but yourself, and this last revelation proves it, I really am tired to continue this “discussion” which is more like you standing on a podium and having a speach – da capo al fine – and it is all the time the smae thesis on your part and you are wrong ; )

    • Yannick Clément
      August 2, 2013 at 8:47 am

      The fact that I’m open-minded versus your hypothesis (which is still probably false because of the halos of serum by the way) prove you that I can listen to someone else than me!!! ;-) Are you able to do the same? I seriously doubt about that. You didn’t even were able to read Zugibe’s paper correctly…

      Question : can you please show me one single proof that the post-mortem oozing of blood material that you proposed would cause serum halos around most of the bloodstains (like we see on the Shroud under UV light and which are clear signs of a blood retraction that occurred ON the skin after the drying of an EXTERNAL blood clot), which would be easy to distinguish (because they would not be mixed up with the blood) on the cloth? I still wait to see this on picture!!! I think I will wait for a very long time… I’m almost certain it would be impossible to get separate serum halos around your bloodstains that would be easy to distinguish on a cloth…

      • jesterof
        August 3, 2013 at 4:44 pm

        you are as closed minded as one can be, becaseu of your IGNORANCE

        “halos of serum” are not proving anything. Zilch. Nada. Zero.

        plasma, or as you call it ,serum is an integral part of blood and it does not disappear magically upon death.
        It is present in ALL bloody fluids – the whole blood, the hemolized blood, the blood-tinged sputum ( which is plasma too), the bloody lymph, the bloody exudates/transsudates of body cavities, the bloody urine, bloody pleyral effusion and so on.

        LEARN the BASICS FIRST if you want to be taken seriously.

        One can be mistakened ONCE, but you have been shown your ignorance so many times, yet you stubbornly persist on “your conception”.

        It is WRONG and it is wrong simply because you are totally ignorant on blood physiology.

        So, before you proceed in getting on that preacher stand of yours, do us all a favor – and study the basics.

  42. daveb of wellington nz
    August 2, 2013 at 12:02 am

    Yannick Clement is so taken up with his own ideas, that he asserts without reason that the earthquake and the darkness were no more than literary devices. All the synoptics refer to the darkness, Luke come-lately, a Greek with less understanding of Judaism and the timing of the Passover festival, wrongly ascribes it to an eclipse, which oddly enough corroborates the fact of the darkness as being a reality, for which there is a rational explanation, a dust-storm. Even John refers to an earthquake, ascribing it to the moving of the boulder against the tomb. This sounds like an after-shock, of which we have had several felt in Wellington over the last week. But there are no earthquakes in Quebec, so they can only be literary devices. Pah! Earthquakes and darkness are fairly public kind of phenomena, and there would be plenty of witnesses around to deny that they happened, if they had not. But these events were included and accepted in the final redactions of the gospel accounts. Portents are certainly seen as useful literary devices signifying supernatural intervention, even Shakespeare used them, check out his Julius Caesar, Act 2. But natural events are natural events, they occur, how we interpret them is a matter for conjecture. The gospel writers clearly saw the coincidence of these natural events, as portents. But that does not signify that they did not happen.

    • Yannick Clément
      August 2, 2013 at 10:37 am

      Dave, please do me a favor : Can you please ask a good bible expert to show you all the example in the Old Testament where the writers were symbolically referring to a storm, darkness and/or an earthquake when they wanted to describe an intervention of God for his people Israel? He will surely tells you that no good historian will ever dare to consider these events as being an historical reality for sure but most probably as being a way used by the Jewish author to talk about a SPIRITUAL REALITY (a manifestation of God) with the aid of some images that were strong enough to make it understandable for his readers… And he will tell you that this very same writting tool was most probably used by the authors of the Gospels for the same exact purpose : showing to their readers, with the aid of strong symbols, that God was SPIRITUALLY ACTIVE at the moment of the death of Jesus and at the moment of his Resurrection. In the theology of St John, these events (the death and Resurrection of Christ) were seen as a new creation (a re-creation if you prefer). In such a context, it’s normal that he used one common image of the Old Testament (earthquake) concerning the Resurrection… Ask any good bible expert and will tell you the same thing as me, i.e. that all these references to catastrophic events in the context of the death and Resurrection of Christ are most probably litterary tools used by the authors, in the same way than we often found in the Old Testament, that helped them to described in images a spiritual reality about an intervention (spiritual, not material, of course) of God in our world. And this bible expert will conclude by saying that in no way we can take such references for granted and think that they were sure historical facts.

      • Ron
        August 4, 2013 at 9:46 am

        Oh my God! Good bible experts, do you mean bible scholars? Biblical referrals to storms as interventions?… No scholar would ever claim this sort of thing. Just because the bible refers to storms in many cases, does not mean that what was described during the crucifixion as a darkening of the sky, followed by an earth quake, would be one and the same!….That’s just in your mind. You seem to believe the apostles infused a lot of fictitious information into their writing, and this is clear from many of your statements. This notion of yours, along with your claims there are a lot of contradictions in the Gospels is simply not true and shows your lack of knowledge into the matter. Do you prescribe to the Jesus Seminar by chance? It sure sounds like it.

        R

      • Yannick Clément
        August 4, 2013 at 5:58 pm

        I’m not a member of the Jesus seminar. I’m a Christian who can think by himself and who is adult in his faith. I am also well aware that the apostles were only poor human like you and me and because of this, I know it is impossible that they did not make some mistakes concerning their understanding of Jesus. A proof of this: they were completely convinced that the end of the world was coming fast and that they would see this before their death! We now know that they were completely wrong about that! And if they could have make a huge mistake of understanding like this, then they could well have make a lot more about Jesus, the correct meaning of his deeds and the correct meaning of his teaching.

      • Yannick Clément
        August 4, 2013 at 6:39 pm

        And here’s something you must read Ron concerning the FACT (this is not me speaking but most biblical scholars) that catastrophic events like earthquakes and darkness were often used in a symbolic way to describe a SPIRITUAL intervention of God in our MATERIAL world : https://shroudstory.com/2013/07/28/guest-posting-challenging-frederick-zugibe-on-washing-of-the-body/#comment-40379

        I’m sorry for you if you’re someone who takes everything he read in the Bible for granted as if it was a true historical event! So, does this mean you believe that there was truly a first man that was named Adam and a first women named Eve? Come on… A lot of things that are written in the Bible (even in the New Testament) are highly symbolical (all the parables of Jesus are just one good example of this reality) and, most certainly, those who were the first readers of these texts were fully aware of this and knew how to “decode” the profound meaning that was lying behind these images… It’s sad to see that many modern Christians are not able to do the same and always tend to take everything they read in the Bible for granted…

    • daveb of wellington nz
      August 2, 2013 at 4:28 pm

      Do you also attempt to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs??!!

      • Yannick Clément
        August 2, 2013 at 4:36 pm

        Here’s one line to calm you down Dave: In my last few post to you, I didn’t pretend it is 100% sure that there was not an earthquake and darkness during the day in Jerusalem during the time of the death and/or Resurrection of Jesus. I simply say that since these kind of catastrophic events are often found in the Old Testament to symbolically show a manifestation of God, it’s truly possible that the Gospel writers have add these things as a symbolic way to describe the most important of all manifestation of God in Jesus’ death and Resurrection. Because of the importance of this probability, it’s far from being sure that there really was an earthquake and darkness in the middle of the day in Jérusalem 2000 years ago. In a pure scientific sense, using things like that to back up some hypothesis is truly walking on a very thin ice my friend… Of course, we can think that yes, these events are historic and the writers of the Gospels used them because they were real, but be sure that this is not the most rational and probable conclusion… Since I know you don’t believe me, go ahead and ask a true bible expert about that!!!

  43. Yannick Clément
    August 2, 2013 at 8:27 am

    Concerning the hypothesis proposed by Max and Ron about a possible re-opening of most scourge wounds at the foot of the cross when they took the tunic off of Jesus’ body, which could have played a major role in the imprint of these wounds on the Shroud later on, I would ask you to tell me what you think of this alternative hypothesis: What about the possibility that these wounds never closed (and dried) completely during a very long time after the scourging (and maybe for a good part of the crucifixion) because they would have become infected and such an infection would have produced an oozing of lymph, as proposed by Barbet (along with maybe some small oozing of blood)???

    I think such a scenario is truly possible in the context of the Passion of Jesus and would account much better for the fact that not only the scourge wounds located in areas that were most probably stuck to the tunic (like the back and the torso regions) were able to leave a good and precise mirror imprint on the cloth but also those who were located in areas that were most certainly free from being stuck to the tunic (like the legs, and particularly the calves). I hope you will consider this hypothesis seriously, without too much preconceived notions…

    In sum, I think that an important delay in the blood clotting for the scourge wounds is much more able to explain the fact that most of them have been able to leave a mirror imprint on the cloth than the idea that some of them, being completely dried at the foot of the cross, were then re-opened when the tunic was taken off of Jesus… Having said that, I have to admit that it’s truly possible that this removal of the tunic could have help some scourge wounds to stay humid for even a longer period of time, but I doubt that this was the main factor that eventually lead to the imprint of all the scourge wounds on the Shroud (mainly because of the very good imprints of scourge wounds that are located in the region of the legs).

  44. Ron
    August 2, 2013 at 11:12 pm

    Yannick Clément :
    In order to buried someone, Jewish or not, you MUST touch his dead body Ron! That’s an obligation that was in order at the time Pilate gave his permission to do the burial… And that’s why I don’t think there were many men who did the job because of the ritual uncleanness they had to take by doing so (by the way, an uncleanness requiring only to observe certain rituals to become purify again): 2, 3 persons at the max in my mind. But the reality is this: someone had to do the job and don’t forget that, by doing this, those who did the burial helped the Jewish Law to be respected concerning the legal prohibition to let the body on the cross after sundown. I know there were others manners to observe this rule but no matter what you think, they helped to accomplish the Law that day by placing Jesus’ body in a tomb…
    But in the end, I don’t care: you can keep up thinking Jesus’ followers were not pious Jews… I don’t care even if I know this is completely false. One thing’s for sure: the simple fact that no one of them dared to go to the tomb to finish the job the next day (i.e. Saturday, which was the Sabbath day) should be enough for anyone with an open-mind to understand how pious these Jews who followed Jesus were…

    I see your up to your old tricks of shirking the point by suspiciously seeming ignorant of my point. The point was; If they were pious and observed the Jewish law to a ‘T’, who then retrieved the Shroud? According to Jewish law this would be a big no, no…So then we should assume, they being pious Jews, they would not dare retrieve ANY item from the tomb, hence the Shroud can not be authentic. Furthermore, to clarify, my point has absolutely nothing to do with the touching of a corpse during burial, That is a completely different matter altogether.

    R

    • Yannick Clément
      August 3, 2013 at 4:47 pm

      Ron, Ron… You’re completely off-track. If they dare to kept and preserve the Shroud, it is ONLY because they were CONVINCED that Jesus was alive again. For them, the Shroud was not a burial cloth no more and, because of this, could be touched and preserved!

      The keeping and preservation of the Shroud cannot be taken as a proof that Jesus’ followers where not pious Jews because of the Resurrection event.

      On the contrary, the fact that no one dared to go to the tomb on Sabbath day to finish the burial work is a great clue to understand that these followers of Christ, like pretty much every Jew of that time, were really pious Jews who tried hard to respect the Jewish Law… Of course, I will never convinced you but at least, I tried hard. ;-)

      • Ron
        August 3, 2013 at 10:33 pm

        Preconceived notions again…Even IF his followers thought Jesus was alive again, since the Shroud was covered by the BLOOD of a deceased person, they still, by law could or would not have touched it, let alone carry it off. Simply because it held the blood of the once deceased. The Pharisees would have had then stoned them to death for acquiring it, and from what I understand Jesus never appeared to the Pharisees, so they would have assumed Jesus was still dead. Which according to scriptures they did and accused the followers of steeling the body.The fact that it was illegal for them to possess ANY burial cloths, explains no mention of what happened to them, or no mention of them ever again.

        R

      • Yannick Clément
        August 4, 2013 at 5:53 pm

        Wrong again Ron. I made research about this and ask the question to an expert in ancient Jewish history and he told me that the only blood that was considered unclean by their Law was the menstrual blood! A burial cloth like the Shroud was considered unclean for one single reason: because it touched the body of a dead person, and not because there was blood on it! This is a thing that has been often claimed in the Shroud world (that the bloodstains on the Shroud make it unclean by the Jewish Law) but this is quite simply false. Totally false.

        In the light of this historical reality, I’ll say it again: for the Jewish followers of Jesus, the empty shroud they found in the tomb was not considered by them no more as something unclean from the time they became convinced he was still alive! And this is one of the main reason why they dared to kept and preserved this gruesome (but not unclean no more) cloth!

  45. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 3, 2013 at 10:49 am

    To Yannick (playing his old trick of shirking the point on me too by claiming not to understand my point as far as the sticking-unsticking process is concerned):

    Re evidence of the sticking-unsticking process in relation to the Turin Shroud (TS) bloody body image, the exception proves the rule:

    At one and the same time and at popliteal fossa level (the knees being in partially flexed position), Miller and Pellicori UV photos do show that there are scourge marks and yet no (or next to no) body image (this in conjunction with an air gap). The eye-brain coordination system has somehow “to fill the anatomical/air gap” (see Fanti’s most circumlocutive prose misleadingly describing the scourge marks “in correspondence to lower luminance levels of the body image”, A69 in Evidences for Testing Hypotheses about the Body … )

    In the light of the general economy of the TS man HD bloody body image, such paradoxical visual evidence is consistent with:

    1/a blood comes first-body image second scenario

    2/creation of an air gap as the (watery solution in-soaked) long inner burial sheet (TS) first stuck to the body (hence the mirror image of blood transfer by direct contact) and then somehow got taut (too rapidly to be correctly recorded and 3D encoded).

    • Yannick Clément
      August 3, 2013 at 5:01 pm

      I think your hypothesis concerning the absence of an image of the back of the knee (while there are a few scourge marks) is true concerning the fact that there must have been a change of configuration of the Shroud during the burial in order to explain this very particular feature. But I think the best explanation remains the one I already described on this blog: First, they probably did a compression of the burial cloth on the corpse (for whatever reason; maybe because they had put some burial product on the cloth and wanted to make sure these products touched the body; who knows?). Such a direct contact of the cloth on the corpse would account for the transfer of all the bloodstains we see on the cloth (including the scourge marks). And then, after the transfer of the enshrouded corpse from a central place Inside the tomb to a stone bench carved Inside one of the walls of the tomb, they probably manually replaced the cloth much more loosely over the body (but not in a very taut configuration like you seem to think). The reason for this was most probably because they knew they had to come back on Sunday morning to finish the burial rite, so there was no reason to tight up the enshrouded body with linen strips or just to keep the cloth very compressed around the body. Note that my hypothesis is good to explain the few bloodstains that are located outside the body image (like the one outside the right elbow or the few scourge marks that are located outside the dorsal image of the legs) and can account also for the slight lateral distortion in some parts of the image (especially in the regions of the head and the thighs, as it was find out by STURP), as well as the fact that there is no important distortion of the image anywhere…

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        August 4, 2013 at 6:56 am

        Reminder for Yannick:

        On June 1, 2013 at 2:20 pm | #18 Reply |, I wrote:

        “As far as the TS image is concerned, on one hand, the bloody body image is first and foremost readable as old archaeological bloodstain patterns and thus shall be studied in the light of a specific burial by an archaeological
        bloodstain pattern analyst, a Second Temple period archaeologist and/or a forensic archaeologist.”

        On June 1, 2013 at 11:54 am | #9 Reply |, I also wrote:

        “the thread (on the TS man blood issue) was sort of spoiled by YC’s received and most biased ideas (as the latter does seem totally enable to discriminate between: 1/nearly 2000 years’ old archaeological blood vs. dry stains of relatively fresh one; 2/a biochemist and an archaeological bloodstain pattern analyst; 3/a surgeon and a forensic palaeopathologist/archeaologist) to say nothing of his pathologically irrelevant “hypergraphic” comments on Zugibe’s opinion (as the latter’s voice as forensic expert was just one among several others) and YC’s shameless knack for distorting or ignoring others’ interpretation while having misleadingly the dead speak (e.g. Adler, Rogers and Barbet) through recurring ad nauseam to “the silence argument.”

        “Adler’s finding (that still needs to be independently confirmed) doesn’t prove beyond the shadow of a rational doubt the TS man’s bloody body was not purified in accordance with an ancient (Judean) burial practice. Far from it as It can also prove quite the opposite actually!”

        On June 4, 2013 at 8:00 am | #63 Reply, I also wrote:

        “The very fact the buriers took great care not to disturb the blood is consistent with an ancient Judean/Jewish burial custom in terms of bloody corpse tahara (purification ritual). It has nothing to do with a supernatural event. As a victim of a violent death, his body should be buried with his shed innocent blood and his post-mortem shed blood could not be DIRECTLY cleansed.”

        “Most likely, the neat haematic cartography resulted from a sticking-gradual-unsticking transfer mechanism implying first the clean long inner burial sheet soaked in a watery (alkaline) solution was compressed widthwise with shorter dry clean shrouds (othonia) while taut lengthwise back and front as all parts of the body should be wrapped-up (see Naḥmanides, Torat ha-Adam; Inyan ha-hoẓa’ah) and then the tightly wrapped up bloody corpse was subjected to fumigation (see see 2 Chronicles 16:14 – 21:19 Targum) and the long inner burial sheet somehow got taut again back and front through shrinking up.To his buriers and (secret) disciples Yeshua was no am ha-arets (“average citizen) but a prominent figure.”

        Shall I endlessly repeat:

        “MOST LIKELY (and to the sole exception of anointing that was postponed), the Judean burial core procedures namely speedy burial, wrapping in shrouds, specific PURIFYING and DRYING were performed to abide by the Halakha (especially when it came not to wash a post-mortem shed blood-covered body) and honor the deceased.”

        “It is TOTALLY ludicrous is to think (as YC does) the shrouds tightly wrapping a body cannot be soaked in/anointed with spicy oil perfumes to prevent bad smells as in the Judean ethnic milieu of the time, the tradition was to visit the deceased on the three or seven days immediately following death.” In other words a body all wrapped-up in shrouds could be anointed without having it to be unwrapped at all.

        On June 3, 2013 at 6:29 am | #57 Reply |, I also wrote:

        “Adler NEVER considered a Second period Temple puriyfing & drying ritual scenario (implying the use of alkaline solution coupled with (myrrhic-)aloetic fumigation) could account for potassium giving only a weak signal in Shroud bloodstains while hydroxyproline (a marker for collagen) giving strong signal. Now these two signals precisely tend to prove the body could have been purified in accordance with an ancient (Judean) burial custom/practice (see 2 Chronicles 16:14 – 21:19 Targum and my TS man’s burial reconstruction).
        In the case here under study, Second Temple period speedy tahara in terms of wrapping in shrouds, purifying & drying out was an act of ultimate kindness to honor the deceased who died a violent death. It shall not be mistaken with careful physical cleansing Jewish/Judean ritual of a NON-bloody body.
        The true archaeological fact is there is more than one way by which blood could have become depleted of key ingredients if one considers the bloody body purifying & drying ritual scenario, which Adler clearly did not (crucifixion being an implicit assumption in all his discussion at the expense of specific burial practices, rites and customs). His shortcomings and partial view do show as far as archaeological bloodstain pattern analysis is concerned.”

        And on March 18, 2013 at 4:44 pm | #23 Reply |, I already wrote:

        “Nope with YC, his mind is set the wrong way around. When there is compelling evidence the Turin Sindon hematic cartography is clean and neat, he just cannot care less and just dismisses the idea of even a speedy purification/washing ritual.
        And what does YC make of the 3 different conjugated koine Greek verbs used by the 4 evangelists meaning bound/fastened – compressed/wrapped up – wound/encircled and the koine Greek word for ‘shorter shrouds/pieces of linen’ (othonia)? Nothing. He just cannot care less and still claim the body was just draped over (before the image formation), which the Gospels NEVER say, quite to the contrary! What does he make of the fact it is written Yeshua was buried according to the JUDEAN burial custom, which implies to abide by a series of procedures? Nothing again. He just cannot care less. The mximum burial time frame between Yeshua’s death on the cross and the apparition of the 3rd star heralding Shabbath is 4 hours and the minimum burial time-frame 2 hours. No problem, he keeps claiming Yeshua’s burial was dispatched in less than half an hour implying Joseph of Arimathea waited to the very last minute to buy a burial cloth and then ask Pilate for his master’s body just before sunset? Nope.”

        Additional reminders for YC:

        On March 17, 2012 (that is more than one year ago) I wrote: “(YC) currently keeps rehashing Rabbi Yeshua’s burial was made in haste after sunset (that is within about half an hour or so) and his shroud just draped about his body or loosely bound for the women to wash and anoint his body at the first morning hour of the first day of the Hebrew week, that is just after the Shabbat, on the third day of Yeshua’s death. Such a view (or should I better say “preaching”) presupposes:
        1/Yossef Ha-Ramathayim (both a member of the Sanhedrin/Judean Supreme Court and a secret disciple of Rabbi Yeshua), waited until shqiya/sunset (18:08/18:38 p.m.) that is a minimum of 3 hours AFTER his master’s violent death on the Golgotha (at 15:04/15:34 p.m.) BEFORE he actually went to Pilate’s and ask him for Yeshua’s body and then bought a linen shroud to bury him. Are you serious? Do you really think Yossef Ha-Ramatayim would have also run the risk not to abide by Deuteronomy 21: 22-23 and wait to the very last minute for taking down himself or having Rabbi Yeshua’s body be taken down from the cross and buried?
        It does seem you totally overlook “one little circumstantial fact”: in the Second Temple period, any working activity was to stop at midday “on preparation day” that is on the very eve of the great Shabbat of PessaH/Passover (PessaH 4, V). How then could possibly Joseph of Aramathia have bought a shroud after sunset and before dusk on that specific day when Jerusalem weavers’ workshops, stores and shops had all been closed for more than 6-6½ hours? This is a total exegetical non sense.
        Unless one is ignorant of the ethnic milieu and thinks a Judean of the Second Temple period would have waited until sunset on “preparation day” and go and buy a shroud long after all the weaver’s workshops and linen shops had closed, this reconstruction of the event chronology is most unlikely. In all likelihood, Yossef Ha-Ramathaym had already bought a fine linen shroud for himself in anticipation of his own death and used it to wrap Yeshua’s body “with his shed innocent blood”. As a disciple of Yeshua, didn’t Yossef go as far as using his own recently hewn garden-tomb near-by to bury his master executed as a criminal and thus to both abide by Sanhedrin 6: 46b and spare some precious time to proceed to his burial?
        [Precision: the women bought the spices not just BEFORE but just AFTER the sabbatical rest. Mark (16: 1) raises the ambiguity which could result from the chronologically biased relation/presentation of the same fact in Luke (23: 56).]
        2/ Modern time markers such as ‘evening’, ‘sunset’, ‘twilight dusk’ philologically cover the same realities for a Judean of the Second Temple period. Far from it!
        With respect to the time frame for Yeshua’s burial, here are the ancient biblical Hebrew words & expressions for the time markers from noon to night used in the Second Temple period yet currently overlooked by Shroud researchers/old students and exegetes:
        1/Tsot ha-yom (or “midday”) refers to that time of the day at equal distance between sunset and sunrise.
        2/Tsohorayim (dual form of Tsohar, “dazzling light” or “zenith”) literally means “two dazzling lights” or “two zeniths” and refers to ‘both morning and evening lights’ merging into ‘noon’.
        3/Erev (“evening”) may indifferently refer to the 1st or the 2nd evening. Rabbi Yeshua died exactly between the first and the second evening (at the 9th hour).
        4/Beyn ha-arbayim literally means “between the two evenings,” —- arbayim being the dual form of erev, “evening.” The afternoon was divided into two halves: from noon to mid afternoon and from mid afternoon to sunset or put in other words from early to late evening (See Exodus 29:38-41, “They shall slaughter it [the paschal lamb]… beyn ha-arbayim”). For the covenant people, the entire day revolved around the offering of the two Tamid lambs: that of the morning and that of the evening. “In a paper entitled « En Vue de la Solution Archéologique de l’Énigme » I presented in Turin in 1998, I wrote: « Le deuxième sacrifice quotidien du Temple (Numbers 28: 4-8) dit sacrifice du “soir” (evening sacrifice) se déroulait vers le milieu de l’après-midi (mid afternoon) et pouvait être avancé d’une heure (une veille de Pâque) voire même de deux heures (lorsque cette grande fête tombait un Shabbat) (PessaH 5:1). le premier sacrifice avait lieu le matin. Ainsi “le premier soir” allait-il du milieu du jour (from midday) jusqu’à la deuxième immolation en milieu d’après-midi (until mid afternoon) et, « le deuxième soir », de la deuxième immolation du milieu d’après-midi (from mid afternoon) jusqu’au crépuscule du soir (until twilight/dusk)».”.
        5/Shqiya, “sunset”; the sun set at 18:38 p.m. on April 7th 30CE and 18:08 p.m. on April 3rd 33 CE.
        6/Beyn ha-shemashot which literally means “between the suns” is an expression for “dusk” or “twilight” between the setting sun and the rising moon (which reflects the light of the sun).
        7/Layla, “night”; typically layla is taken to be when you can see three stars in the sky in reference to tset ha-kokhavim, the first “three stars coming out” to announce a new day (here the great Shabbat of PessaH). The 3rd star respectively appeared at 19:38 p.m. on April 7th 30CE and19:08 p.m. on April 3rd 33 CE. Owing to a lunar eclipse or the Ruah Qadīm, “east wind” (Khamsin/Sharav); a wind blowing from the desert of Judea, the whole city of Jerusalem was plunged into darkness from tsohorayim (“noon”) to beyn ha-arbayim (“between the two evenings” that is the 9th hour of the day; 15.34 p.m. on April 7 30 CE/ 15.04 p.m. on April 3 33 CE). In other words, for 3h34/3h04, on the very day Rabbi Yeshua died on the cross, it was also night, “layla” on that very day in the eye of a Judean of the Second Temple period.
        Hence, the actual maximum time-frame for Rabbi Yeshua’s burial was 4h04. If we now take off 30-45mn to Pilate’s and back + 30-45mn to take down Yeshua’s body from the cross and carry it to the garden tomb near-by, we are left with a minimum time-frame of about 2h30. It totally rules out the pseudo “0h30” left for Yeshua’s burial time-frame burial as the very notions of ‘evening’, ‘sunset’ ‘twilight dusk’ and ‘night’ as time markers, do not philologically cover the same realities for a Judean as they do for a 20th-21st reader relatively or totally unfamiliar with the Judean ethnic milieu of the Second Temple period.
        Within a minimum of 2h30, Rabbi Yeshua’s buriers had enough time to pre-wash his body (i.e. to re-dampen most of his wounds – to the sole exception of those likely to flow so as to keep his blood with his body as much as possible), purify his shed innocent blood via his lengthy inner shroud (Gr. sindôn/Heb. sadin) soaked with a watery solution (ashes of the Red Heifer?) and tightly wrap it up, with fresh aromatic medical insect repellent plants, in linen clothes and strips.
        In the Judean ethnic milieu of the time, the tradition was to visit the deceased on the three days immediately following his burial. Anointment was part and parcel of the Judean burial rite as it allowed preventing bad smells on those subsequent visits. Because this part of the rite was not done, the women had to buy and prepare spicy oils to anoint Rabbi Yeshua after the Sabbath and come back to the tomb very early on the third day. They definitely had not to wash the deceased’s naked body at all but just to anoint his linen wrappings. Hence, to the sole exception of the anointment ritual, Rabbi Yeshua’s “primary” burial rite according to the Judean funerary custom of the Second Temple period might well have been duly completed within a minimum of a two-hours-and-a-half time-frame.”

        On March 24, 2012, I also wrote: “Both historically and archaeoastronomically speaking, here is the best alternative to account for the darkening of the sun on Yeshua’s death on the cross:
        -Either it did actually happen one “April 7th of 30 CE” and if so, the “black breath” of the Ruah qâdim (“east wind”, also called Sharav/Khamsin), blowing from the desert of Judea, is the most likely phenomenon to have occurred to account for the darkening of the sun.
        -Or it did actually happen one “April 3rd of 33 CE” and if so, the same “black breath” or dust tempest has been followed by the rising of a moon already bloody/in eclipse that evening/second evening, thus fulfilling Joel’s prophetical “blood moon” vision (Joel 2:31).”

        This is my hypergraphic answer to YC hypergraphic prose.

  46. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 3, 2013 at 11:02 am

    Typo: (too rapidly for the popliteal fossae to be correctly recorded and 3D encoded).

  47. August 3, 2013 at 12:07 pm

    I have two questions about the article’s refutation & Zugibe’s theory.

    1) If the body wasn’t washed, I would expect just about the entire body would have been coated with blood. How is this explained?

    2) Adler noted all the blood on the cloth came from exudates. A washing of the body explains this, otherwise we ought to at least see from blood marks from a living body on the Shroud. How is this understood correctly?

    • Yannick Clément
      August 3, 2013 at 5:18 pm

      Andy, I address the two issues you bring in in my text that you can find on-top of this page and in this other comment of mine : https://shroudstory.com/2013/07/15/stephen-jones-newest-addition-to-his-shroud-of-turin-series/#comment-39278

      Here’s some explanations:

      1- We can think that a good portion of the body was coated with dried blood clots, yes (and that’s included most of the forearms and the head that were not washed by the way). And what could explain that only some of it get on the Shroud (including the scourge marks) : Probably because the only dried blood clots that were able to become re-moistened again were the last ones that get dried on the skin of the Shroud man. For all the others dried blood clots that we can assume where still present on the skin and on the hair, we must assume that they became completely dried much too soon, so they were dried for too long when the moisture came on the clots and, because they were dried for too long, these clots never were able to leave a noticeable Mirror image on the cloth.
      2- NOT AT ALL. A washing of the body would have produce oozing of liquid post-mortem blood (see again Zugibe’s pictures 1 and 2 in his paper: http://www.shroud.com/zugibe2.htm; the oozing are clearly no blood clots but oozing of liquid blood material). Barbet was clear about the fact that such a liquid blood would tend to follow the weave pattern of the cloth (which is not what happened on the Shroud) and, for the back region, because of the high pressure due to the body weight, there would surely have been many smudges of blood produced on the cloth (there are none on the Shroud). And by the way, Barbet was clear about the fact that all the pre-mortem bloodstains on the Shroud are clear Mirror images of the real blood clots that was present on the skin of the Shroud man when his body was placed Inside the Shroud (as I said in point #1, these stains probably concern only the blood that was last to dry on the skin of the Shroud man) and such bloodstains can only come from exudates of still moistened or, more probably, re-moistened blood clots, and not from some oozing of liquid post-mortem blood material that would have be produced by the removal of these clots by a washing of the body, as proposed by Zugibe.

      But please, read again my post on top of this page and the other post which I give you the link… You will have more explanation in details…

  48. jesterof
    August 3, 2013 at 4:28 pm

    Andy Weiss :
    I have two questions about the article’s refutation & Zugibe’s theory.
    1) If the body wasn’t washed, I would expect just about the entire body would have been
    coated with blood. How is this explained?
    2) Adler noted all the blood on the cloth came from exudates. A washing of the body explains this, otherwise we ought to at least see from blood marks from a living body on the Shroud. How is this understood correctly?

    1) CORRECT

    2) CORRECT

  49. jesterof
    August 3, 2013 at 4:32 pm

    Yannick has a new fetish of ignorance – “infected” wounds LOL

    there was NO TIME for the infection to develop. The whole torture until death took about 12 hours – no time for infection to develop.

    • Yannick Clément
      August 3, 2013 at 5:19 pm

      That’s not at all what a medical expert like Barbet and others thought… You’re probably the most awesome medical expert in the world, but be sure that some of your collegues doesn’t agree with you.

      • jesterof
        August 3, 2013 at 7:26 pm

        oh, pppplease, just don’t start with “what barbet thought”.

        It is not what Barbet thought, it is what YOU think that Barbet thought – those are absolutely different universes

      • Yannick Clément
        August 3, 2013 at 7:43 pm

        I can gives you the quote brother… Presently, I’m not at my home, but I will give it to you yesterday with pleasure. You will see for yourself that Barbet really thought an oozing of lymph because of an infection of the wounds was truly possible before the death of the Shroud man…

    • Yannick Clément
      August 3, 2013 at 7:41 pm

      And what about a thing call “chronic skin wound” in the context of the Shroud man? Here’s a medical definition I have found: “A skin wound that FAILS TO HEAL, HEALS SLOWLY or heals but tends to recur is known as a chronic wound. Some of the MANY CAUSES of chronic skin wounds CAN INCLUDE TRAUMA, burns, skin cancers or underlying medical conditions such as diabetes. Chronic wounds need special care.”

      I’m not a medical expert but, in my mind, this kind of biological problem concerning the natural healing of skin wounds (and, in all logic, their clotting process) seem to be truly possible in the case of someone like the Shroud man who was punched in the face and then scourged, crowned with thorns, and finally crucified… Can this kind of biological problem could have been the main cause of an important delay in the clotting process of most of the scourge wounds, which could account for the fact that these wounds have been able to get re-moistened enough after the Shroud man’s death, so that they could leave a precise mirror imprint on the cloth later on? I wonder what jesterof think about this possibility…

      And in the end, I say to myself that if someone as profesional and careful as Doctor Pierre Barbet specifically refers in his book to the possibility that the wounds of the Shroud man could have become infected during his Passion, with the result of delayed their clotting, it is surely because he knew that this kind of problem was truly possible in the traumatic context of the Shroud man… Seriously, I just don’t see Barbet writting something of that nature and importance in his book (which could have been a major factor in the imprint of the scourge wounds later on) without making sure that this kind of problem was totally possible for someone like the Shroud man.

      P.S. to jesterof: Can you please stop your recurrent insults toward me. It’s truly unnecessary and that don’t produce any good fruit for no one. By the way, I don’t understand why Dan never tried to stop from constently doing this while, in this current debate, I never played your dirty game…

  50. jesterof
    August 3, 2013 at 4:34 pm

    Delay in wound clotting ( possible concept) is easily explained by DIC, syndrome, which is a very probable pathological process under the circumstances

    • Yannick Clément
      August 3, 2013 at 5:22 pm

      Then, my idea that the clotting was delayed is not so dumb after all (no matter if this was caused by an infection of the wounds and/or because of the syndrome you’re talking about and/or because of some other causes). And to me, this is the major factor that can explain why the scourge wounds were able to leave a Mirror image on the cloth after they get re-moistened after the death of the Shroud man…

      • jesterof
        August 3, 2013 at 7:25 pm

        they do not have to be remoisten if they didn’t clot :-)

        don’t cling so desperately to one possible mechanism – there could be different ones as well

      • Yannick Clément
        August 3, 2013 at 7:48 pm

        Come on… If their was a delay in the clotting process (which I seriously suspect no matter of what have cause this), that doesn’t mean at all they could not get clotted later on before the death of the Shroud man or even after his death.

  51. jesterof
    August 3, 2013 at 4:56 pm

    Yannick Clément :
    Read again Zugibe’s paper (http://www.shroud.com/zugibe2.htm) and you’ll noticed that, right after
    the introduction, there is a section in which he address the particular question of the imprint of the scourge wounds on the Shroud and it’s pretty different than your own hypothesis. That’s why I prefer to consider yours (which I found much more plausible than Zugibe’s own hypothesis) as being a third hypothesis, after mine (which is based mainly on Barbet’s hypothesis) and Zugibe’s own hypothesis on the subject.

    his description is not clearly defined and is mostly concentrated on the washing of the body, which I agree with – no matter which type of transfer occurred – because they do not contradict each other. most likely all were involved.
    Barbet description is not in conflict with Zygibe’s on the transfer at all. If one removes the clot from the wound – oozing of bloody content will occur. Some wounds have probably been oozing, some were still with clots ( which absolutely can stay and not needed to be removed by washing of the body ) some might have been intradermal hematomas and so on.

    The point is – it is all possible at the same time.

    And washing of the body does not remove the Barbet possibility as well.

    • Yannick Clément
      August 3, 2013 at 6:19 pm

      Sincerely, the only way Zugibe’s hypothesis could not contradict Barbet’s hypothesis is by thinking that the oozing of liquid post-mortem blood that would have come after the washing could have had time to become clotted enough so that the clot retraction process had time to developed. In the context of a probable hasty burial like the one of the Shroud man, this scenario is far from being probable… As I said before (maybe you didn’t read it?), the most logical thing they would have done with the corpse right after the washing would have been to place it in the cloth immediately after or to rub his washed body with some burial substances and then, place it in the cloth. In both cases, there would have been no way for the liquid oozing of blood material to clot well in order to leave a precise Mirror imprint. On the contrary, in both cases, you should expect the resulting bloodstains to have a strong tendency to follow the weave pattern of the cloth and to see some smudges on the cloth, which are two things that are not present at all on the Shroud. Also, if Zugibe was right, there would not be a lot of serum halos around the scourge wounds that are easy to distinguish from the blood under UV light (as it was described by Miller and Pellicori).

      By the way, nevermind what you can think, the serum halos that have been found around most of the scourge marks (as well as around all the other pre-mortem bloodstains) are truly a sign that all these particular stains came from exudates of blood clots that had become in their clotted form for long enough so that the clot retraction phenomenon had time to come up. Barbet, Adler and Lavoie talked about that but you don’t seem to understand at all what they had to say about that. And that’s very telling because this is the most important clue that exist on the Shroud to understand that your own personal hypothesis involving intradermal hematomas (as you call them) is most probably wrong.

      I’m sorry for you but the halos of serum which are clearly distinct from the bloodstains, never mind the fact that they are all located in the immediate vicinity of these stains, are clearly coming from moistened blood clots (external blood clots located on the skin) that were clotted for enough time so that the blood retraction phenomenon could become active and left some serum stains around the retracting blood clot. That’s not me who said that, that’s Barbet, Lavoie, Adler, Baima Bollone, etc. Sorry but I seriously doubt that your hypothesis or the one proposed by Zugibe (in which by the way he never address the question of the serum halos found around most of the scourge marks) can account for the presence of these serum stains that are clearly distincts and easy to distinguish for the central bloodstains. On the contrary, in your hypothesis or in the one proposed by Zugibe, we should expect this serum to get mixed up with the bloodstains on the cloth, because there would not have been enough time for the clot retraction phenomenon to become active while the blood was on the skin… Make the experiment of placing some drops of liquid blood on a linen cloth with an herringbone pattern and let it dry completely. I ensure you that the resulting bloodstain you would get would NOT show any distinct serum stain around the central bloodstain in the way it was seen by Miller and Pellicori of STURP on their UV photos.

      In all logic, all you would get on the cloth is a bloodstain, period. And this is proven by the fact that the post-mortem blood flows in the lower back region on the Shroud are one of the few bloodstains on the cloth that doesn’t show any distinct serum stains around them (this is a proven fact that come from the STURP investigation and you can find it in Ray Rogers’ paper for STURP). In their case (as it would also be the case for the bloodstains produced with jesterof or Zugibe’s hypothèses), it’s normal to not show any distinct serum stain around them because these post-mortem blood flows were probably still in a liquid form or in a very early clotted form (that’s what Barbet was thinking in their case), which would have been very humid and would not have been clotted for enough time to allow the start of the blood retraction phenomenon… Note that would also be like this for the oozing of blood material proposed by jesterof or Zugibe). And that means that the post-mortem blood that stained the cloth in the lower back region was a blood that had no time to see his serum get separated from it. That’s why absolutely no serum ring have been seen by Miller and Pellicori in their UV photos for this particular area of the cloth. So, in all logic, if the scourge marks would also have been produced by some liquid oozing of post-mortem blood, as proposed by jesterof or Zugibe (in 2 distincts hypotheses), these marks would never have shown any distinct serum halos around them, unlike what was observed by STURP concerning a majority of scourge marks (on the dorsal side of the body image as well as on the frontal side).

      Sorry jesterof but the very distinct serum halos that are located around most of the scouge wounds and around all the other pre-mortem wounds and blood flows on the cloth are the most compelling piece of evidence that your own hypothesis is probably incorrect, as well as the one proposed by Zugibe cause in both cases, we should not expect to see the presence of these distinct serum stains around most of the blood marks.

      And if you think I’m wrong here (that would mean you also think Barbet, Lavoie and Adler were wrong), then show me a proof that your own hypothesis or the one proposed by Zugibe can produced on a piece of linen cloth like the Shroud, a clear and distinct serum stains (under UV light) that would surround the central bloodstains. Show me some pictures of this please because Zugibe never address this important issue in his paper and thus, never showed the bloodstains he got during his transfer experiments under UV light! I can bet my house that if he did this, absolutely no distinct serum stain would have been present around his resulting bloodstains… Again, if I’m wrong here, please show me some pictures to prove that I’m wrong! Show me some pictures of bloodstains produced on linen with your method of transfer or with Zugibe’s method that would show clear and distinct serum halos around them under UV light. I wait impatiently for you to show me some pictures like that.

  52. Yannick Clément
    August 3, 2013 at 5:36 pm

    Message for Dave (and also for David Goulet): Note that this is a comment that follow some comments made by Dave and David right here on this page (see their comments above) in which they refers to the possible presence of a real earthquake and/or a real storm (or darkness) in Jerusalem, at the time of Jesus’ Passion, death and Resurrection.

    In order that you understand better the use of catastrophic terms in the Bible (in the Old Testament as well as the New), I made a little research in two biblical dictionary I have at home.

    I the most recent one that was written by Father Xavier Léon-Dufour, a well-known Jesuit from France, here’s a portion of what he wrote concerning the use of the word “earthquake” in the bible (personal translation): “The Bible see in earthquakes an eschatological manifestation of the almighty power of the Creator who come to help or to judge his people.”

    You can see that his definition is pretty close to what I said to you in last few days!!! Of course, that doesn’t mean it is 100% sure that all the references in the Bible to an earthquake are only symbolic, but that mean that this kind of “imagery” is very common throughout the Bible (in the Old as well as in the New Testament) and, because of its very strong symbolical power, it’s pretty evident that all these references about an earthquake (including the ones we can found at the time of Jesus’ death and Resurrection) cannot be taken for granted as being a sure and real historical event that really happened at the time it is describe by these authors… In fact, I think any good and honest biblical scholar will agree that it’s much more probable that the use of such a strong and “biblical” imagery at the precise moment of the death and Resurrection of Jesus has to be seen as a “literary construction” of the Gospel writers who wanted to materially “translate” the great and spiritual intervention of God for all humanity that was happening then.

    By the way, on the subject of earthquakes, you always seems to think that because earthquakes are more frequent in New Zealand than here in Quebec (that’s a chance for us!!!), that makes you an expert on the subject and, because of this, your opinion that there really had been, historically speaking, a real earthquake in Jerusalem around the time of the death and Resurrection of Christ must be the best that exist! Sorry but this is completely ludicrous. I have no problem admitting that you know more than me about earthquakes my friend, but that doesn’t mean for one second that your idea about a real earthquake in Jerusalem around the year 30 or 33 must be understand as very solid and that it is shared by a vast majority of biblical scholars. In fact, the reality is precisely the opposite concerning the vast majority of those experts who are aware of the fact that the “earthquake imagery” (if I can use this term) is often used by Bible writers (again, in the Old as well as in the New Testament) as a metaphoric way to materially describe a spiritual intervention of God in our universe. I don’t see any good reason to think otherwise when it comes to the earthquakes that supposedly came at the time of Jesus death and Resurrection. In fact, this was most probably a literary tool used by the Gospel writers to make a link with the well-known imagery of the Old Testament in order to describe in strong terms that God was truly “at work” for all humanity at the time of Jesus’ death and Resurrection… No matter what you can think, this is by far the most probable explanation that exists for the presence of these supposed earthquakes at that particular time in the Gospels.

    And concerning the use of the term “darkness” in the Bible, I got a pretty good explanation for it in an old “Universal Biblical dictionary” that was written in 1984 by two biblical scholars from France (one was a Sulpician and the other was a Dominican). Here’s a portion of what they wrote concerning the word “darkness” that we can find throughout the Bible (in the Old Testament as well as in the New): “(In the Bible) the darkness are the IMAGE of men’s ignorance; God send his light to enlighten them (Jb 29,3) and, for the prophets of the Old Testament, the Messiah would come to change them into light (Is 9,1; 29,18; 60,2)… The fourth Gospel considers Jesus and his action throughout the IMAGERY of light and darkness, engaged in a fight… A sizing image of God’s action, the light tells also what we can perceive of God though this action. There is in Him no darkness because He is light. Getting away from Him, by acting differently than he acts, for example by rejecting love (God is love), it is walking in darkness, it is also being associated with the powers of darkness and it is falling into external darkness. The theme of the opposition light/darkness that we find in the fourth Gospel can also be found in the later letters written by Paul.”

    This definition of the term “darkness”, which shows with great evidence how this imagery was often used in the Bible to express an opposition to God’s action, should be enough for anyone to understand that its use during the Passion and death of Christ (which is called by Jesus “the hour of darkness” when he encounters Judas in the Garden of Gethsemane) is most certainly symbolic ratter than being historical and is very useful to the Gospel writers to express with a strong image how the most of Israël rejected his Son during his Passion. With this in mind, how can we claim that there really was for sure a total darkness (which can be understand as a big storm by some) in Jerusalem in the middle of the day during Jesus’ Passion and death? In other words, knowing that this imagery of darkness was very often used throughout the whole Bible in a symbolical way, how can someone dare to base a hypothesis concerning the Shroud on such a fragile ground (historically speaking)? The probability that the darkness imagery during Jesus’ Passion and death was only symbolic is much too high to do so… Note that this is the same thing for the earthquake imagery concerning Jesus’ death and Resurrection.

    Now it’s up to you to continue to base some of your hypotheses versus the Shroud on such a fragile historical ground… Personally, I would certainly not do that. In sum, I’m too much aware of the fact that these catastrophic things were very often used in a symbolical way throughout the Bible instead of being truly based on real historical events. It’s important to be aware of the fact that this was very common for people of the Middle East to create and use some strong images to materially described a spiritual reality. Unfortunately, such a reality has been lost and/or forgotten by many modern Christians who tend to take for granted and at the very first level everything that is written in the Bible and, truly, that’s a very big mistake and a shame.

    Last useful note for all of you: If you want to know what were the most common IMAGES used by the authors of the Bible to describe God or his action for his people, just read the well-known part of the First book of Kings in the Old Testament, in which Elijah is standing on the Horeb, while waiting to see God. In this part of the text, all the most common images concerning God are used, i.e. the hurricane, the earthquake and the fire (and along with these images, we can also had the light). All these symbolical images are very often used throughout the Bible (including the New Testament: remember what supposedly happened at the Pentecost after the Resurrection?)… It’s very important to understand this biblical reality (we can even say that it is an ancient Middle Eastern reality) because, if you did, you will never dare to use again such symbolic images to back-up a hypothesis versus the Shroud of Turin (note that this include the very improbable idea that Jesus’ dead body really emitted a burst of light at the time of his Resurrection, which would have been the primary cause for the body image on the cloth). When you got a true scientific and rational mind (one always goes with the other!), you understand that the probability of being off-track versus the true historical facts is simply too high to take such a risk… That’s my opinion, which is certainly shared by most biblical scholars and good historians.

  53. jesterof
    August 3, 2013 at 7:31 pm

    If I read one more time “washing of the body could not happen because it would remove all the clots and cause oozing of post-mortem blood (and it could not occur because what Barbet said)” with attribution it to Zugibe ( which is a total LIE) I will puke.

    This phrase is a concentration of what you don’t understand and do not want to understand.

    It’s nonsense.

    • Yannick Clément
      August 3, 2013 at 7:59 pm

      Here’s a quote taken directly from Zugibe’s paper : “However, if the body was WASHED, the DRIED BLOOD (note that this is not at all in sync with your own hypothesis) around the wounds would be REMOVED causing an OOZING OF BLOODY MATERIAL within the wounds (note: here, Zugibe doesn’t mean within the closed and contused skin like you pretend; he talk about liquid post-mortem blood that would fill in the wound that just get re-open from the washing that removed the dried clot over it) resulting in the production of relatively good impressions of the wound.”

      Note that this is ONLY true in the case there is not a high pressure that his present on the wound and on the cloth; in the case there would be a high pressure due to the body weight, like in the back and buttocks régions, the resulting impression would be much worse than what Zugibe show in figure 1 of his paper and there would certainly have been many smudges and smears on the Shroud in these areas, along with bloodstains that would have had the strong tendency of following the weave pattern of the cloth. In fact, the only way Zugibe’s hypothesis could produce Mirror imprints on the back and buttocks region would be to imagine that the washed body was then left alone and untouched for several minutes in order for the clot retraction process to begin. In the context of the hasty burial of the Shroud man, this is highly improbable.

      • Hugh Farey
        August 4, 2013 at 12:05 pm

        No, I think you’re interpreting this in a different way from me. When you say Zugibe talks about “liquid post-mortem blood” I don’t agree. His words are, as you quote “oozing of bloody material.” When a scab is pulled off a wound, it doesn’t necessarily produce fresh red blood. It does, in my experience, produce an oozing of blood-derived material, which is often not red. In this case, I think pressure on the wound is a good way of absorbing this fluid, which might not otherwise flow at all.

      • Yannick Clément
        August 5, 2013 at 10:55 am

        Hugh, by definition, an oozing refers to a liquid! And please, look again at figures 1 and 2 in Zugibe’s paper. It shows the oozing of post-mortem blood material he talks about and this is clearly an oozing of post-mortem blood in liquid form. The only difference that exist concerning the removal of the blood clots over the scourge wounds by a washing of the body is that the resulting oozing of blood is not huge (because of the smallness of the wound) and only fill the void created by the removal of the dried clot. But in the end, the result is the same: oozing of liquid blood! This is that kind of blood that would have stained the Shroud in Zugibe’s mind. Sorry but once you take into account all the facts regarding the pre-mortem bloodstains on the Shroud (including of course the scourge wounds), this is ludicrous…

      • Yannick Clément
        August 5, 2013 at 11:18 am

        Additional comment to Hugh: Zugibe’s hypothesis is ludicrous, especially when it comes to the regions of the back and buttocks. And, as I said many times, the only way his transfer mode could produced the same kind of scourge marks than we see on the Shroud would be to think the body was left completely alone for several minutes after the washing, so that the oozing of liquid blood could had time to clot and the clot retraction phenomenon could become active. In the context of the hasty burial of Jesus, such an idea is highly improbable… Sorry but Barbet’s hypothesis is much better to produce bloodstains like we see on the Shroud in accordance with the context of Jesus of Nazareth’s hasty burial on Good Friday.

      • Yannick Clément
        August 5, 2013 at 11:23 am

        One last thing: The very small quantity of blood material you described Hugh that appears after the removal of a scab on a living human being would NEVER be able to produced the same kind of very precise mirror imprint of scourge wounds we see on the Shroud. All you could obtain in all logic with this kind of transfer would be some very tiny stains of diverse shapes that would never look like perfect dumbbells.

      • Hugh Farey
        August 5, 2013 at 11:58 am

        Well, I think we’ve come to a bit of an impasse. Next time anybody reading this blog cuts, scratches, grazes or contuses themselves, you wouldn’t mind experimenting for us, would you? I will, if I get the chance, but I don’t injure myself as often as I used. The wisdom of age I guess…

      • Yannick Clément
        August 5, 2013 at 1:01 pm

        That’s a very good idea Hugh… I did that myself in 2011 in order to test Barbet’s hypothesis and got a very good result. That’s a shame I didn’t thought of taking photos! Unfortunatelly, I did not had any UV light to see if there was also a serum stain on my kleenex that would have been easy to distinguish from the central stain. Would have been very interesting to know if there really was a fluorescent stain at the immediate border of the bloodstain. Following what I know of the hypothesis defended by Barbet (and also by Lavoie and Adler), I have to guess there was…

  54. jesterof
    August 3, 2013 at 7:33 pm

    jesterof :
    you are as closed minded as one can be, becaseu of your IGNORANCE
    “halos of serum” are not proving anything. Zilch. Nada. Zero.
    plasma, or as you call it ,serum is an integral part of blood and it does not disappear magically upon death.
    It is present in ALL bloody fluids – the whole blood, the hemolized blood, the blood-tinged sputum ( which is plasma too), the bloody lymph, the bloody exudates/transsudates of body cavities, the bloody urine, bloody pleyral effusion and so on.
    LEARN the BASICS FIRST if you want to be taken seriously.
    One can be mistakened ONCE, but you have been shown your ignorance so many times, yet you stubbornly persist on “your conception”.
    It is WRONG and it is wrong simply because you are totally ignorant on blood physiology.
    So, before you proceed in getting on that preacher stand of yours, do us all a favor – and study the basics.

    • Dan
      August 4, 2013 at 11:39 am

      Jesterof, in writing, “you are as closed minded as one can be, becaseu of your IGNORANCE,” you are getting too insulting. Let’s cool it, okay?

  55. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 4, 2013 at 7:08 am

    (Better post my #96 post here, at the end of the thread)

    Reminder for Yannick:
    On June 1, 2013 at 2:20 pm | #18 Reply |, I wrote:

    “As far as the TS image is concerned, on one hand, the bloody body image is first and foremost readable as old archaeological bloodstain patterns and thus shall be studied in
    the light of a specific burial by an archaeological
    bloodstain pattern analyst, a Second Temple period archaeologist and/or a forensic archaeologist.”

    On June 1, 2013 at 11:54 am | #9 Reply |, I also wrote:

    “the thread (on the TS man blood issue) was sort of spoiled by YC’s received and most biased ideas (as the latter does seem totally enable to discriminate between: 1/nearly 2000 years’ old archaeological blood vs. dry stains of relatively fresh one; 2/a biochemist and an archaeological bloodstain pattern analyst; 3/a surgeon and a forensic palaeopathologist/archeaologist) to say nothing of his pathologically irrelevant “hypergraphic” comments on Zugibe’s opinion (as the latter’s voice as forensic expert was just one among several others) and YC’s shameless knack for distorting or ignoring others’ interpretation while having misleadingly the dead speak (e.g. Adler, Rogers and Barbet) through recurring ad nauseam to “the silence argument.”

    “Adler’s finding (that still needs to be independently confirmed) doesn’t prove beyond the shadow of a rational doubt the TS man’s bloody body was not purified in accordance with an ancient (Judean) burial practice. Far from it as It can also prove quite the opposite actually!”

    On June 4, 2013 at 8:00 am | #63 Reply, I also wrote:

    “The very fact the buriers took great care not to disturb the blood is consistent with an ancient Judean/Jewish burial custom in terms of bloody corpse tahara (purification ritual). It has nothing to do with a supernatural event. As a victim of a violent death, his body should be buried with his shed innocent blood and his post-mortem shed blood could not be DIRECTLY cleansed.”

    “Most likely, the neat haematic cartography resulted from a sticking-gradual-unsticking transfer mechanism implying first the clean long inner burial sheet soaked in a watery (alkaline) solution was compressed widthwise with shorter dry clean shrouds (othonia) while taut lengthwise back and front as all parts of the body should be wrapped-up (see Naḥmanides, Torat ha-Adam; Inyan ha-hoẓa’ah) and then the tightly wrapped up bloody corpse was subjected to fumigation (see see 2 Chronicles 16:14 – 21:19 Targum) and the long inner burial sheet somehow got taut again back and front through shrinking up.To his buriers and (secret) disciples Yeshua was no am ha-arets (“average citizen) but a prominent figure.”

    Shall I endlessly repeat:

    “MOST LIKELY (and to the sole exception of anointing that was postponed), the Judean burial core procedures namely speedy burial, wrapping in shrouds, specific PURIFYING and DRYING were performed to abide by the Halakha (especially when it came not to wash a post-mortem shed blood-covered body) and honor the deceased.”?

    “It is TOTALLY ludicrous is to think (as YC does) the shrouds tightly wrapping a body cannot be soaked in/anointed with spicy oil perfumes to prevent bad smells as in the Judean ethnic milieu of the time, the tradition was to visit the deceased on the three or seven days immediately following death.”? In other words a body all wrapped-up in shrouds could be anointed without having it to be unwrapped at all.

    On June 3, 2013 at 6:29 am | #57 Reply |, I also wrote:

    “Adler NEVER considered a Second period Temple purifying & drying ritual scenario (implying the use of alkaline solution coupled with (myrrhic) aloetic fumigation) could account for potassium giving only a weak signal in Shroud bloodstains while hydroxyproline (a marker for collagen) giving strong signal. Now these two signals precisely tend to prove the body could have been purified in accordance with an ancient (Judean) burial custom/practice (see 2 Chronicles 16:14 – 21:19 Targum and my TS man’s burial reconstruction).
    In the case here under study, Second Temple period speedy tahara in terms of wrapping in shrouds, purifying & drying out was an act of ultimate kindness to honor the deceased who died a violent death. It shall not be mistaken with careful physical cleansing Jewish/Judean ritual of a NON-bloody body.
    The true archaeological fact is there is more than one way by which blood could have become depleted of key ingredients if one considers the bloody body purifying & drying ritual scenario, which Adler clearly did not (crucifixion being an implicit assumption in all his discussion at the expense of specific burial practices, rites and customs). His shortcomings and partial view do show as far as archaeological bloodstain pattern analysis is concerned.”

    And on March 18, 2013 at 4:44 pm | #23 Reply |, I already wrote:

    “Nope with YC, his mind is set the wrong way around. When there is compelling evidence the Turin Sindon hematic cartography is clean and neat, he just cannot care less and just dismisses the idea of even a speedy purification/washing ritual.
    And what does YC make of the 3 different conjugated koine Greek verbs used by the 4 evangelists meaning bound/fastened – compressed/wrapped up – wound/encircled and the koine Greek word for ‘shorter shrouds/pieces of linen’ (othonia)? Nothing. He just cannot care less and still claim the body was just draped over (before the image formation), which the Gospels NEVER say, quite to the contrary! What does he make of the fact it is written Yeshua was buried according to the JUDEAN burial custom, which implies to abide by a series of procedures? Nothing again. He just cannot care less. The mximum burial time frame between Yeshua’s death on the cross and the apparition of the 3rd star heralding Shabbath is 4 hours and the minimum burial time-frame 2 hours. No problem, he keeps claiming Yeshua’s burial was dispatched in less than half an hour implying Joseph of Arimathea waited to the very last minute to buy a burial cloth and then ask Pilate for his master’s body just before sunset? Nope.”

    Additional reminders for YC:

    On March 17, 2012 (that is more than one year ago) I wrote:

    “(YC) currently keeps rehashing Rabbi Yeshua’s burial was made in haste after sunset (that is within about half an hour or so) and his shroud just draped about his body or loosely bound for the women to wash and anoint his body at the first morning hour of the first day of the Hebrew week, that is just after the Shabbat, on the third day of Yeshua’s death. Such a view (or should I better say “preaching”) presupposes:
    1/Yossef Ha-Ramathayim (both a member of the Sanhedrin/Judean Supreme Court and a secret disciple of Rabbi Yeshua), waited until shqiya/sunset (18:08/18:38 p.m.) that is a minimum of 3 hours AFTER his master’s violent death on the Golgotha (at 15:04/15:34 p.m.) BEFORE he actually went to Pilate’s and ask him for Yeshua’s body and then bought a linen shroud to bury him. Are you serious? Do you really think Yossef Ha-Ramatayim would have also run the risk not to abide by Deuteronomy 21: 22-23 and wait to the very last minute for taking down himself or having Rabbi Yeshua’s body be taken down from the cross and buried?
    It does seem you totally overlook “one little circumstantial fact”: in the Second Temple period, any working activity was to stop at midday “on preparation day” that is on the very eve of the great Shabbat of PessaH/Passover (PessaH 4, V). How then could possibly Joseph of Aramathia have bought a shroud after sunset and before dusk on that specific day when Jerusalem weavers’ workshops, stores and shops had all been closed for more than 6-6½ hours? This is a total exegetical non sense.
    Unless one is ignorant of the ethnic milieu and thinks a Judean of the Second Temple period would have waited until sunset on “preparation day” and go and buy a shroud long after all the weaver’s workshops and linen shops had closed, this reconstruction of the event chronology is most unlikely. In all likelihood, Yossef Ha-Ramathaym had already bought (“had bought” is an alternative translation) a fine linen shroud for himself in anticipation of his own death and used it to wrap Yeshua’s body “with his shed innocent blood”. As a disciple of Yeshua, didn’t Yossef go as far as using his own recently hewn garden-tomb near-by to bury his master executed as a criminal and thus to both abide by Sanhedrin 6: 46b and spare some precious time to proceed to his burial?
    [Precision: the women bought the spices not just BEFORE but just AFTER the sabbatical rest. Mark (16: 1) raises the ambiguity which could result from the chronologically biased relation/presentation of the same fact in Luke (23: 56).]
    2/ Modern time markers such as ‘evening’, ‘sunset’, ‘twilight dusk’ philologically cover the same realities for a Judean of the Second Temple period. Far from it!
    With respect to the time frame for Yeshua’s burial, here are the ancient biblical Hebrew words & expressions for the time markers from noon to night used in the Second Temple period yet currently overlooked by Shroud researchers/old students and exegetes:
    1/Tsot ha-yom (or “midday”) refers to that time of the day at equal distance between sunset and sunrise.
    2/Tsohorayim (dual form of Tsohar, “dazzling light” or “zenith”) literally means “two dazzling lights” or “two zeniths” and refers to ‘both morning and evening lights’ merging into ‘noon’.
    3/Erev (“evening”) may indifferently refer to the 1st or the 2nd evening. Rabbi Yeshua died exactly between the first and the second evening (at the 9th hour).
    4/Beyn ha-arbayim literally means “between the two evenings,” —- arbayim being the dual form of erev, “evening.” The afternoon was divided into two halves: from noon to mid afternoon and from mid afternoon to sunset or put in other words from early to late evening (See Exodus 29:38-41, “They shall slaughter it [the paschal lamb]… beyn ha-arbayim”). For the covenant people, the entire day revolved around the offering of the two Tamid lambs: that of the morning and that of the evening. “In a paper entitled « En Vue de la Solution Archéologique de l’Énigme » I presented in Turin in 1998, I wrote: « Le deuxième sacrifice quotidien du Temple (Numbers 28: 4-8) dit sacrifice du “soir” (evening sacrifice) se déroulait vers le milieu de l’après-midi (mid afternoon) et pouvait être avancé d’une heure (une veille de Pâque) voire même de deux heures (lorsque cette grande fête tombait un Shabbat) (PessaH 5:1). le premier sacrifice avait lieu le matin. Ainsi “le premier soir” allait-il du milieu du jour (from midday) jusqu’à la deuxième immolation en milieu d’après-midi (until mid afternoon) et, « le deuxième soir », de la deuxième immolation du milieu d’après-midi (from mid afternoon) jusqu’au crépuscule du soir (until twilight/dusk)».”.
    5/Shqiya, “sunset”; the sun set at 18:38 p.m. on April 7th 30CE and 18:08 p.m. on April 3rd 33 CE.
    6/Beyn ha-shemashot which literally means “between the suns” is an expression for “dusk” or “twilight” between the setting sun and the rising moon (which reflects the light of the sun).
    7/Layla, “night”; typically layla is taken to be when you can see three stars in the sky in reference to tset ha-kokhavim, the first “three stars coming out” to announce a new day (here the great Shabbat of PessaH). The 3rd star respectively appeared at 19:38 p.m. on April 7th 30CE and19:08 p.m. on April 3rd 33 CE. Owing to a lunar eclipse or the Ruah Qadīm, “east wind” (Khamsin/Sharav); a wind blowing from the desert of Judea, the whole city of Jerusalem was plunged into darkness from tsohorayim (“noon”) to beyn ha-arbayim (“between the two evenings” that is the 9th hour of the day; 15.34 p.m. on April 7 30 CE/ 15.04 p.m. on April 3 33 CE). In other words, for 3h34/3h04, on the very day Rabbi Yeshua died on the cross, it was also night, “layla” on that very day in the eye of a Judean of the Second Temple period.
    Hence, the actual maximum time-frame for Rabbi Yeshua’s burial was 4h04. If we now take off 30-45mn to Pilate’s and back + 30-45mn to take down Yeshua’s body from the cross and carry it to the garden tomb near-by, we are left with a minimum time-frame of about 2h30. It totally rules out the pseudo “0h30” left for Yeshua’s burial time-frame burial as the very notions of ‘evening’, ‘sunset’ ‘twilight dusk’ and ‘night’ as time markers, do not philologically cover the same realities for a Judean as they do for a 20th-21st reader relatively or totally unfamiliar with the Judean ethnic milieu of the Second Temple period.
    Within a minimum of 2h30, Rabbi Yeshua’s buriers had enough time to pre-wash his body (i.e. to re-dampen most of his wounds – to the sole exception of those likely to flow so as to keep his blood with his body as much as possible), purify his shed innocent blood via his lengthy inner shroud (Gr. sindôn/Heb. sadin) soaked with a watery solution (ashes of the Red Heifer?) and tightly wrap it up, with fresh aromatic medical insect repellent plants, in linen clothes and strips.
    In the Judean ethnic milieu of the time, the tradition was to visit the deceased on the three days immediately following his burial. Anointment was part and parcel of the Judean burial rite as it allowed preventing bad smells on those subsequent visits. Because this part of the rite was not done, the women had to buy and prepare spicy oils to anoint Rabbi Yeshua after the Sabbath and come back to the tomb very early on the third day. They definitely had not to wash the deceased’s naked body at all but just to anoint his linen wrappings. Hence, to the sole exception of the anointment ritual, Rabbi Yeshua’s “primary” burial rite according to the Judean funerary custom of the Second Temple period might well have been duly completed within a minimum of a two-hours-and-a-half time-frame.”

    On March 24, 2012, I also wrote:

    “Both historically and archaeoastronomically speaking, here is the best alternative to account for the darkening of the sun on Yeshua’s death on the cross:
    -Either it did actually happen one “April 7th of 30 CE” and if so, the “black breath” of the Ruah qâdim (“east wind”, also called Sharav/Khamsin), blowing from the desert of Judea, is the most likely phenomenon to have occurred to account for the darkening of the sun.
    -Or it did actually happen one “April 3rd of 33 CE” and if so, the same “black breath” or dust tempest has been followed by the rising of a moon already bloody/in eclipse that evening/second evening, thus fulfilling Joel’s prophetical “blood moon” vision (Joel 2:31).”

    This is my hypergraphic answer to YC hypergraphic prose. Will finally YC get the idea? Nope.

  56. Yannick Clément
    August 4, 2013 at 6:40 pm

    Important message to jesterof (and others interested): Concerning Barbet’s idea about an oozing of lymph for the wounds, I read again the part of his book in which he refers to that and discovered that my understanding of it was not completely correct. In fact, what Barbet meant was that, in his mind, it is truly possible that all the wounds and all the excoriations of the skin (this certainly include the scourge wounds), even though they clotted normally (that include the clot retraction phenomenon that leave a distinct serum stain around the central bloodstain), have keep on oozing a lymph that was more or less infected BEFORE AND EVEN AFTER the Shroud man’s death, which contributed, in his mind, to keep all these clotted wounds more or less humid, at least at their surfaces. So, I admit having misread Barbet about that… On the contrary to what I thought and said on this blog, in Barbet’s mind, the wounds (including the scourge wounds) didn’t really get infected, so that their clotting process was delayed for a long time, but instead, the normal blood clots were maintained more or less humid because of a more or less constant oozing of lymph that kept on even after death, thus making it possible for them to eventually leave a good mirror imprint on the cloth later on. Along with this possible oozing of lymph in the vicinity of the clotted wounds, Barbet estimated that there was most probably a release of water vapor by the corpse (and we can also think of a possible release of post-mortem gases such a ammonia), which could also have played a huge role in the mirror imprints of all the wounds (including the scourge wounds) and all the pre-mortem blood flows (such as the ones in the head and forearms regions) that we can see on the Shroud.

    So, I admit having partially misread what Barbet thought concerning a release of lymph from the wounds: it wasn’t the wounds that got infected in his mind, but the lymph that was probably oozing from these clotted wounds… But even then, I was nevertheless correct about the fact that he thought that an oozing of lymph was at least partially responsible for the presence of all those precise imprints of dumbbell shaped scourge wounds on the cloth. And if Barbet’s idea about the oozing of lymph is correct, it should be noted that this phenomenon could have played a very huge role in the fact that a lot of scourge wounds have been able to leave a mirror imprint of themselves on the Shroud, while at the same time, not even one of the ancient blood flows coming from the scourging were not able to do the same, even though it is very probable that many of these clotted blood flows were still stuck on the skin of the Shroud man at the time of his burial. If Barbet is correct on this issue, this absence of presumed blood flows that were caused by the scourging was due to the fact that they would not have been kept humid for a long time by this possible oozing of lymph that came from the scourge wounds. In other words, this kind of small oozing of lymph would have been pretty much restricted to the area of the clots that were formed over these wounds and also possibly to their immediate vicinity (with no effect on the clotted blood flows).

    I think this kind of more or less constant oozing of lymph from the wounds and excoriations (even after death) can really offer a good, simple and rational explanation for why all the scourge wounds (which all produced, in Barbet, Lavoie, Adler and also in Zugibe’s mind, an external blood clot coming from a superficial cutting or excoriation of the skin) were able to stay moistened enough to leave a good mirror imprint of themselves on the cloth later on, while the ancient blood flows that also came from the same scourging were not able to do so, even though it’s very probable that most of them were still present (but in a completely dried state) on the skin of the Shroud man when his body was laid in the Shroud. The very probable fact that these ancient blood flows had been completely dried for a long time prior to the Shroud man’s death (on the contrary to the scourge wounds, if Barbet’s oozing of lymph hypothesis is correct) can really explain why all these particular blood flows were not able to get re-moistened enough to leave a visible imprint of themselves on the cloth… Even if some moisture could have covered them inside the Shroud (coming from a probable release of water vapor and post-mortem gases from the corpse), these ancient blood flows would have been simply dry for too long, on the contrary to all the clotted wounds (including the scourge wounds), which were able to stay more or less humid during all the crucifixion and even after the death of the Shroud man.

    I honestly think that this is the most probable explanation for the presence of all the scourge wounds on the Shroud and the absence of all the assumed blood flows that most probably came from the leather tongues of the flagrum, along with maybe some help coming from a re-opening of many scourge wounds when the tunic would have been removed from Jesus body at the foot of the cross and with also some help from the very intense sweating, which was certainly present on the body and hair of the Shroud man, especially just before he died. Also, we cannot exclude that the natural clotting of these wounds could have been delayed by some biological syndrom or disorder that could have been caused by the highly traumatic state of the Shroud man after his scourging. On this subject, even jesterof seem to agree that a delay in the clotting process of all the wounds could have really happened due to the traumatic state of the Shroud man…

    Personally, I would leave this possibility as a possible secondary cause for the imprint of the scourge wounds and prefer to favored Barbet’s hypothesis concerning a more or less constant oozing of lymph from all the wounds (including the scourge wounds) before and even after death that would have greatly helped all of them to leave a mirror imprint on the Shroud when the body was laid in it later on. One thing’s for sure: there really are many rational possibilities that can explain the presence of these scourge wounds on the cloth, along with the absence of the ancient blood flows coming from the same scourging, but a partial washing of the body is most probably not among them…

    And if you still want to ask me why the idea of Zugibe is most probably not relevant here, just read my guess posting on-top of this page, along with all the post I wrote after that and you will find tons of good reasons to reject such an idea (or at the very least, consider it as being highly improbable in the context of the hasty burial of a crucified criminal like the Shroud man). Among those reasons, the most important remains in my mind the presence of clear and distinct serum stains around most of the scourge marks, which is a very solid clue to think that these marks really came from exudates of moistened blood clots (external blood clots I might add) that had been clotted for a pretty long period of time, so that the clot retraction phenomenon (which cause an expulsion of serum from the clot) could become active (just like Barbet, Adler, Lavoie, Baima Bollone and others specialists thought). And along with this solid argument, you can also consider seriously the fact that, on the Shroud, there is absolutely no smudge or smear of blood and absolutely no pre-mortem bloodstain have a tendency to follow the weave pattern of the cloth, which is a very strong indicator that all these bloodstains (including all the scourge marks) came not from an oozing of liquid post-mortem blood that would follow a partial washing of the body that would have removed all the dried blood clots, as proposed by Zugibe, but from exudates of moistened blood clots, as proposed by Barbet, Lavoie, Adler, etc., which exclude any idea of washing of the body. On this point, you must absolutely note that this absence of smudges and smears of blood and this absence of bloodstains that tend to follow the weave pattern of the cloth are even real on the back region of the Shroud, where there was for sure a very intense pressure present on the cloth due to the weight of the body. This simple fact has to be seen as a very solid piece of evidence against the hypothesis of an oozing of liquid post-mortem blood that would have caused all the scourge wounds after a partial washing of the body, as proposed by Zugibe. Also, there is also the very strong argument I gave you in my guess posting concerning the presence of precise scourge marks in the immediate vicinity (as close as 1.3 cm!) of a post-mortem blood flow in the lower back region, which could not be disturb at all by any washing. The idea that this particular area (which would not have been so easy to reach) could have been washed in such a surgical manner is quite simply ludicrous in the context of the hasty burial of a crucified criminal like the Shroud man. Also, the fact that the forearms and head regions have been able to produce a good body image on the cloth, while they have clearly not been washed at all prior to the enshrouding of the body is another circumstantial evidence that support the idea that even if there were still many dried blood flows that would have been present on the skin of the Shroud man in the regions affected by the scourging because the body would have remained unwashed, this would not have been a factor that could have prevent the formation of a body image in these areas. Also, we must consider the historical research done by Lavoie et al. in the 1980s, in which they found out that washing the dead body was a normal part (along with anointing and dressing the body, among other things) of the whole Jewish burial procedure, at the exception of one case: when the dead body in question suffered a violent death that would have caused some bleeding at the time of death. In such a particular case, Lavoie et al. informs us that no washing would have been done in order to respect the Jewish Law (and I might add that such a rule was most probably even more respected when the dead body in question was the one of someone who died on the cross as a legally condemned criminal). Also, another pretty strong argument against Zugibe’s hypothesis of a partial washing of the body comes from the finding of evident traces of dirt in the knee area on the Shroud, which is a place where there are some scourge marks. Finally, here’s another possible evidence against the washing hypothesis that would have produced an oozing of liquid post-mortem blood, as proposed by Zugibe: the possible absence of potassium in the scourge marks (I say “possible” because I’m still unsure if Adler really found no potassium in the particular case of the scourge marks or if this absence was only detected for other bloodstains). Anyway, if there really is no potassium whatsoever in these bloody marks, it would be another important clue to think that these marks were really made of exudates of moistened blood clots (that shouldn’t contain potassium if we believe Adler) that would have still been present on the skin of the Shroud man because his body would not have been washed prior to his deposit in the Shroud, instead of being made of liquid post-mortem blood (a kind of blood that should contain potassium) that would have oozed from the re-opened wounds (filling them of post-mortem blood in liquid form) after that a washing of the body would have removed the dried clots over these closed and dried wounds (as proposed by Zugibe).

    Question to conclude: Isn’t that enough pieces of evidence for you (jesterof and anyone else) to open your mind enough on this subject that you could start to consider other possible avenues than an improbable partial washing of the body, followed by an oozing of liquid post-mortem blood, as proposed by Zugibe? I just hope all my reflection on this subject (with all the strong arguments I bring you; suggestion: try to consider them as a whole) could at least open your mind a bit on the possibility (not a certainty) that Barbet was right after all with his hypothesis that all the scourge marks on the cloth (as well as all the other pre-mortem bloodstains) would have been produced by exudates of moistened blood clots, without the help of a partial washing of the body. I hope some of you will start to get more critical against Zugibe’s hypothesis, as well as becoming critical also against jesterof’ own hypothesis, which seem to be unable to rationally explain the presence of very distinct serum halos around most of the scourge marks on the cloth, on the contrary to Barbet’s hypothesis…

    Final and important note: The only way I can change my mind on this whole issue would be for jesterof (or anyone else) to show me (not tell me, but show me with the help of some pictures) a clear proof that the kind of blood transfer he proposed and/or the kind of blood transfer proposed by Zugibe can contradict all the strong arguments I gave you in this long post, especially the presence on the Shroud of distinct halos of serum around most of the pre-mortem bloodstains (including most of the scourge wounds) that are clearly visible and very easy to distinguish from the blood under UV light. Note also that, for Barbet, Adler, Lavoie, Baima Bollone and other specialists, these serum stains that are located right outside the central bloodstains are a clear sign that a blood retraction phenomenon had time to operate on external blood clots that were in a drying mode… And it’s also important to note that Zugibe, in his paper, never say a word about this important question of the presence of serum halos around most of the pre-mortem bloodstains, which has to be seen as a great mistake on his part. In all logic, the only way he could have produced a bloodstain surrounded by a very distinct serum stains on its edges would have been to let his oozing of liquid post-mortem blood alone for a while, so that the clotting process could enter in the clot retraction phase, which takes a pretty long time that is not at all rational in the context of the hasty burial of Jesus on Good Friday. Finally, I would like to hear jesterof or others on the question of the possible lack of potassium in the scourge marks. If such a lack of potassium could be be scientifically confirmed for these scourge marks, I really wonder how his own hypothesis of blood transfer or the one proposed by Zugibe could account for it… Note that Adler had a pretty reasonable answer for this lack of potassium, which was related to the probable fact that all the pre-mortem bloodstains (including the scourge wounds) were formed on the cloth not by complete blood (as it would have been the case if Zugibe was right; it’s probably also true for jesterof’s hypothesis), but by exudates of moistened blood clots, as described by Barbet in his book.

  57. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 5, 2013 at 6:34 am

    Three-hour darkness during Rabbi Yeshua’s crucifixion is documented by the Gospel writers Matthew, Mark, and Luke. They read as follows:

    “Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is
    to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:45-46)

    “And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mark 15:33-34)

    My Comment: Opening verse of Psalm 22 stands here for the whole psalm. One shall be reminded the “yet” in verse 3 turns around forsakenness into deliverance. It has the ring of truth as for time immemorial, psalm 22 is one of the psalms pious Jews use TO RECITE DURING THE PROCESS OF DYING or whenever they found themselves in difficult situations.

    And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. 45 And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.
    46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.47 Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, certainly this was a righteous man. 48 And all the people that came together to that sight, beholding the things which were done, smote their breasts, and returned. (Luke 23:44-48)

    SHOULD the three passages above to be taken just as metaphors and be pious lies?
    If we are to fall in YC’s most curious ‘take-and-leave’ interpretative line:

    Why SHOULD anyone consider too the very fact that Rabbi Yeshua is reported in the Gospels to have died at the ninth hour of the day (i.e. exactly “between the two evenings”, beyn ha-arbayim in Hebrew), be true/an historical reality? Why SHOULD NOT YC or anyone read it just as another literary device/forgery to most artificially have Exodus 29:38-41 (“They shall slaughter it [the paschal lamb]… beyn ha-arbayim” = at the ninth hour of the day) symbolically fit the event? Why SHOULD YC give more credence to Rabbi Yeshua’s time of death and hold darkness at the resurrection to be a pious lie? Etc.

    After committing the fallacy of arguing ad nauseam from silence as far as Adler, Rogers, Barbet are concerned YC now commits the fallacy of arguing ad nauseam from chronic metaphor/pious lie as far as Matthew, Mark and Luke are concerned. The true fact remains though a simply naturalistic explanation, namely a Judean desert dust-storm of great magnitude blowing in Jerusalem (followed or not by the rising of a bloody moon) could rationally account for the darkness at crucifixion. Would YC be unable for once to apply his dearest Occam razor principle when it comes to this specific issue? From his Quebecois viewpoint, would YC be unable to imagine ‘the black breath’ of the Judaean desert darkening the sun over Jerusalem and its vicinity?

    • Yannick Clément
      August 5, 2013 at 10:50 am

      Question from Max: SHOULD the three passages above to be taken just as metaphors and be pious lies?

      Answer from me (and from most biblical scholars that I know): As metaphors that are directly sending the reader of the time (who knew how to interpret these images) to the creation account at the beginning of the book of Genesis. This image of darkness at the time Jesus was on the cross is nothing else than a symbolical manner for the Gospel writers to say that it was the hours of the darkness powers and that God was about to begin a brand new creation (or a re-creation if you prefer), just as we see in Genesis when it is said: “Now the earth was formless and empty, DARKNESS was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.”

      This image of darkness (as well as the reference to an earthquake) is most probably only symbolic and not really historical (this is not a certainty, but this is highly probable, in the light of the ancient Middle Eastern way to speak and write, especially for the Jews).

      Jesus’ crucifixion was a real historical event. But all the catastrophic images surrounding it are most probably symbolic. Ask any good biblical scholar about that if you don’t trust me.

      End of my preach ! ;-)

  58. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 5, 2013 at 11:58 am

    YC,

    1/Could you give me the name of a REALLY INSPIRED biblical scholar, please and tell me what does he say about the darkness at crucifixion (if you know any such Biblical scholar!). 2/Could you account for your sudden dismissing of the Occam razor principle as far as the darkness at crucifxion is concerned?
    3/How can you be so sure such a literay device was applied in 100% cases as far as the Biblical texts are concerned?
    4/ What about ‘the ninth hour’ according to your pious lie/literay forgery so-called theory? Is it a literay device or a historical fact? How can you be so sure it is not just another literary device just devised to fit Exodus 29:38-41?
    6/ What do you make of the Judean/Jewish context/system of law that require(d/s) two or more individual persons to bear testimony for the latter to be valid/true?

    REMINDER for YC: At the mouth of 2-3 witnesses (Matthew, Mark and Luke), the testimony of the darkness/obscuration at the crucifixion is legally valid AND true. As such, it JUST CANNOT BE DISMISSED as easily as you and you alledged ‘Biblical scholars’ and this in as much as Yeshua’s death at the ninth hour.

  59. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 5, 2013 at 12:00 pm

    Typo: it JUST CANNOT BE DISMISSED as easily as you and you alledged ‘Biblical scholars’ MOST WRONGLY THINK. The same applies to Yeshua’s death at the ninth hour.

  60. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 5, 2013 at 12:20 pm

    …Just in case you and your alleged ‘Biblical scholars’ would ignore it.

  61. Yannick Clément
    August 5, 2013 at 1:45 pm

    In ancient times Max, particularly in the Middle East, using metaphors and/or symbols in order to described a SPIRITUAL REALITY was not considered at all as a « lie » or as a « literary forgery » like you seem to suggest. It was only a very ancient way to described a SPIRITUAL REALITY with the help of material realities. It was a kind of language that we’re not so familiar with today in our modern societies… This kind of symbolic writing was very common in those days and it was very far from being a lie on the part of these ancient authors. It was just their way to described things that we can’t see with our eyes!

    And concerning your question about the ninth hour, effectively, I would not be surprise that this too could be more symbolical than really historical, but in this particular case, I would not bet my house the way I would for the earthquake and darkness, because I don’t see any good reason to completely reject the idea that this could be the real hour of Jesus death on the cross. And it is the same thing for the supposed 3 hours on the cross of Jesus… Here too, it is truly possible that this number is more symbolic than anything else. As you sure know, the number 3 in the Bible is often used as a symbol of fullness (and in the case of Christ, we can also see a possible reference to the Trinity), just like the number 40 is often used as a symbol of a time needed to achieve something. In both cases, it would be very risky to take such numbers for granted and think that they are really historical and not symbolic…

    Now, concerning your demand of reference for a biblical scholar I can know, just give me 24 hours and I’ll bring this to you with pleasure. I hope you will start to consider my comments more seriously when you’ll read similar opinions expressed by known and well-respected scholars…

  62. Yannick Clément
    August 5, 2013 at 1:57 pm

    By the way, it is a LIE to pretend I said that these images could not have been also true historical realities at times! I was clear in other comments about that… It is not impossible that, sometimes (but surely not everytime), a writer could have used a real historical event that could « fit » with the profound message he wanted to delivered, but I wouldn’t bet my house this kind of « good luck » really happened a lot of times.

  63. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 6, 2013 at 7:11 am

    ADDITIONAL REMINDER FOR AN AGENDA-DRIVEN GEOGRAPHER:

    In spring and autumn, the dry, hot and dusty “Khamsin” wind/Sharaf/the Biblical RuaH Qadim, blowing from the desert from the east and southeast, may cause temperatures to rise as high as 43-49 degrees C.Each year in Jerusalem blow an average of about 40 Judean desert dust-storms of more or less small or average magnitude. However in March 1998 blew a Judean desert dust-storm of great magnitude in Jerusalem and its vicinity. In the eyes of Jerusalem inhabitants, it was NO LITERAY DEVICE at all!

    What does YC the geographer make of the reality of the Judean desert dust-storms blowing in Jerusalem and its vicinity? NOTHING! What does he make of the fact that at the mouth of the 2-3 Jewish witnesses (Matthew, Mark and Luke), darkness at crucifixion and Yeshua’s death at the ninth hour on the cross have solid legal ground in terms of valid truths? NOTHING! Now in the meantime, YC shamelessly want us to believe he is taking into account the Judean/Jewish context to make his point!

    YC, you’re JUST DELUDING YOURSELF my young man!

    The most likely fact is Yeshua’s death at “the ninth hour” and “darkness/” at crucifixion are legally valid and thus as such can be historically true. Besides why SHOULD such events be only EITHER real OR metaphors resulting from a mere literary device when to the initiated eyes within the Judean/Jewish ethnic milieu, the two events most likely could be REAL SIGNS as signs to be deciphered within reality?

    The other true fact is real physical darkness at crucifixion in conjunction with the RuaH Qadim or East Wind (= Khamsin/Sharaf) implies the TS man’s/Yeshua’s bloody body MOST LIKELY was all covered with adhering fine Judean desert dust particles from his MOST LIKELY stay for at least 3 hours nailed on the cross on the mount Golgotha after a Judean desert storm-dust of great magnitude had blown in Jerusalem and its vicinity and the sky/sun darkened “over the whole land [of Judea]” as reported by Matthew, Mark and Luke. If not metaphoric, the two events would just ruin YC’s ‘no washing/purifying the body’ mantra.

    How long will YC be in denial of the possibility of real signs and Judean/Jewish law system as far as testimony validity is concerned? How long will YC the geographer be in denial of Israeli meteorology?
    I

  64. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 6, 2013 at 7:55 am

    How long will YC be in denial of the Judean/Jewish burial core procedures in the hypothesis the TS man bloody body is Yeshua’s ? How long will it take him to realise 4h04mn and 2-2h30 mn are respectively the maximum and minimum time -frame for Yeshua’s burial according to the Gospels, the Hebrew time-markers and Archaeoastronomy? How long will it take him to acknowlege a Second Temple period burial was performed by a minimum of 4-6 buriers and since in the Gospels the women did not directly take part at the burial, it means a minumum of 4-6 buriers were involved in Yeshua’s?

  65. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 6, 2013 at 8:22 am

    Reminder for YC and his ‘draped over body’ mantra (even before image formation process):
    In the light of the three other Gospels, John 19: 40 reads: Then they took the body of Yeshua, and wound and compressed and fastened it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Judeans is to bury”.

  66. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 6, 2013 at 8:28 am

    Is it just a metaphoric burial too?

    • Max Patrick Hamon
      August 6, 2013 at 12:24 pm

      YC wrote: “(Tight wrapping-up of the body would have been) completely ludicrous in the context of people who knew they had to come back to the tomb on Sunday morning to finish the burial)…”. And in # 68: “…the MOST LOGICAL (LOWER CASE LETTERS ARE MINE) move for them would have been to simply laid down the crucified body that was still covered with blood clots (dried and moistened) and some dirt (not much) in the Shroud WITHOUT TYING THE CLOTH with linen strips (because they knew they HAD TO OPEN IT AGAIN (sic) on Sunday morning) and leave it there still naked Inside the Shroud. That’s THE MOST LOGICAL SCENARIO (sic!) in the context of Jesus hasty burial. YOU CAN THINK WHAT YOU WANT(sic) but that will NEVER CHANGE (sic!) anything about THIS TRUTH (sic!)”.

      The true fact is this is not what the Gospels say at all: Could YC RE-READ John 19:40 in the light of the three Gospels as above (#141) and compare, PLEASE: “Then they took the body of Yeshua, and (wound and compressed and) fastened it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Judeans is to bury” (on Good Friday).

      My reply (see # 101: “What is TOTALLY ludicrous is to think (as YC does) the shrouds tightly wrapping a body cannot be soaked in/anointed with spicy oil perfumes to prevent bad smells as in the Judean ethnic milieu of the time, the tradition was to visit the deceased on the three or seven days immediately following death.” In other words a body all tightly wrapped-up in shrouds could be anointed without having it to be unwrapped at all.” What is also ludicrous is to read besides anointing, the women were to wash and wrap Yeshua’s body in shrouds/linens clothes on Sunday morning.AGAIN this is NOT what the Gospels say.

      Can YC NOW explain to me and all, why the wrapping in shrouds/linen clothes SHOULD be read as ONLY metaphoric in the Gospels while the anointing procedure the women were about to perform on Sunday Morning SHOULD be read as referring not only to FACTUAL anointing to be but also to FACTUAL washing and wrapping to be (had Yeshua’s body be still in the tomb)? YC’s reading of Yeshua’s burial is mostly self-delusional. It DOES have NO RHYME NOR REASON at all!

      Still WAITING for YC to answer my questions above # 134-139-140…

  67. Yannick Clément
    August 6, 2013 at 8:28 am

    Here’s a quote from the great book « The death of the Messiah » written some years ago by a well-known and respected biblical scholar (an American) named Raymond E. Brown, in which he gives his opinion about the darkness that supposedly came when Jesus was on the cross (personal translation of the French edition of this book): “When we read the surprising description of the darkness that covered all the Earth from noon to 3 o’clock (from the sixth to the ninth hour), many possible interpretations come in mind. This can be a factual report, implying possibly a natural phenomenon (eclipse, thunderstorm, etc.) or a miracle without any previous; or this can be a purely metaphoric description related to the eschatological language of the Old Testament or the Hellenistic imagery associated with the death of famous man or even both.”

    After this introduction, Brown wrote this: “We have no way to know if, for the Gospel writers, Mark and Matthew, a physical darkness was present at noon at Golgotha. Anyway, this is very probable because they give a schedule like they do for events they report as real. But we know that both writers have a symbolical and theological orientation.”

    After this, Brown gives a lot of possible parallels that can be made between these darkness and various texts of the Old Testament (Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, Sophonias, Joel, Second book of Enoch, etc.), which can well have had a huge influence on the reference to the darkness in the Gospel accounts of the Passion of Christ. In a footnote, Brown also wrote this: “While resuming the history of the interpretation of these darkness, Grandez bring attention on the influence of the Pseudo-Areopagite (around 500 A.D.), who underline the analogy with the great miraculous interventions of God in the Old Testament, particularly in Exodus.”

    And concerning the reference to an earthquake that we found in Matthiew, Brown reports again many examples of possible parallels that can be made with various texts of the Old Testament and say that the reference to an earthquake (sometimes associated with the darkness!) in the Old Testament is often a sign of God’s judgement or of the last times.

    I think this is a pretty good summary of Brown’s book concerning these “catastrophic” events described in the Gospels and I think you don’t have to be a genius to understand that these kinds of references can well be symbolic instead of being really historic. Of course, as Brown said, it is impossible to be sure about that. But nevertheless, the fact that the imagery of the earthquake and the darkness is often found in the Old Testament to describe an intervention of God in this world should be enough to put serious doubts over the possibility that these events really happened at the time of Jesus’ death. One thing’s for sure: Personally, I would NEVER base a hypothesis concerning the Shroud (whether it be the image formation or the blood transfer) on things like that because the possibility is way too high that these references can only be symbolic.

    Along with these quotes from Brown’s book, I encourage anyone to also read another comment I wrote yesterday about the same topic. Here’s the link: https://shroudstory.com/2013/07/28/guest-posting-challenging-frederick-zugibe-on-washing-of-the-body/#comment-40379

    Now it’s up to you to take all these things for granted as true historical facts… Note that Brown himself don’t take position. He presents the facts, give some possible explanations and let his readers decide if they think these things really happened or not. But in the end, it should be noted that the simple fact that he presents a lot of parallels with the Old Testament should be enough for anyone to become at least a bit suspicious about the possibility that these events can really be historic. Of course, some of you (like Max for sure) will bring back this quote from Brown : “Anyway, this is very probable because they give a schedule like they do for events they report as real.” But this is far from being a sure proof of anything… In fact, Brown himself knew that as he immediately said : “But we know that both writers have a symbolical and theological orientation.” So, again, there’s absolutely no way to be certain if these events really happened on Golgotha or if they were just literary creations used for a symbolical and/or theological purpose. And because of that, the prudence here would be to keep things like that off of any hypothesis concerning the Shroud. The risk of error is simply too high. To conclude, I would ask you two good questions: Do you seriously believe that Jesus was the only Jewish (or even Middle Eastern) man of his time who have used symbolic images to described spiritual realities (like he did with all his parables)? Don’t you think the Gospel writers could also have been tempted to introduce very strong events like an earthquake and/or darkness that were very telling for their readers in order to symbolically describe a divine intervention and/or the power of darkness forces at the time of the Passion, death and Resurrection of Christ? I hope you will at least leave the door open for this possibility…

  68. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 6, 2013 at 9:22 am

    YC,
    In one of my comments (# 134), I asked: “Could you give me the name of a REALLY INSPIRED biblical scholar, please and tell me what does he say about the darkness at crucifixion (if you know any such Biblical scholar!).

    You gave me the name of Raymond E Brown and his quote re the darkness at resurrection: ““Anyway, this is very probable (a physical darkness was present at noon at Golgotha)”,…

    …which is the exact opposite of your claim: “This image of darkness at the time Jesus was on the cross IS NOTHING ELSE THAN (upper case letters mine) a symbolical manner for the Gospel writers to say that it was the hours of the darkness powers and that God was about to begin a brand new creation”????????????!!!!!!!!!! NOTHING ELSE really? How can you be so sure about it?

    Actually, Brown DOES CONFIRM MY READING (a physical darkness is “most likely”) but DO fail to give a consistent explanation to the physical phenomenon.

    Actually, Brown totally missed both the RuaH Dadim/Khamsin/Sharaf (application of the Occam razor principle) and the Judean/Jewish law system as far as testimonial validity as key issue is concerned here

    You wrote: “I hope you will at least leave the door open for this possibility (your viewpoint)” while in one of your preceding comment you wrote “this is NOTHING ELSE THAN a symbolical manner for the Gospel writers to say that it was the hours of the darkness powers…” thus shamelessly trying to close the door to my solidly grounded hypothesis?!
    REMINDER: The latter is: MOST LIKELY the darkness at resurrection is BOTH real/physical AND a sign. CANNOT YOU READ ME EITHER?

    • Max Patrick Hamon
      August 7, 2013 at 3:52 am

      Correction: MOST LIKELY the darkness at THE CRUCIFIXION is BOTH real/physical AND a sign.

  69. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 6, 2013 at 9:24 am

    Typo (one among many): RuaH Qadim

  70. Yannick Clément
    August 6, 2013 at 10:33 am

    I’ll just repeat what I said at the end of my last comment Max: Of course, some of you (like Max for sure) will bring back this quote from Brown : “Anyway, this is very probable because they give a schedule like they do for events they report as real.” But this is far from being a sure proof of anything… In fact, Brown himself knew that as he immediately said : “But we know that both writers have a symbolical and theological orientation.” So, again, there’s absolutely no way to be certain if these events really happened on Golgotha or if they were just literary creations used for a symbolical and/or theological purpose. And because of that, the prudence here would be to keep things like that off of any hypothesis concerning the Shroud. The risk of error is simply too high.

  71. Yannick Clément
    August 6, 2013 at 10:37 am

    And if I really said “this is NOTHING ELSE THAN a symbolical manner for the Gospel writers to say that it was the hours of the darkness powers…”, then it has to be read like this instead : “In the probable case where the Gospel writers have used the darkness in a purely metaphoric sense, this is NOTHING ELSE THAN a symbolical manner for the Gospel writers to say that it was the hours of the darkness powers.”

    • Max Patrick Hamon
      August 6, 2013 at 12:59 pm

      YC, Methinks you’re TOTALLY ignorant of the Judean/Jewish law system and the very idea of VALID TESTIMONY. Nope.

  72. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 6, 2013 at 12:53 pm

    (Better post my comment # 143 here at the end of the thread for YC)

    YC’s reading of Yeshua’s burial is mostly self-delusional. It DOES have NO RHYME NOR REASON at all!

    He wrote: “(Tight wrapping-up of the body would have been) completely ludicrous in the context of people who knew they had to come back to the tomb on Sunday morning to finish the burial)…”. And in # 68: “…the MOST LOGICAL (LOWER CASE LETTERS ARE MINE) move for them would have been to simply laid down the crucified body that was still covered with blood clots (dried and moistened) and some dirt (not much) in the Shroud WITHOUT TYING THE CLOTH with linen strips (because they knew they HAD TO OPEN IT AGAIN (sic) on Sunday morning) and leave it there still naked Inside the Shroud. That’s THE MOST LOGICAL SCENARIO (sic!) in the context of Jesus hasty burial. YOU CAN THINK WHAT YOU WANT(sic) but that will NEVER CHANGE (sic!) anything about THIS TRUTH (sic!)”.

    The true fact is this is not what the Gospels say at all!

    Could YC RE-READ John 19:40 in the light of the three Gospels as above (#141), he could read: “Then they took the body of Yeshua, and (WOUN and COMPRESSED and) FASTENED IT in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Judeans is to bury” . Can YC and tell me now if Yeshua’s burial on Good Friday is ONLY METAPHORIC TOO, PLEASE?

    “What is also TOTALLY ludicrous is to think (as YC does) the shrouds tightly wrapping a body cannot be soaked in/anointed with spicy oil perfumes to prevent bad smells as in the Judean ethnic milieu of the time, the tradition was to visit the deceased on the three or seven days immediately following death.” In other words a body all tightly wrapped-up in shrouds could be anointed without having it to be unwrapped at all.” (see my reply # 101).

    YC also reads, besides anointing, the women were to wash and wrap Yeshua’s body in shrouds/linens clothes on Sunday morning. AGAIN this is NOT what the Gospels say!

    IWere is even the case, can YC explain to me and all, why the wrapping in shrouds/linen clothes SHOULD be read as ONLY METAPHORIC in the Gospels while the anointing procedure the women were about to perform on Sunday Morning SHOULD be read as referring not only to FACTUAL anointing to be but also to FACTUAL washing and wrapping to be (had Yeshua’s body be still in the tomb)?

    Still WAITING for YC to answer my questions above # 134-139-140…

  73. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 6, 2013 at 12:55 pm

    Typo: Were it even the case

  74. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 6, 2013 at 2:10 pm

    Re the use of dramatic emphasis as literary device, THANK YOU, I am perfectly aware.

    As early as January 7, 2012 at 11:12 am | #12
    Reply |, I wrote (as my personal exegesis of Matthew 27:53):

    “I can also give a more serious explanation to Matthew 27:53 to account for saints coming out of their tombs after Rabbi Yeshua’ resurrection.

    In the Second Temple period, it was rather usual for both possessed and holy men to live an eremetic live in grottoes or DESUSED TOMBS. If we half rule out here the use of a literary device (dramatic emphasis) by Matthew, this is the best solution, in my eyes, we are left with to historically account for this long misunderstood passage.”

    Hence here, it does not mean at all, holy men literally resurrected then. It means several of them just showed up in Jerusalem after the event.”

    Here a FACTUAL event too could have been given a “dramatic emphatic” twist as a SIGN too.

    You and Your Biblical scholaar (aka Raymond E Brown) TOTALLY failed to see this TOO. Is the latter what you called a REALLY INSPIRED Biblical scholar? I very much doubt it.

  75. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 6, 2013 at 2:21 pm

    As far as darkness at the crucifixion and Yeshua’s death at the ninth hour this is TOTALLY different. We have here NOT ONE BUT TWO-THREE writers (who were BOTH direct witnesses as far as darkness over the whole land is concerned and RECOLLECTORS most likely of MORE THAN ONE occular testimony as far as Yeshua’s death at the ninth hour is concerned).

    • Yannick Clément
      August 6, 2013 at 3:07 pm

      This is bizarre Max cause nowhere in any ancient history record do we find any reference to these supposed darkness over the WHOLE WORLD… No Greek text talk about that. No Latin text talk about that. Just the Gospel writers. Can’t you see what’s evident here? This was most certainly only a symbol in their writings that refers mainly to the creation account at the beginning of Genesis! If everyone will take anything’s that is in the Bible for granted like you do, we’re not done yet!!! That would mean we would still stone to death in the street a women and a men who would be found guilty of adultery and I could wrote down a very long list of cretin things like that… Do you really want to read the Bible at first level all the time Max?

      • Yannick Clément
        August 6, 2013 at 3:11 pm

        One small addition to my first sentence: This is bizarre Max cause nowhere in any ancient history record do we find any reference to these supposed darkness over the WHOLE WORLD during the year 30 A.D. or 33 A.D., nor do we find any record of an earthquake in Palestine during those years…

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        August 6, 2013 at 3:48 pm

        YC you wrote:

        “No Latin text talk about that. Just the Gospel writers. Can’t you see what’s evident here? This was most certainly only a symbol in their writings that refers mainly to the creation account at the beginning of Genesis!”

        TOTALLY WRONG. You can add to the Matthew-Mark-Luke list Thallus, Phlegon, Africanus, and Tertullian. YES YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN!

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        August 6, 2013 at 3:56 pm

        By the way, in the Gospels “the darkness over the whole world” IS NOT a good translation. Best transalyion “The darkness over the whole land”, MOST LIKELY meaning here “The darkness over the whole land of Judaea”. And your are pretending you can read at second, third, fourth whatever level? Next, just try the first level, IT CAN WORK too.

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        August 6, 2013 at 4:04 pm

        Or alternative translation: “The darkness over the land (as far as the eyes can see from the mount Golgotah/Jerusalem)”

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        August 6, 2013 at 4:09 pm

        By the way, I dont’ read ONLY at first level. Cannot you read my English? REMINDER (AGAIN) for YC:

        MOST LIKELY the darkness at crucifixion is BOTH real/physical AND a sign.

  76. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 6, 2013 at 2:28 pm

    John is ALSO a direct witness of Yeshua’s death at the ninth hour but used the Roman hour (= the sixth hour)

    • Max Patrick Hamon
      August 6, 2013 at 2:54 pm

      Note: Here John means (John)-Mark

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        August 6, 2013 at 3:25 pm

        Sorry, I got all mixed up (typing to fast) about the hour in Roman and Judean time.

      • Yannick Clément
        August 6, 2013 at 3:34 pm

        Max who did an error… I can’t believe my eyes! I thought you were the next best thing that happened to the world after Jesus! ;-)

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        August 6, 2013 at 3:44 pm

        YC, the true fact is I am posting comments WHILE working on professional files (not that easy to stay concentrate at times especially when your are not typing on your favourite computer but a very old one).

    • Max Patrick Hamon
      August 6, 2013 at 4:11 pm

      Re “the next best thing that happened to the world after Jesus!”. Are you mistaking me for you?

      • Yannick Clément
        August 6, 2013 at 4:14 pm

        Never Max. I know I’m a poor human being just like you. ;-)

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        August 6, 2013 at 4:37 pm

        Not just like me: I am both rich as a human being and poor as homo economicus.

  77. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 6, 2013 at 2:39 pm

    YC, you also MOST MISLEADINGLY wrote: “And it is the same thing (a symbolic metaphor) for the supposed 3 hours on the cross of Jesus… Here too, it is truly possible that this number is more symbolic than anything else.”

    The true fact is the 4 Evangelists only explicitly refer to numbers 6 (sixth Roman hour) and 9 (ninth hour) as far as Yeshua’s crucifixion is concerned. How long will you keep reading what John, Matthew, Mark and Luke DID NOT WRITE in the Gospels?

    • Max Patrick Hamon
      August 6, 2013 at 2:49 pm

      Typo: as far Yeshua’s death on the cross is concerned.

    • Max Patrick Hamon
      August 6, 2013 at 3:10 pm

      Sorry, I meant the Evangeslist refer BOTH to the third Roman hour (number 3) and the sixth Judean hour (number 6) for the time of crucifixion and the ninth Judean hour for Yeshua’s death (number 9). In the Gospels, number 3 is NEVER given as an explict numerical reference to the time Yeshua actually stayed alive or dead on the cross.

  78. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 6, 2013 at 2:43 pm

    Besides most if not all the numbers are symbolic…

    • Yannick Clément
      August 6, 2013 at 4:16 pm

      So they could easily have been used in a purely symbolical way by these Middle Eastern writers that were the Gospel writers… How can we be sure that this is not the case?

  79. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 6, 2013 at 4:36 pm

    Just the same old blabla.

  80. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 6, 2013 at 4:54 pm

    YC, first try the first level and see if it can work (you need a good knowlege of the ethnic milieu, Second temple period and relevant ancient languages). Then see for a second level and so on.

  81. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 7, 2013 at 4:00 am

    YC you shamlessly wrote: “the prudence here would be to keep things like that off of any hypothesis concerning the Shroud.” when your self KEEP claiming the shroud was just (loosely) draped over the body on Good Friday, which NOT only is totally contradicted by the conjugated koine Greek verbs the 4 Evangelists used to describe Yeshua’s burial but is also totally in contradiction with your own advice (see above)!!!!????? AGAIN your alleged ‘exegesis’ DOES have NO RHYME NOR REASON!

  82. Yannick Clément
    August 7, 2013 at 8:29 am

    Max, despite all you can say, that will never change the bottom line versus the references to darkness, earthquake and things like that in the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ Passion, which was well described by Raymon E. Brown in those terms: “We have NO WAY TO KNOW if, for the Gospel writers, Mark and Matthew (you can include Luke also), a physical darkness was present at noon at Golgotha.” And it’s the same thing for the earthquake and, even more, for the supposed resurrection of the Saints at the time of Jesus’ death. All those things can well have been included in the Gospels in a pure symbolical way. THERE’S NO WAY TO KNOW. Because of that conclusion, the use of those things in any hypothesis versus the Shroud is risky as hell.

    • Max Patrick Hamon
      August 7, 2013 at 9:32 am

      YOU ARE DEFINITELY NOT A FREE THINKER.

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        August 7, 2013 at 9:35 am

        NOR A EVEN GOOD ONE.

  83. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 7, 2013 at 8:43 am

    YC, you DO have lost your way as far as Yeshua’s burial and the TS are concerned.

  84. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 7, 2013 at 9:00 am

    Methinks you and your ‘Biblical scholar’ just cannot tell legally VALID FACT (according to the Judean/Jewish law system) from fiction.

    You are living in thick exegetical darkness and you want us to believe it is clear as daylight.

    REMINDER for YC: you TOTALLY missed THE FACT that a storm in conjunction with darkness all over Jerusalem and its vicinity or the whole land as far as the eyes could reach from the mount Golgotah, most likely/rational explanation refers to a Judean desert dust-storm of great magnitud. MOST LIKELY, this BOTH a physical darkness AND a sign as far as Yeshua’s crucifixion are concerned. PERIOD.

  85. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 7, 2013 at 9:10 am

    Reminder for YC the geographer: The mount Golgotha is East of Jerusalem and the RuaH Qadim or Judean desert dust-storm, means East Wind.

    • Max Patrick Hamon
      August 7, 2013 at 9:16 am

      Typing too fast: My last sentence is a BIG MISTAKE/ERROR (Golgoth is West of Jerusalem). SORRY.

  86. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 7, 2013 at 9:18 am

    Just getting tired.

  87. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 7, 2013 at 9:24 am

    YC YOU ARE TOTALLY RIGHT: THERE WAS NO DARKNESS, YESHUA NEVER DIED AT THE NINTH HOUR (JUDEAN HOUR IN TIME). IT WAS A NO-BURIAL AND THERE WAS NO CRUCIFIXION. IT WAS JUST DRAMATIC EMPHASIS FROM BEGINNING TO END… I QUIT.

    • Yannick Clément
      August 7, 2013 at 10:03 am

      Max, I think you misread my comment completely. All I said is that it is IMPOSSIBLE, scientifically speaking, to be certain if these elements from the Gospels are historical or just symbolical. When you know the way these ancient Middle Eastern writers were “building” their accounts, it is truly possible that, along with real historical facts (the crucifixion of Jesus for example), they had some strong images of darkness, earthquakes, etc. in order to make references to the Old Testament and to deliver a theological message. As Brown clearly said: there’s no way to be sure about that. These elements can be totally historical but they can also be totally symbolical.

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        August 7, 2013 at 11:51 am

        Re darkness at the crucifixion, through the thread you said it was “NOTHING ELSE THAN (upper case letters mine) a symbolical manner for the Gospel writers to say that it was the hours of the darkness powers and that God was about to begin a brand new creation”… YOU ARE TOTALLY WRONG!

      • Yannick Clément
        August 7, 2013 at 1:03 pm

        Why is it 100% sure that I am wrong about that? Because this idea doesn’t go with your own idea on the subject? I don’t see any good reason to reject the possibility that these catastrophic events have been placed in the Gospels in a symbolical way. There are tons of good examples of this kind of literary technique throughout the Bible…

  88. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 7, 2013 at 11:11 am

    YC, RE MATTHEW’S, (JOHN-)MARK’S, PETER’S AND LUKE’S PRESENCE IN JERUSALEM ON THAT DAY; IT WAS JUST METAPHORIC TOO. THEY WERE NO DIRECT WITNESSES. THEY WERE NEITHER IN JERUSALEM ON THAT DAY. YOU ARE TOTALLY RIGHT.

  89. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 7, 2013 at 11:23 am

    YC Methinks the TRUE FACT is you’re TOTALLY unable to tell what is a sound clue or most likely fact from a scientic impossibilty and you TOTALLY ignore the validity of MORE THAN ONE direct witness’ testimony as far as the Judean law system is concerned re darkness at the crucifixion. DO YOUR HOMEWORK FIRST before passing comments.

  90. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 7, 2013 at 11:34 am

    Ignorance is father and mother of lie.

    • Max Patrick Hamon
      August 7, 2013 at 11:41 am

      Correction: Lie is the Father and Mother of Ignorance.

    • Dan
      August 7, 2013 at 11:43 am

      Max, Take it easy with the insulting tone.

      • Yannick Clément
        August 7, 2013 at 1:03 pm

        Thank you Dan…

  91. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 7, 2013 at 12:03 pm

    I was just using a METAPHORIC phrase for YC to understand.

    • Max Patrick Hamon
      August 7, 2013 at 12:11 pm

      O.K., I will rephrase my sentence:

      Untruth is the Father and Mother of Desinformation.

  92. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 7, 2013 at 12:15 pm

    Is most that is written in the Gospels about Yeshua’s crucifixion and burial factually UNTRUE as YC claims?

  93. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 7, 2013 at 12:17 pm

    If so, how can he still believed in Yeshua’s resurrection as a fact?

  94. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 7, 2013 at 12:23 pm

    I can help thinking YC makes too much of dramatic emphasis as an explain-all literary device. This is sheer intellectual laziness.

  95. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 7, 2013 at 12:33 pm

    …to hide one’s ignorance.

  96. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 7, 2013 at 12:34 pm

    …and a lie you tell to oneself.

  97. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 7, 2013 at 1:02 pm

    Correction: This is sheer intellectual laziness to hide your ignorance and a (little?) lie you tell yourself.

  98. Yannick Clément
    August 7, 2013 at 1:08 pm

    Here it is again just for you Max: Despite all you can say, that will never change the bottom line versus the references to darkness, earthquake and things like that in the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ Passion, which was well described by Raymon E. Brown in those terms: “We have NO WAY TO KNOW if, for the Gospel writers, Mark and Matthew (you can include Luke also), a physical darkness was present at noon at Golgotha.” And it’s the same thing for the earthquake and, even more, for the supposed resurrection of the Saints at the time of Jesus’ death. All those things can well have been included in the Gospels in a pure symbolical way. THERE’S NO WAY TO KNOW. Because of that conclusion, the use of those things in any hypothesis versus the Shroud is risky as hell.

    I don’t think we should continue this useless debate any long since you can’t understand (or don’t want to understand) the heart of my comments… Personally, I think those events are symbolical but I also clearly said that it is impossible to be sure, one way or the other. The most important thing is the fact that, historically speaking, these kind of catastrophic events in the Bible are very hard to prove as having really happened, for the good reason that most authors of the Bible liked to speak with images. It was an integrant part of their culture.

    • Max Patrick Hamon
      August 7, 2013 at 2:21 pm

      Reminder of MOST LIKELY FACTS for a Catholic named YC:

      John -Mark, MOST LIKELY as the assistant scribe of Hanan, the High Priest was IN JERUSALEM and was a direct witness of the darkness. In his eponymic gospel, he reports Peter’s testimony. Now Peter was also a direct witness of the darkness. Most likely Luke (Heb. Yair, mistranslated in Greek by iatros) helped Yeshua to carry his cross (beam) and as such was also a direct witness of the darkness. Matthew was not only a Roman tax collector but also a Judean and one of Yeshua’s disciples and report there were darkness. We have 3-4 direct witness for the darkness at the crucifixion.

      Reminder of YC’s claimed opinion (on this very thread) for YC himself:

      Re darkness at the crucifixion, when YOU CLAIMED as if it were a proven fact it was “NOTHING ELSE THAN (upper case letters mine) A SYMBOLICAL MANNER for the Gospel writers to say that it was the hours of the darkness powers and that God was about to begin a brand new creation”… YES, I am100% sure you are totally wrong just because YOURSELF claimed “THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW.”!

      Reminder AGAIN & AGAIN & AGAIN & AGAIN for YC:

      I NEVER say, as you most misleadingling infer, I was 100% sure there was darkness at the crucifixion. Don’t you but the words in my mouth. I just said “IT WAS MOST LIKELY”. I would say I am 95% sure if we take into account

      – severeal direct witnesses DID produce valid testimonies in the light of the Judean law system and their testimonies just cannot be as easily overlooked as you most wrongly think.
      Judean law system is part and parcel of the Judean culture.

      – the Judean desert dust-storm is a factual datum. It would account for “a storm” in conjunction with “darkness” as it does blow in Jerusalem and its vicinity and/or ‘lontanicity’ (“all over the land” of Judaea or as far as the eye could reach from the mount Golgotha). Meteorological phenomena is also part and parcel of the Judean culture.

      Reminder ACAIN & AGAIN & AGAIN & AGAIN for YC:

      MOST LIKELY (95%), this was BOTH a physical darkness AND a sign as far as Yeshua’s crucifixion are concerned. In other words, MOST LIKELY the darkness at the crucifixion war DRAMATIC AND FACTUAL as it is totally consistent with a Judean desert dust-storm of great magnitude (remember for e.g. March 1998 dust-storm blowing in Jerusalem and its vicinity) and the several direct witnesses’ testimonies are in accordance with legal validity as far as the Judean/Jewish law system is concerned. MOST LIKELY THIS IS MORE THAN A MERE LITERAY DEVICE IN TERMS OF DRAMATIC EMPHASIS.

      Oftentimes, Yeshua’s resurrection itself is also seen by Christians BOTH as A FACT (several direct witnesses bore testimonies they saw Yeshua alive after his death) and a SIGN (as a new covenant between G.od and Manhood).

      YC, if are you 100%, Yeshua resurrected, allow me to be 95% the darkness at crucifixion is both physical/real and was seen as a sign by several direct witness then.

  99. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 7, 2013 at 2:28 pm

    Note: sorry for the one thousand and one typos (writing in haste).

  100. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 7, 2013 at 2:50 pm

    Matthew 27: 53 re holy men getting out of their desused tombs and grottoes and appearing in Jerusalem after Yeshua’s resurrection, ”could then be read in the light of the darkness all over Jerusalem and its vicinity and/or lontanicity. They could have read such unsusual darkness both as a physical and symbolical sign to them…

    • Max Patrick Hamon
      August 7, 2013 at 3:01 pm

      holy men = here hermits from the wilderness.

  101. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 7, 2013 at 2:58 pm

    …and could have come to Jerusalem (a few days later) to see what happened there. Just a thought.

  102. Yannick Clément
    August 7, 2013 at 3:47 pm

    Concerning the darkness Max, Raymond E. Brown had a very good argument to seriously doubt their historicity (at least concerning the idea that these darkness covered the whole world). He cleverly said that if it would be historical, we should expect to find clear references of this very unusual event in the books of contemporary Latin or Greek historians of the time, while there are none… Very good argument. Bravo Mr. Brown!

  103. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 7, 2013 at 3:54 pm

    SORRY for another BIG mistake (typing in haste): Luke (Heb. Yair, mistranslated in Greek by iatros) REPORTED that Simon of Cyrena helped Yeshua to carry his cross (beam). Actually, he didn’t bear testimony of the darkness as a writer. The fact remains though they were at least 2-3 direct witnesses to validly testify of the phenomenon.

  104. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 7, 2013 at 4:06 pm

    YC you go again! The best translation is not “darkness over the whole world” BUT “OVER THE WHOLE LAND (of Judaea) that is as far as the eyes could reach from the mount Golgotah or as an alternative translation over the whole land of Judaea. Read my post before passing comments on them!

    The fact is Late Antique historians DID write about the darkness over the whole world see my post on August 6, 2013 at 3:48 pm | #157

    “YC you wrote:

    “No Latin text talk about that. Just the Gospel writers. Can’t you see what’s evident here? This was most certainly only a symbol in their writings that refers mainly to the creation account at the beginning of Genesis!”

    TOTALLY WRONG. You can add to the Matthew-Mark-Luke list Thallus, Phlegon, Africanus, and Tertullian. YES YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN!”

    HOOOOOOOOOUUUUU Mr Clément and Mr Brown!

    • Yannick Clément
      August 7, 2013 at 4:38 pm

      Do you seriously think someone as profesionnal as Brown didn’t knew these few references (most of them talks about an impossible solar eclipse by the way)? So, if he still concluded that there was no way to be certain about the historicity of the darkness, it is because these few references have been considered as being doubtful by many historians (probably because the only texts we have of those references came from the pen of Christians writers).

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        August 7, 2013 at 5:39 pm

        Whether you like it or not, the TRUE FACTS fact remain:

        1/ Brown (and you) TOTALLY missed the Judean desert dust storm as a rational naturalistic explanation to the “darkness”/”storm”/”all over the land” and failed to apply… the Occam razor principle (ever heard of it Mr Clément?). How come?

        2/Brown (and you) TOTALLY underrrates the fact at least 2-3 direct witnesses (not to mention those Luke could have approached) DID bear testimony of darkness at the crucifiion.

        3/ Brown (and you) TOTALLY ignores darkness as a factual dramatic phenomenon is the most likely/rational explanation all things considered.

        4/ You (and your Biblical scholar guru too) DID miss or overlook the 4 ancient Greek and Latin historians who DID report darkness either over the land of Judaea (even if they mistakingly wrote it was “over the whole earth” and thought it was a solar eclipse).

        You are not serious!

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        August 7, 2013 at 5:47 pm

        “whole earth” for “whole land”, “whole soil”, can be just a mistranslation and nothing else.

  105. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 7, 2013 at 4:13 pm

    The true fact is the 4 late Antique historians got mixed up as they read “over the whole (inhabited) word”, which is most clearly a bad translation.

    SEE: http://creation.com/darkness-at-the-crucifixion-metaphor-or-real-history?

  106. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 7, 2013 at 4:36 pm

    Typo:”The true fact is the 4 late Antique historians got mixed up as they refer to “the whole (inhabited) word”,

  107. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 8, 2013 at 5:53 am

    YC, it does seem R. E. Brown did poorly inspired you (darkness at crucifixion as a MERE literay device). He is no a superior/really inspired Biblical scholar at all (though a good Biblical scholar). As a professional cryptologist, It took me very little time to detect the shortcomings and failure of his exgesis on the particular issue. He just could not tell fact from fiction. He just could not give a sound clue to reach the most likely fact: valid testimonies of a physical darkness AND a sign over Jerusalem, its vicinity and lontanicty.

  108. Max Patrick Hamon
    August 8, 2013 at 5:55 am

    Typo: lontanicity

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: