Home > News & Views > A Picture Worth a Thousand Words: A Shroud 2000 Years Later

A Picture Worth a Thousand Words: A Shroud 2000 Years Later

October 9, 2013

Perhaps, not much has changed in 2000 years. This picture is taken from an article in the New York Daily News about the funeral for Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the spiritual leader of Israel’s Sephardic Jewish community and the ultra-Orthodox Shas party. This picture (there are many more showing the shrouded rabbi) is a Getty Image by Uriel Sinai. (Hat tip to Russ Breault)

image

Categories: News & Views
  1. Joe Marino
    October 9, 2013 at 10:30 am

    I hope the people who dismiss the Shroud because the Gospel of John mentions “linen strips” see this.

    • Angel
      October 9, 2013 at 9:49 pm

      Hi Joe,

      I recently purchased George M. Lansa’s translation of the Holy Bible from the original Aramaic and was surprised to find the Gospel of John, concerning the linen burial clothes, did not mention “strips.” See the following:

      ARAMAIC

      John 20:5-7 And he looked in and saw the linen clothes lying: but he did not enter in. Then Simon came after him and entered into the tomb; and he saw the linen clothes lying there.
      And the burial napkin which was bound around his head was not with the linen clothes, but was wrapped up and put in a place by itself.

      At this point in time, I own the King James Version of the Bible, The Jewish New Testament translated from the Hebrew by David H. Stern and the Aramaic translation of both the Old and New Testaments by George M. Lansa.

      The Hebrew translation of the NT by Stern, referring to John (same section as above), indicates the following:

      HEBREW

      John 20:5-7 Stooping down he saw the linen burial-sheets lying there, but did not go in. Then, following him, Shim’on Kefa arrived, entered the tomb and saw the burial-sheets lying there, also the cloth that had been around his head, lying not with the sheets, but in a separate place and still folded up.

      Neither of the two versions, Aramaic nor Hebrew, refers to “linen strips,” but instead, linen clothes or burial-sheets.

      Best,

      • October 9, 2013 at 11:15 pm

        Angel, Excellent point! Thanks for posting.

        • Joe Marino
          October 9, 2013 at 11:36 pm

          At least 1 major translation has used “strips”–I can’t remember which one it is. But most people don’t pay too much to Biblical scholarship before voicing an opinion on whether the Shroud is authentic or not. Another thought comes to mind concerning arguments based on John’s gospel–more related to common sense than scholarship. I’m always amazed at how many people use the argument that John mentions linen clothes and since the Shroud is just one piece, it can’t be authentic. That’s like saying if I lost a pair of shoes and find just one, it can’t be part of the pair because I originally lost 2. And these folks somehow never think to mention that the Synoptics used the word “sindon,” which fits very well with the Shroud.

      • daveb of wellington nz
        October 10, 2013 at 12:35 am

        You can check five Greek versions, Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, and nine English versions, all in parallel at http://www.greeknewtestament.com/

        The five Greek all use the word ‘othonia’
        Latin Vulgate uses ‘linteamina’, from root ‘linum’ = flax or linen, hence signifies cloths(pl) made of linen; Of the nine English versions, eight either use ‘cloths’ or ‘clothes’. Only ‘Bible in Basic English’ uses ‘linen bands’, which seems a presumption. None use the word ‘strips’; ‘Bands’ or ‘strips’ is not specifically denoted by Jerome’s ‘linteamina’, only that there was more than one ‘linen cloth’. It comes down to what is conveyed by the original Greek ‘othonia’.

        • Joe Marino
          October 10, 2013 at 5:54 am

          Daveb, I’ve seen people in print equate “bands” with “strips.” Thanks for the clarification.

      • daveb of wellington nz
        October 10, 2013 at 2:44 am

        ‘Perseus Ancient Greek-English Dictionary gives singular form ‘othonh’ as ‘fine linen’; asserts that plural form ‘othonia’ denotes ‘linen clothes’ or ‘bandages’. You need a Greek lexicographer to give examples of usage. ‘Linen robes’ are of course mentioned in Revelations and other scriptures. You could check there using URL above.

  2. October 9, 2013 at 11:14 am

    This is a fabulous article because it show so many pictures of the procession through Old Jerusalem. I keep thinking of how it might have been when they were taking Jesus from Golgotha to the tomb. What kind of procession? Were there people lining the streets? What a perfect example to illustrate the Shroud!

  3. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 9, 2013 at 12:26 pm

    Russ wrote: “What a PERFECT (upper cases mine) example to illustrate the Shroud!” Really?

    In the most likely hypothesis the shroud is Yeshua’s, what really can tell us something about the mood in which might have been Yeshua’s disciples and faithful followers whether present or absent on their master’s burial may be found in Rabbi Ovadia Yosef followers’ lamentations:

    “How will the world run without the sun? How will the world run without the moon? What will be of us? Who will lead us?[…]”.

    Oftentimes, the Crucifixion of Christ medieval iconography does feature the sun and moon…

  4. Louis
    October 9, 2013 at 1:10 pm

    Max,the quotation is not clear. Were the followers referring to the rabbi as their sun and their moon? Were they behaving like the followers of would-be messiah Menachem Mendel Schneerson in New York, where the city’s mayor had to call in dozens of psychologists to help them? Fanatics, in any religion, have no faith. Christians have learned, from the words of Jesus, then the material world is not an end in itself.

    • Max Patrick Hamon
      October 10, 2013 at 8:57 am

      Louis,

      I BOTH agree (“the material world is not an end in itself”) and disagree (as long as Yeshua’s disciples had not understood their master was to rise from the dead, they were TOTALLY lost/desorientated… Only when Yeshua appeared to them and proved he was not a spirit, they were reassured.

      • Louis
        October 10, 2013 at 9:54 am

        Max, what I was trying to point out is that the lamentations of Jesus’ disciples would be different in the sense that they were not given to fanaticism and, yes, as you say, they would be lost,feeling as though they had been living in an illusion. The Romans would leave them in peace because there would be no Jesus movement and they could get back to earning a living. The Easter event changed everything.

        Jesus has a unique position: he is accepted in Islam (the holiest of the prophets, to come at the end times to judge the world), Yezidis (as pure spirit, sent by the true God), Hinduism (as avatar, incarnation of God). More recently, we have the Jewish New Testament (used by messianic Jews) and the Jewish Annotated New Testament (for scholars). C.S.Lewis was right.

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        October 10, 2013 at 10:02 am

        Louis, there are many so-called “Christians” who are fanatics…

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        October 10, 2013 at 10:04 am

        The Inquisition time is never too far when you meet them…

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        October 10, 2013 at 10:09 am

        Giles of Ray thought himself a Christian and yet killed no less than 1000-1500 children…

  5. Louis
    October 9, 2013 at 1:12 pm

    Error in the last line above, it should read “that the material world is not an end in itself.”

  6. Matthias
    October 10, 2013 at 4:35 am

    off topic, back to one of my favourites, the Pray Manuscript.
    Whilst in the University library today, I made the very short stroll from the architecture section to the art history section. I found a fascinating book ‘Signs and Symbols in Christian Art’ by George Ferguson, written way back in 1966 (when England last won the football world cup ;)
    In the book Ferguson states that the number five is symbolic of the wounds of Christ (pg 154), whilst red symbolises blood (quite obviously). Referring back to the lower image, might the 5 holes on the red cross covered object reinforce the symbolism that the object represents Christ’s blood stained shroud? Or just another coincidence? Maybe???……
    He doesn’t explain why 5 is symbolic of Christ’s wounds. Presumably the 5 wounds comprising two palms, two feet, and side wound?

  7. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 10, 2013 at 7:03 am

    Matthias,

    you are right, the CLOTHING DECORATIVE UNIT PATTERN featured in the PHM is made of 5 pearls/(semi-)precious stones or 4 pearls + one diamond-shaped or rectangular shaped Gem. They are symbolic of Christ’s five wounds (2 holes in hands, two holes in feet and one hole in right side). Three is symbolic of the Holy Trinity.

    • Max Patrick Hamon
      October 10, 2013 at 7:26 am

      Correction: you are about right.

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        October 10, 2013 at 8:38 am

        Actually, they can only be mistaken for a layman or NON-astute obsever.

    • Max Patrick Hamon
      October 10, 2013 at 8:27 am

      The clothing pearls and gem stones set in a geometric pattern just cannot be mistaken for the two series of 4 and 5 blackened-rimmed “L”-shaped burn-holes.

  8. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 10, 2013 at 7:14 am

    Here is my own translation of John 20:5-7 :

    And he looked in and saw the shorter linen clothes lying: but he did not enter in. Then Kefa came after him and entered into the tomb; and he saw the shorter linen clothes lying there.
    And the large cloth (soudara) which was over his head was not with the shorter linen clothes, but distinctly rolled up onto the sole [vaulted funerary] niche.

    • Max Patrick Hamon
      October 10, 2013 at 9:05 am

      My tra,slation takes into account the John’s Gospel Koine Greek version + several Aramaic and Hebrew retroversions.

    • Angel
      October 10, 2013 at 7:39 pm

      Max, does your statement in regard to shorter linen clothes, refer to the shroud? Isn’t the shroud larger in surface area than the head cloth? Therefore, how could the shroud be defined as the “shorter” of the two cloths?

      Is it not possible that Jesus, in fact, did wear a loin cloth during the crucifixion, but it was completely blood-soaked and for this reason was removed just prior to Him being wrapped in the shroud and the placement of the head napkin?

      The Shroud image indicates the body was naked, but does not guarantee Jesus did not wear a loin cloth on the cross and If this was the case the clothes may refer to the shroud and loin cloth.

      I guess my point is does anyone know with certainty Jesus did not wear a loin cloth?

      Best,

  9. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 10, 2013 at 7:47 am

    Correection read “small” instead of “shorter”

  10. Louis
    October 10, 2013 at 10:09 am

    Max, re. #11 to 14. What was stated in the second paragraph of #12 shows that there is no need for fanaticism. Inquisition? Jesus himself was the victim of an inquisition.

  11. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 10, 2013 at 10:12 am

    Inquisition and… progroms.

  12. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 10, 2013 at 10:13 am

    pogroms

    • Louis
      October 10, 2013 at 3:47 pm

      No religious group can cast the first stone. Have you read about Bar Kokhba?

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        October 10, 2013 at 4:11 pm

        I don’t belong to any religious group and am not casting any stone. Fanaticism is well shared from ultranationalists to “ultrareligionists” to say nothing of “ultranationalists-religionists”…

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        October 10, 2013 at 4:13 pm

        Correction “ultrareligious clanists”.

  13. daveb of wellington nz
    October 10, 2013 at 3:40 pm

    Max: You’ll be aware that your translatin of John 20:5-7 is in direct contradiction to every other interpretation given to these verses. The five Greek versions given in the URL at #5 above all use the word ‘soudarion’ for the cloth over the head in a separate place, and ‘othonia’ for the other cloths. The Perseus Greek-English dictionary translates ‘soudarion’ as ‘towel’ or ‘napkin’. See my comment at #7 for Perseus tranlation of ‘othonia’. It has been generally considered that the ‘soudarion’ is the temporary head covering put in place towards the end of the crucifixion, and during the transport to the tomb, where it was then removed. I am guessing that one reason for your asserting the opposite, that the soudarion is the larger cloth, might be because it is described as ‘being placed over the head’ as we see on the TS.

    I should appreciate some clarification and expansion of your reasons for your assertion, and how is the departure from the more usual translations of ‘soudarion’ and ‘othonia’ resolved.

    • O.K.
      October 10, 2013 at 3:51 pm

      I think the exact meaning of ‘soudarion’, and ‘othonia’ in the Gospel of John will never be known. Just want to remind that ‘soudarion’ which was placed upon the head that Arculf saw in Jerusalem around 670 AD had eight feet of lenght. Or… eight cubits according to some manuscripts.

      I am currently making an article, list of all burial cloths of Jesus venerated through ages in all parts of the world. And I can say with great probability what burial clothes were kept in Constantinople untill 1204. Not only the current Shroud of Turin, but also several others, and I can make a good guess about their dimensions and role during Jesus’ buneral.

      • Angel
        October 10, 2013 at 7:54 pm

        O.K.

        I read somewhere years ago there were five pieces of cloth associated with the crucifixion of Jesus. Don’t know if this is correct, but I interpret the statement to include the following:

        1. Muslin garment Jesus wore every day.
        2. Cloak that was associated with the casting of lots by the
        Romans.
        3. Shroud
        4. Head Napkin (Sudarium)
        5. Strip of linen that held the head napkin in place and was
        tied at the neck OR the loin cloth.

        What are your thoughts?

        Angel

    • daveb of wellington nz
      October 10, 2013 at 6:01 pm

      O.K.: You are therefore saying that the author (final readactionists) of John’s gospel did not understand the Greek terms ‘sudarion’ and ‘othonia’. Yet there must be any number of instances where these terms were also used in other ancient Greek texts. The translations given in the Perseus lexicon, are presumably based or at least influenced, by such ancient usages.

      • O.K.
        October 11, 2013 at 6:08 am

        daveb of wellington nz :
        O.K.: You are therefore saying that the author (final readactionists) of John’s gospel did not understand the Greek terms ‘sudarion’ and ‘othonia’. Yet there must be any number of instances where these terms were also used in other ancient Greek texts. The translations given in the Perseus lexicon, are presumably based or at least influenced, by such ancient usages.

        No Dave, the author of John’s gospel knew what he understood by the terms ‘sudarion’ and ‘othonia’ -but unfortunately we don’t know what exactly he had on mind. The ‘sudarion’ can be either large shroud or small napkin. It is traditionally translated as napkin, because it was used in this meaning in some other places in the Bible. However, this choice does reflect only the views of modern translators, not neccesarly that of Saint John.

      • daveb of wellingon nz
        October 11, 2013 at 6:35 pm

        I don’t see that this argument holds water. Either the writer of John’s gospel knew Greek or he didn’t. The fact that he chose that language to write in, suggests that he was confident in it. The scriptures are not the only writings written in Greek, there are any number of Greek classics. So there must be any number of examples where the words ‘othonia’ and ‘soudarion’ are used. We have ‘towels’ in locker rooms, and princes wear ‘fine linen’. The lexicons are presumably based on a lot more than what a few writers of a minor Jewish sect set down in 1st century Palestine!

  14. Louis
    October 10, 2013 at 4:19 pm

    Max, re# 29. I was not referring to you but to any religious group.

  15. Josie L. Tyner
    October 10, 2013 at 7:31 pm

    Giles de Ray was a madman. He may have been a nominal Christian, in fact, he was one of Joan of Arc’s most important commanders. I read his confessions, you can find them online. He did not kill children because he was a Christian. He killed children because, according to his own words, was deeply involved in the occult. In fact, during one occult ceremony when the blood of children was being offered as a sacrifice, he “wished to see the Devil” but in fact chickened out. Crazy people will do what crazy people do: beat their children to death, starve them, kill their enemies or those who disagree with them, and whether they say “God made me do it” or the “Devil made me do it” or “People from outer space controlling my brain with Z rays made me do it” they are still crazy. People have done horrible things in the name of God. But they did these things with ulterior motives, cloaking their evil designs behind holy trappings and the fears and gullibility of the ignorant. To impute this evil to Christianity itself is beneath contempt. No institution has been free of those who would abuse it for their own gain. The next time someone wants to point and say “SEE? He is a Christian and look what he did!” you might want to also say “he did not do this in the name of Christianity. He did it because he was a bad man, no matter what he called himself.” I would be ashamed of that kind of intellectual dishonesty sir. Straw men burn easily.

    • Angel
      October 10, 2013 at 8:38 pm

      What you’ve stated is correct, Josie, and perhaps is also indicative of why Jesus cast out devils from some people in biblical times. Casting out devils would have been tantamount to psychoses in today’s society.

      Yet, I disagree with your reference to “bad man.”

      People who have not been around those who experience paranoia or schizophrenia fail to realize there is a chemical imbalance in the brain, which is obvious to those who have viewed PET scan images using the positron emitter, Fluorine-18. This particular radioactive tracer details glucose uptake in the brain and this is lacking in those who experience psychotic behavior.

      And many in our society expect people with mental disorders to act rationally; yet, because of their chemical imbalance, they are unable to. It’s really a sad situation.

      Best,

      • Josie L Tyner
        October 11, 2013 at 11:41 am

        I am a firm believer in modern psychiatry. I was, when I could work, an in-home care giver for many mental patients, not only those suffering from forms of dementia associated with brain deterioration but also Alzheimer’s disease and those experiencing psychosis related to frontal lobe deterioration. That said, Gilles de Raes was one of Joan of Arc’s best commanders, a man fully in charge of his faculties and not-Inconsiderable intelligence and battle field strategy, when he chose to be. There is Evil, sir, I do believe it, Evil with a big “E.” Monsieur de Raes wanted Power, with a big P. How better to take a short-cut to Power than thru the Prince of the Powers of the Air, to whom it is given? If Evil can be dissipated by few hours on a couch with a nice old fellow who says, in a German accent,” Tell me about your Muzzer..” or with a pill, I’m all for it. But that is evil with a little “e,” and even the most horrifying human “monsters,” the Jeff Dahmers, the Ted Bundies, are, at their core, pathetic victims of ill treatment or, as you say, mental defectives. No amount of pills or therapy(or lack thereof) can account for the killing fields of Pol Pot, or Auschwitz. THAT kind of evil nailed the Man to the Cross, and even he was not the Christ, THAT is still true. Mankind is imbued with a sickness, the destructive, seductive desire for power that “seemeth right” but can only bring misery, just like the ring in the famous trilogy by Tolkein, that cannot be wielded for good, no matter how pure or high-minded one’s intentions. Some of us still call it ‘sin,’ and the denial and suppression of it’s existence is Evil’s greatest triumph. Yes, there is mental illness, and there is particularly embarrassing contingent of self -styled ‘exorcists’ a la Benny Hinn who take shameful advantage of these unfortunates. But look rather in the seats of world power and the private expensive-cigar-and-bourbon back rooms. You will find Evil there, or rather, I hope you never do. Continued success to you sir and my respect always. , your acknowledgement of my poor contribution is an honor for me and a credit to your generosity of spirit.

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        October 11, 2013 at 1:27 pm

        In the Gilles de Ray case, the true word is not sin or mental illness but perversion (of the mind).

    • Max Patrick Hamon
      October 11, 2013 at 6:59 am

      Josie, you wrote: ” I would be ashamed of that kind of intellectual dishonesty sir”.

      Don’t you mistake me. I WAS referring to ANY kind of religious/nationalist/clanist etc form of fanticism. It all started with Louis wanted me to believe the lamentation of Yeshua’s disciples could not be compared at all to that of the followers’ of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef. I won’t bet my house on it. Some of Yeshua’s followers/disciples must have been really lost/desorientated in the interval just after their Master died on the cross and before they saw him alive after his death. Period.

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        October 11, 2013 at 7:02 am

        BTW they were nationalists (zealots) among Yeshua’s followers…

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        October 11, 2013 at 7:06 am

        Re the sun and moon metaphors, re-read the Gospels relating there was darkness on the whole land of Judeah (or as far as the eyes could reach from Mount Golgotha).

  16. Angel
    October 10, 2013 at 11:13 pm

    Louis, with respect to your post on the end times, have you seen the NASA Tetrad and double solar eclipse that will begin in April 2014 and end October 2015.

    What occurs with the moon pertains to what happens in Israel and what occurs with the sun equates to what will happen on earth. Look at what has happened with past blood moons to both Israelis and Christians during Passover and Sukkot.

    http://www.pray4zion.org/TheComingBloodMoons.html

    Best,

    • Louis
      October 11, 2013 at 7:01 pm

      Max, Rabbi Ovadia had links with Shas, so obviously that puts an end to the story?

      Angel,nice to see you flying in again. I have saved the link to read carefully when there is time.

      • Angel
        October 13, 2013 at 7:59 pm

        Thanks, Louis.

        I’ve never stopped flying, but instead I have been defending the Shroud of Turin on an atheist site that I hadn’t frequented for a while. One atheist wrote, “Who let you out of your strait jacket, Angel?”

        Unfortunately, there is no convincing an atheist, despite any type of evidence to the contrary. Since most atheists are evolutionists, rather than creationists, I counter with the “Archaeoraptor,” argument and that quiets them down for about a nanosecond. :)

      • Angel
        October 15, 2013 at 1:36 am

        Louis, read the latest Tabor archaeological find too.

        “Behold! Jerusalem dig turns up priestly bathtub from Jesus’ time.”

        http://www.nbcnews.com/science/behold-jerusalem-dig-turns-priestly-bathtub-jesus-time-4B11186595

  17. daveb of wellingon nz
    October 11, 2013 at 3:15 am

    Angel, Louis: I suggest you check out a web-site that gives a more objective appraisal of the tetrad of the 2014 lunar eclipses. They’re actually not all that rare. Web-site appears to be a Bible-based site, commentary by Danny Faulkner. So it should satisfy Angel’s preferences. A “blood-moon” may occur during a lunar eclipse, but not necessarily.
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2013/07/12/lunar-eclipses-cause-blood-moons
    Regarding the end-time: “But of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son,* but the Father alone.” Matt 24:36

    • Louis
      October 11, 2013 at 7:14 pm

      David, thanks for the link. My first comment on this thread was about Jesus telling us not to consider the material world as an end in itself and then related comments came in the way. It was also with reference to existential issues, to the science-theology dialogue, to the Anglican priest-scientist Dr. John Polkinghorne, to Ian Barbour and more. I’m sure you know that at this stage there is a lot of speculation mixed up with theories about the universe and with what the Bible tells us of course.

    • Angel
      October 11, 2013 at 7:24 pm

      Thanks, daveb, I look forward to checking out your referenced link. I find the subject to be extremely interesting.

      Yes, I understand Jesus posited the view “No one will know the day or the hour” and I am in agreement with you; yet, didn’t He also state, something to the effect, we should be able to read the signs of the times? The prophecy of Joel 2:31 refers to the blood moon. “The sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood, …”

      Therefore, although we may not know the exact day or hour, the signs of the end of time appear to be more and more evident each day.

      Presently, corruption is rampant on a global scale.

      We have compromised our integrity and lack morality. There is a disappearance of species along with catastrophic weather events around the world. Money has become our idol and knowing God cannot look upon corruption in any of its forms, it is my belief, the end of the age cannot be too far into the future.

      God works on a time line, but the prophetic signs are there for all people to decipher, if they so choose.

      Best,

    • Angel
      October 13, 2013 at 8:34 pm

      What an enlightening read, daveb and thank you for the link. Surprisingly, the past lunar eclipses did fall within a day of Passover and Sukkot.

      Too bad we won’t be able to view the sun’s eclipse from our location on earth, but it will probably be covered by the media. :)

  18. O.K.
    October 11, 2013 at 6:32 am

    Angel :
    O.K.
    I read somewhere years ago there were five pieces of cloth associated with the crucifixion of Jesus. Don’t know if this is correct, but I interpret the statement to include the following:
    1. Muslin garment Jesus wore every day.
    2. Cloak that was associated with the casting of lots by the
    Romans.
    3. Shroud
    4. Head Napkin (Sudarium)
    5. Strip of linen that held the head napkin in place and was
    tied at the neck OR the loin cloth.
    What are your thoughts?
    Angel

    The list is much longer. There were perhaps several other pieces of linen used during the burial, perhaps even the second shroud. I could give you a long list of relics venerated at various parts of the world, however I still write an article about it.

    However, look at those links:

    1. Joan Carroll Cruz, “Relics” (this is the book from 1984, and fortunately almost entire first chapter is available at Google books):

    http://books.google.pl/books?id=2NutWXeteNgC&printsec=frontcover&hl=pl#v=onepage&q&f=false

    2. A hypothesis by Gino Zaninotti, suggested at the times when Sudarium of Oviedo an Manopello Veil were almost unknown were almost unknown:

    3. A hypothesis by Balndina Paschalis-Schloemer:

    http://www.sudariumchristi.com/uk/tomb/byssus.htm

    (see also at the site of Juliusz Maszloch, where are several pictures of those cloths: http://manoppello.eu/eng/index.php?go=sudarium The alleged giant 6.50×3.50 m size of Kornelimünster shroud was probably due to the wrong conversion of the units, feet were probably mistaken for ells)

    4. Some of the interesting notes about the relics of Kornelimünster and Aachen can be found in Grzegorz Gorny & Janusz Rosikon book “Witnesses to Mystery” which soon will be available in English:

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/158617844X/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_d0_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=14J64JMBS7BKNA7ZDK5A&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1389517282&pf_rd_i=507846

    • Angel
      October 11, 2013 at 8:02 pm

      Thank you kindly, O.K.

      I’ve seen some of the relics you referenced, but not all. I may have to purchase the book. Yet, I was amazed the Chandra X-ray telescope image of the “Hand of God” neutron star, B1509 looked surprisingly like the negative image on the Shroud of Turin. The long narrow nose and the small width of Jesus’ lips appear to be distinguishing features.

      You may view the image on google images, “Chandra B1509.” There is no picture that looks more like the shroud image than this one. This neutron star appeared in the sky 1700 years ago. The red color was added to indicate low energy and the blue high energy.

      One of my friends told me recently, the blood flow on the Chandra image appears to be coming from the wrist, which would align with the nails in the wrist, and not hands, on the Shroud of Turin.

      Best,

  19. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 11, 2013 at 7:37 am

    O.K. et al,

    when first I translated the hellenised Aramaic word soudarion (Aram. soudara) by “large cloth” in the late 1990’s, I had already in mind, not so much the Turin Shroud as the Kornelimünster sudarium. In the absolute, the two relics can be described as a “large (burial) cloth”.

    • Max Patrick Hamon
      October 11, 2013 at 7:48 am

      As early as 1994 and 1996, I attempted two reconstructions of Yeshua’s body wrapped in shrouds.

  20. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 11, 2013 at 7:39 am

    “8 (short) cubits” do correspond to the Kornelimünster sudarium width.

    • O.K.
      October 11, 2013 at 7:58 am

      Max I did some calculations.

      The alleged original size of Kornelimünster sudarium (part of Charlemagne collection) was about 650×350 cm.

      The Shroud of Compiegne (also part of Charlemagne collection, destroyed during French revolution, or according to a different version during washing in 1840) had size of about 237×125 cm

      650/350=1.857 ~15/8=7.5/4 =1.875
      237/125=1.896 ~15/8=7.5/4 =1.875

      Further:

      Kornelimünster
      650 cm/7.5 =86.66666667 cm
      350 cm /4=87.5 cm

      Compiegne:

      237 cm/7.5=31.6 cm
      125 cm/4 =31.25 cm – this is foot measure. The approximately 87.5 cm could be ell measure. So most probably Shroud of Compiegne was confused with Kornelimünster sudarium (which is only 39×22 cm), and units of measure were confused.

      The size of the Shroud of Compiegne corrsponds with the size of the shroud (or sudarium) that Arculf saw in Jerusalem in 670 AD.

      However I believe that neither Shroud of Compiegne nor Kornelimünster sudarium were original burial cloths -they were simply copies of the cloths stored in Constantinople around 800 AD.

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        October 11, 2013 at 6:48 pm

        Reminder for O.K.:

        – In 799 CE, a monk arrived at Aix/Aachen sent by Patriarch George of Jerusalem, in response to Charlemagne’s sending of envoy and money there. He carried relics from the Holy Sepulchre as a gift.
        – In 802, as a token of his friendship, Baghdad Caliph Harun al-Rashid (763-809), offered Charlemagne brandeum or representaive relic of the Sindon munda also as gift.
        – In the mid-9th century the Kornelimünster monastery (under Benedictine rules) became imperial abbey and received three Saviour’s relics that were kept in Aix/Aachen: the loin cloth, the Sindon munda (Around 875 CE an exchange took place: Charles the Bald gave a relic of the head of the martyred Pope Cornelius for half of the shroud for the establishment of his monastery in Compiegne in France) and the sudarium Domini, the beloved disciple and Shim‘on Kefa found in the empty tomb.

        It does seem you ignore the Compiegne and Kornelimünster were the two halves of the same representative relic or brandeum: the Sindon Munda. IT shall not be mistaken for the Sudarium Domini.

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        October 11, 2013 at 7:00 pm

        Note: Harun al-Rashid was later immortalized in the 1001 Nights, a book in which the Image of Edessa is referred to as ‘the Kerchief of Safety’.

  21. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 11, 2013 at 7:43 am

    In Hebrew, sovev is very close to the KS. It is use to encircle/wrap round and round (sovev, sovev) the deceased body.

  22. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 11, 2013 at 7:54 am

    As early as 1998, I sent Sister Blandina Paschalis-Schloemer, ONLY a large excerpt of my paper in progess on my two attempts at reconstructing Yeshua’s wrapping in shrouds.

  23. Louis
    October 11, 2013 at 6:38 pm

    And what did she say, Max?

  24. Angel
    October 11, 2013 at 8:18 pm

    Mankind is imbued with a sickness, the destructive, seductive desire for power that “seemeth right” but can only bring misery, just like the ring in the famous trilogy by Tolkein, that cannot be wielded for good, no matter how pure or high-minded one’s intentions. Some of us still call it ‘sin,’ and the denial and suppression of it’s existence is Evil’s greatest triumph. Yes, there is mental illness, and there is particularly embarrassing contingent of self -styled ‘exorcists’ a la Benny Hinn who take shameful advantage of these unfortunates.

    ***Angel says: I see your point, Josie, with regard to those who are genuinely evil as opposed to those who are unable to control hearing voices, due to a mental condition, like the woman who was killed at the Capitol in Washington DC recently.

    Best,

  25. O.K.
    October 12, 2013 at 5:55 am

    Max Patrick Hamon :
    Reminder for O.K.:
    -In 799 CE, a monk arrived at Aix/Aachen sent by Patriarch George of Jerusalem,

    Max, I know this. Just I am not convinced about Sindon Munda and Shroud of Compiegne were two halves of the same cloth. And the mention that Kornelimünster’s Sudarium Domini was originally 6.50×3.50 m (while today it is 39×22 cm) seems odd to me. Whether the Charlemagne relics came from Jerusalem or Constantinople has actually little meaning, as most of the relics from Jerusalem eventually landed at Constantinople. Remember, Charlemagen had to marry empress Irene in 802 AD, which eventually didn’t happen.

    However Riant, Exuviae 216f: “Hoc est sanctuarium quod in capella imperiali Constantinopolim ad presens continetur: . . . Item pars linteaminum quibus crucifixum Christi corpus meruit involvere iam dictus Arimatensis Ioseph, in supradicta imperiali capella continetur. Syndon enim, pars quoque Corone Christi, ex Karoli Calvi dono, habetur Carropoli Gallie. Item Manutergium regi Abgaro a Domino, per Thadeum apostolum, Edesse missum, in quo ab ipso Domino sua ipsius transfigurata est ymago.”

    suggests the copies of the burial cloths were sent from Constantinople.

  26. O.K.
    October 12, 2013 at 6:08 am

    daveb of wellingon nz :
    I don’t see that this argument holds water. Either the writer of John’s gospel knew Greek or he didn’t. The fact that he chose that language to write in, suggests that he was confident in it. The scriptures are not the only writings written in Greek, there are any number of Greek classics. So there must be any number of examples where the words ‘othonia’ and ‘soudarion’ are used. We have ‘towels’ in locker rooms, and princes wear ‘fine linen’. The lexicons are presumably based on a lot more than what a few writers of a minor Jewish sect set down in 1st century Palestine!

    It is not the problem with the dictionaries. The problem is that some words can have multiple meanings -like in the case of ‘sudarion’ and ‘othonia’. Just like the words ‘cloth’ and ‘linen’ can have multiple meanings in English. ‘Sudarion’ can mean either small or large cloth. The problem is what to choose. And translators usually chose to translate it as ‘napkin’, based on other places in the Bible where it is used in that meaning -so they think in this case it is also, but this is not certain. However, the Shroud o f Turin is also refered as ‘Sudario’ on some of the older paintings of it.

  27. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 12, 2013 at 7:07 am

    O.K.,

    Historically speaking:

    1/ How long will you ignore the Kornelimönster “sudarium quod fuerat super caput Christus JXX vii” was presented as a gift for Charlemagne to his imperial manor by the Patriarch of Jerusalem?
    2/How long will you ignore since 812 it was kept in Aix/Aachen?
    3/ How long will you ignore since the mid 9th c. CE, it is kept in the imperial abbey of Kornelimünster founded by Benedict of Anianus?
    4/How long will you ignore the veil mesasuring 3,50x6m, proceeding from Antiocha in Syria is made of byssum fabric, is 16 TIMES FOLDED UP ONTO ITSELF and preserved in a gauze-like protective fabric and tghus reduced to the size of a napkin?

    How long?

  28. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 12, 2013 at 7:17 am

    K.O., you wrote:

    “Just I am not convinced about Sindon Munda and Shroud of Compiegne were two halves of the same cloth.” On which historical and factual ground?

    I you could have pieced together the Compiegne and Kornilmünster shroud, the substitute relic (or brandeum of the Sindon Munda) is 4 times longer than wide i.e. exactly like the Turin Shroud/Sindon…

  29. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 12, 2013 at 7:20 am

    How long will you unable to discriminate between the Sindona Mundi and the Sudarium Domini?

  30. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 12, 2013 at 7:21 am

    Typos: Sindo Munda (sorry typing in haste)

    • O.K.
      October 12, 2013 at 9:37 am

      Max, I don’t ignore the further history of the cloths (after 814 AD), but it has rather little meaning here. Much more important is what the Charlemagne’s collection of burial cloths actually were, and where they came from.

      ““Just I am not convinced about Sindon Munda and Shroud of Compiegne were two halves of the same cloth.” On which historical and factual ground? ”

      Gorny&Rosikon (pg. 298) write that Sindon Munda (stored in Kornilmünster) allegedly was to be used to transfer the body from the cross to the tomb. Beside its size is 180×105 cm, while the Compiegne shroud was, according to Hesemann 237×125 cm (other sources claim it to be 245 cm long), so the widths don’t fit, (unless data for Compiegne are wrong).

      “4/How long will you ignore the veil mesasuring 3,50x6m, proceeding from Antiocha in Syria is made of byssum fabric, is 16 TIMES FOLDED UP ONTO ITSELF and preserved in a gauze-like protective fabric and tghus reduced to the size of a napkin? ”

      Max, do you have any sources for that? Gorny&Rosikon mention only that it measures 39×22 cm. Pierluigi Baima Bollone in his “Sindone, 101 domande e risposte” claims its original size was 615×352 cm, but today it measures only 39×22 cm, so I assumed it was either cut from the larger cloth, or its measures are wrong.

      And I think using 6×3.5 m cloth during burial is quite impracical.

      Max do you have primary documents for Charlemagne’s relics? Becuase I am not sure how much reliable the original tradition about them is. Due to complicated political relations around 800 AD Charlemagne could obtain his collection of relics from Jerusalem, as well as from Constantinople, and some perhaps via Rome.

      Charlemagne possesed several relics, or rather “representative relics” or “brandea” (that means copies):

      1). Shroud of Compiegne, currently destroyed
      2). Sindon Munda, currently stored in Kornelimünster
      3). Sudarium Domini, currently stored in Kornelimünster
      4). Linteum Domini, the towel used to dry the Apostles’ feet, currently stored in Kornelimünster. What’s interesting, another towel was among the Constantinople’s relics sent by Latin Emperor Baldwin II to king Louis IX, see https://shroudstory.com/page/5/ So the other cloths were probably copies of those stored in Constantinople (or in Jerusalem, and later transferred to Constantinople).

      Besides those, Charlemagne possesed also:

      5.) The Holy Tunic of Argenteuil
      6.) The nail
      7.) Eight thorns from the Crown of Thorns.
      8.) Jesus’ loincloth, currently stored in Aachen and terribly bloodied.

      And several others.

    • O.K.
      October 12, 2013 at 10:15 am

      Max, or anyone, do you have Remi Van Haelst’s paper ‘The Shroud of Kornelimunster” from The 1998 Turin Symposium? I would like to check some info in it.

  31. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 12, 2013 at 3:01 pm

    O.K., “And I think using 6×3.5 m cloth during burial is quite impracical.” Oh really?

    Have you ever made any attempt to reconstruct Yeshua’s burial? BTW 5-6 persons are needed. What do you know exactly about Judean/Jewish burial? Have you never heard of what a sovev (Heb.) or soudara (Aram.) is? Do your homework first then I will please to answer your questions.

    I have no time to waste repeating what should be known by somebody claiming “I am currently making an article, list of all burial cloths of Jesus venerated through ages in all parts of the world. And I can say with great probability what burial clothes were kept in Constantinople untill 1204. Not only the current Shroud of Turin, but also several others, and I can make a good guess about their dimensions and role during Jesus’ buneral”.

  32. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 12, 2013 at 3:07 pm

    O.K. you wrote: “Gorny&Rosikon (pg. 298) write that Sindon Munda (stored in Kornilmünster) allegedly was to be used to transfer the body from the cross to the tomb.”

    Gorny & Rosikon should have done their homework regarding the Sindon Munda and Sudarium Domini too. Who are those guys?

  33. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 12, 2013 at 3:11 pm

    Do you really think a 3.50x6m towel was really needed to dry the Apostles’ feet? Are you serious?

  34. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 12, 2013 at 3:17 pm

    O.K. you also wrote: “the further history of the cloths (after 814 AD), but it has rather little meaning here.” Wrong, it has re the cutting in two halves of the Sindon Munda (one being left in Kornelimünster, the other taken to Compiegne) around 875.

    • O.K.
      October 12, 2013 at 3:56 pm

      If it had been so, then (237+180)cm x105 cm=417×105 cm, almost the size of the TS (however if we take 245 +180 it is 425 cm).

      Max, are you aware what consequences for reconstruction of the TS history it can have?

  35. O.K.
    October 12, 2013 at 3:28 pm

    Max, I wish to thank you for drawing my attention to some aspects, so I could find very interesting Remi van Haelst’s article. And now please refrain from malice.

    Max Patrick Hamon :
    Gorny & Rosikon should have done their homework regarding the Sindon Munda and Sudarium Domini too. Who are those guys?

    Journalists, so they may be inaccurate (and sometimes they are).

    Max Patrick Hamon :
    O.K., “And I think using 6×3.5 m cloth during burial is quite impracical.” Oh really?
    Have you ever made any attempt to reconstruct Yeshua’s burial? BTW 5-6 persons are needed. What do you know exactly about Judean/Jewish burial? Have you never heard of what a sovev (Heb.) or soudara (Aram.) is?

    Yes, I know. The problem is that there was a dust layer at the backside of the TS, so it had been probably in contact with the surface of the tomb, which wouldn’t have been a case, had giant Sudarium Domini enveloped the whole TS.

    Max Patrick Hamon :
    Do you really think a 3.50x6m towel was really needed to dry the Apostles’ feet? Are you serious?

    I never claimed that. I was checking the Sudarium Domini dimensions if it was really folded 16 times in each direction.

    There are some strange things in Remi van Haelst’s article. For example he claims:

    (about Sindon Munda):

    “We see a number of “crux commissa (+)”, “crux decussata (x), eight rayed stars, resembling a Maltese cross. This stars may be assumed to be related with some ancient cult of a Divinity or the Sun veneration. Further a number of groups of FOUR white horses and twisted snakes. This representation points in the direction of the ancient cult of “Mithras, the snake-killer”. This cult was, in the era of Christ, very popular among the Romans military, in Minor-Asia. Returning home, they took the cult with them.”

    Looking at the pictures of it (http://www.manoppello.eu/index.php?go=sudarium and in Gorny&Rosikon) I don’t see any such features.

    (about Sudarium Domini)

    “Today the immensly large SUDARIUM, folded 64 times, has the shape of a rectangle of about 80 x 45 cm. In spite of the 64 layers, the red backing cloth remains visible !”

    Judging from the pictures and other descriptions, it is much smaller, 39×22 cm.

  36. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 12, 2013 at 3:33 pm

    Note: 16 TIMES FOLDED that is folded in 16 layers.

    • Max Patrick Hamon
      October 12, 2013 at 3:47 pm

      Sorry read 16×4 = 64 layers

  37. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 12, 2013 at 3:41 pm

    OK you wrote: “The problem is that there was a dust layer at the backside of the TS, so it had been probably in contact with the surface of the tomb, which wouldn’t have been a case, had giant Sudarium Domini enveloped the whole TS.” Oh really? BTW did you have the dust analyse? Ever heard the pierced TS had a lining (dust trap)?

    • O.K.
      October 12, 2013 at 3:48 pm

      I base on Riggi’s analyisis from 1978, described by Wilson in his “The Blood and the Shroud” (in chapter 8).

      Besides, your mention “16 TIMES FOLDED that is folded in 16 layers.” is arithmetically wrong, as the surface of 39×22 cm cloth is 256 times smaller than 615×352 cm cloth. Remi Van Haelst claims it is 80×45 cm and folded in 64 layers.

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        October 12, 2013 at 3:58 pm

        This a typo I corrected see above.

  38. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 12, 2013 at 3:57 pm

    BTW can you read latin: SUDARIUM QUOD FUERAT SUPER CAPUT IESUS CHRISTUS JXX vii. THis is a reference to John 20: 7.

  39. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 12, 2013 at 3:59 pm

    …and a reference to the Johannite soudarion…

  40. O.K.
    October 12, 2013 at 4:01 pm

    Max: “This a typo I corrected see above”

    But 80×45 cm is 8×8, not 16×4

    • Max Patrick Hamon
      October 12, 2013 at 4:06 pm

      I never wrote 80x45cm is 16×4?!!!!!!!!!

  41. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 12, 2013 at 4:04 pm

    …a gift for Charlemagne to his imperial manor by the Patriarch of Jerusalem in 799 CE

  42. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 12, 2013 at 4:16 pm

    O.K., So what do you make of the reference to the SOUDARION as SUDARIUM QUOD FUERAT SUPER CAPUT IESUS CHRISTUS JXX vii? NOTHING.
    What do you make of its origin: Jerusalem? NOTHING.

    Whar are you really aiming at?

    • O.K.
      October 12, 2013 at 4:24 pm

      Wha really interests me now is:

      1) whether http://resurrectionnowinc.blogspot.com/2011/01/shroud-images-throughout-world.html has the original Remi van Haelst’s article from the 1998 Turin Symposium

      2.) What is the size of Kornelimunster’s Sudarium Domini?

      3.) From 1)

      “We see a number of “crux commissa (+)”, “crux decussata (x), eight rayed stars, resembling a Maltese cross. This stars may be assumed to be related with some ancient cult of a Divinity or the Sun veneration. Further a number of groups of FOUR white horses and twisted snakes. This representation points in the direction of the ancient cult of “Mithras, the snake-killer”. This cult was, in the era of Christ, very popular among the Romans military, in Minor-Asia. Returning home, they took the cult with them.”

      I can’t see them on the picture http://www.manoppello.eu/sudarium/kornelimunster_sudarium.jpg

      Had the claim above (about links to Mithraism) been right, this Sindon Munda has nothing to do with Jesus’ burial.

      4.) Whether Shroud of Compiegne and Sindon Munda from Kornelimünster were two parts of the same cloth, 417×105 cm, which is very close to the dimensions of TS.

  43. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 12, 2013 at 4:19 pm

    What do you make of the Hebrew sovev as large all-envelopping burial cloth in terms of Judean burial? NOHTING.
    What do you make of the Aramaic Soudara? NOTHING.

    This is NOT SERIOUS!

  44. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 12, 2013 at 4:27 pm

    O.K., In the hypothesis the TS is Yeshua’s, first try to reconstruct his wrapping in shrouds (using substitute shrouds for inner long burial aka TS, face cloth aka MV, skull-cap aka CH, sovev/soudara aka KS etc.)

  45. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 12, 2013 at 4:39 pm

    O.K.: “Whether Shroud of Compiegne and Sindon Munda from Kornelimünster were two parts of the same cloth, 417×105 cm, which is very close to the dimensions of TS.”

    This is just what I was telling you… See Charles the bald relic exchange that took place around 875. Most likely,the original Kornelimünster Sindon Munda was the substitute relic for Yeshua’s (long inner burial) burial sindon aka TS.

    In 796-7 Harun al-Rashid passed by Edessa on his way to conduct a campaign against the Byzantines.
    In 802, as a token of his friendship, he offered Charlemagne brandeum or substitute relic of the Sindon munda also as gift…

    • O.K.
      October 12, 2013 at 4:41 pm

      Thanks Max, I thought first about its connection with the Arculf’s Shroud, which according to some manuscripts, was not 8 feet, but 8 cubits long.

      Now I have to rewrite some parts of my article.

    • O.K.
      October 13, 2013 at 8:30 am

      Max: Still something doesn’t fit here.

      Riant, Exuviae 216f: “Hoc est sanctuarium quod in capella imperiali Constantinopolim ad presens continetur: . . . Item pars linteaminum quibus crucifixum Christi corpus meruit involvere iam dictus Arimatensis Ioseph, in supradicta imperiali capella continetur. SYNDON ENIM, PARS QUOQUE CORONE CHRISTI, EX KAROLI CALVI DONO, HABETUR CARROPOLI GALLIE (emphasis mine). Item Manutergium regi Abgaro a Domino, per Thadeum apostolum, Edesse missum, in quo ab ipso Domino sua ipsius transfigurata est ymago.”

      (quoted by Scavone: http://shroudstory.wordpress.com/about/acheiropoietos-jesus-images-in-constantinople-the-documentary-evidence/ footnote 34. The list is dated to about 1190).

      So the Sindon Munda came from Jerusalem, Edessa via Harun al Rashid, or from Constantinople?

      I am still not convinced that the Arculf’s sudarium is the same as Kornelimunster’s Sudarium Domini.

      I found some interesting article:

      http://www.copticchurchreview.com/Coptic/Home_files/2003%20Winter.Vol24.%234.pdf

      Page 111:

      “According to the report of the 7th century Coptic bishop John of Nikiou the
      monks of the Metanoia Monastery at Kánobos used to venerate several famous
      relics of Christ. In addition to a part of the venerable Cross of Christ, they also
      possessed the napkin, the sacred mandylion with the imprint of the holy face
      and the towel with which Jesus had girded himself when he washed the feet of his disciples.”

      Sacred Mandylion that Antoninus of Piacenza saw in Memphis in 570 -fine. The towel -fine.
      But what is a napkin? Could it be a Sudarium Domini?

  46. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 12, 2013 at 4:40 pm

    What is the size of Kornelimunster’s Sudarium Domini?

    The size is 6×3.50m!

    • O.K.
      October 12, 2013 at 4:43 pm

      Yes, but one question remains, being folded it is 80×45 cm or 39×22 cm (approximately)?

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        October 12, 2013 at 5:34 pm

        It is 76x44cm.

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        October 12, 2013 at 5:38 pm

        Folded 16 times.

  47. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 12, 2013 at 5:31 pm

    Note: in 803 CE, Charlemange offered the relic of the [Sainte Coiffe] Holy to Ayma, bishop of Cahors.

    • Charles Freeman
      October 13, 2013 at 6:18 am

      Many of the accounts of Charlemagne and his collection of relics from Constantinople were later medieval legends. The study on this is Matthew Gabriel and Jane Stuckey (eds,), The Legend of Charlemagne in the Middle Ages, Power, Faith and Crusades, Basingstoke, UK and New York, 2008. It is part of the consistent medieval practice of developing ‘backstories’ for relics for which there is no other historical evidence. The Shroud of Turin is interesting in that no one in the Middle Ages developed such a backstory, although the dukes of Savoy did later claim that it came from Cyprus (via Margaret de Charny) as part of the possession of the de Luisignan family who were kings of Jerusalem and they claimed that it had been given to them in the eleventh century by the patriarch of Jerusalem. (See John Beldon Scott’s, Architecture for the Shroud,University of Chicago Press, 2003 -pages refs in the index under Lusignan.) To clamber back onto my hobby horse, yet another instance where the devotion to Ian Wilson has closed off research on alternative legends for the origins of the Shroud ( or at least, I have not come across any Shroud researcher other than the excellent Beldon Scott, whose book should be on every Shroud researcher’s shelves, who seems to be aware of this legend).

  48. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 13, 2013 at 8:32 am

    Here are a few addenda and corrections to my previous posts and O.K.’s:

    1/ in 798-802, as a token of his esteem, Baghdad Caliph Harun al-Rashid (763-809), offered Charlemagne a brandeum or substitute relic of the Sindon Munda as gift.
    2/ The most likely original size for the Kornelimünster substitute relic called “Sindon Munda” is 480×120/5cm. Reminder for O.K. the Compiene halve was several times re-cut to get more brandea out of it and as such is not reliable to infer the original size of the brandeum.

    Here is a more accurate translation in English of my own personal rendering of John 20: 5-7:

    And he looked in and saw the small linen clothes & wraps lying there: but he did not enter in. Then Shim’on Kefa came after him and entered into the tomb; and he saw the small linen clothes & wraps lying there.
    And the large wrap (soudara) which was over his head was not with the small linen clothes & wraps, but rolled up onto itself in the sole loculus.

  49. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 14, 2013 at 11:38 am

    Charles,

    1/ do you really contend in 803 CE, Emperor Charlemagne NEVER offered the relic of the Sainte Coiffe or Holy Headdress to Ayma, bishop of Cahors and this is just a later medieval legend? PLEASE could you give me THE crucial evidence with references proving beyond the shadow of a rational doubt Charlemagne NEVER did and the said relic kept in Cahors is just a fake?
    2/ do you really contend the Byzantine Empress Irene, in 800 CE NEVER gave the Holy Tunic to Emperor Charlemagne and the said relic was NEVER given, and the latter, in 798 or 802 CE, NEVER gave the Holy Tunic for safe keeping to his daughter Theodrade, a nun at the Abbey of Argenteuil and all this is just a later medieval legend? PLEASE could you give me THE crucial evidence proving beyond the shadow of a rational doubt neither Byza,tine Emperess Irene nor Emperor Charlemagne NEVER did and the said relic kept in Argenteuil is just a fake?
    3/ do you really contend in 799 CE, Emperor Charlemagne NEVER was offered the relic of the Sudarium Domini (or Holy Shroud of the Lord) by George, Patriarch of Jerusalem and this is just a later medieval legend? PLEASE could you give me THE crucial evidence proving beyond the shadow of a rational doubt Charlemagne NEVER did and the said relic kept in Kornelimünster is just a fake?
    4/ do you really contend Emperor Charlemagne NEVER was a Christian Saint and Passion Most Holy relic chaser and the Sudarium Domini and/or Sindon Munda were/was NOT one/or two of his main attributes as Vicar of Christ on Earth and all this is just a later medieval legend? PLEASE, could you give me THE crucial evidence proving beyond the shadow of a rational doubt Charlemagne NEVER was a relic chaser and the said relic(s) NEVER was/were regarded as his attributes?
    5/ do you really contend the Byzantine Empress Irene, in 798 or 802, NEVER sent Emperor Charlemagne several thorns which were deposited by him at Aix/Aachen and this is just a later medieval legend? PLEASE could you give me THE crucial evidence proving beyond the shadow of a rational doubt Charlemagne NEVER was offered relics by Byzantine Empress Irene?
    6/ do you really contend Baghdad Caliph Harun Al-Rashid, in 798 or 802, NEVER sent Emperor Charlemagne the substitute relic of the Sindon Munda and this is just a later medieval legend? PLEASE, could you give me THE crucial evidence proving beyond the shadow of a rational doubt Harun Al-Rashid NEVER did?

    Waiting for your CRUCIAL Historical evidence and references proving each time you are right and I am wrong.

  50. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 14, 2013 at 11:40 am

    Typo: “[…]and the latter, in 798 or 802 CE, NEVER gave the Holy Tunic[…]” shall read “[…] and the latter, in about the year 800 CE, NEVER gave the Holy Tunic […]

  51. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 14, 2013 at 11:49 am

    Re my rendering of John 20: 5-7, it must be said the latter is based not nly on the Gospel Greek versions and Hebrais and Aramaic retroversions but ALSO on the extant Yeshua’s mosl likely genuine burial relics (Archaeolipsology).

  52. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 14, 2013 at 11:56 am

    Re my own personal translation of John 20:5-7: And he looked in and saw the small linen clothes & wraps lying there: but he did not enter in. Then Shim’on Kefa came after him and entered into the tomb; and he saw the small linen clothes & wraps lying there.
    And the large wrap (soudara) which was over his head was not with the small linen clothes & wraps, but rolled up onto itself in the sole loculus.

    I am waiting for any linguists too prove beyond the shadow of a rational doubt my translation is wrong.

  53. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 15, 2013 at 10:05 am

    Re the specific YoHanan/John’s use of the Greek words othonia (collective DIMINUTIVE plural for “small linen clothes & wraps/bandages”), and soudarion (from Aramaic sudara’, an ALL-ENVELOPPING CLOTH/WRAP) for “large wrap” [the one that was over Yeshua’s head]”, bear in mind YoHanan/John is a Hellenised Judean (most likely a young priest and assistant scribe at the time of the event) writing at least Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek. Moreover the two words are used in a very specific context: that of the Empty Tomb scene, and, last but not least, the koine Greek the writer used in his gospel is NOT natural Greek at all but translation Greek from Hebrew/Aramaic.

    Now the Greek word OTHONIA can read as cryptic hermeneutical crux via wordplay on the Hebrew phrase OTH YONA, “SIGN OF JONAH”, in conjunction with the Empty Tomb scene. It echoes BOTH Jonas’s Prayer (Jon 2:1-3)– “Then Jonah prayed unto the LORD his G.od from the belly of the she-fish, and he said, “I called out from my limit for the LORD and he answered me; out of the Sheol (Abraham’s bosom) I called, my voice thou heardest” AND Matthew (Mat 12:40) – “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” This is not just coincidental here.

    Besides the “Greek” word SOUDARION as the hellenisation of the Aramaic word SUDARA’ and his triliteral or triconsonantal root (Samekh-Rosh-Daleth) plays on the Hebrew/Aramaic word SEDER, “order, arrangement, and composition” in reference to the Passover Seder. It is also in Aramaic-Syriac sidar, “he arranged” and Akkadian sadaru, “to put in order, to weave”. Therefore cryptically speaking, it evokes at one and the same time the large wrap rolled up onto itself and the Passover Seder in conjunction with the Hebrew Letter Samekh (literally “fish bone”, first letter of the Aramaic word sudara’). Reminder the Turin Shroud itself is a piece of HERRINGBONE patterned linen in a 3:1 twill weave.

    Finally, based on the Hebrew verbal root (Y-Sh-‛Ah), the deceased’s Aramaic given name Yeshu‛a tells us about “[providential] salvation, deliverance, safety and… RESCUE” and back we are to Jonas’s story and Yeshua’s prophecy in Matthew 12:40…

  54. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 15, 2013 at 10:06 am

    Sovev, sovev, “round and round…

    • O.K.
      October 15, 2013 at 10:58 am

      Max, the problem is we still need two more cloths… In Constantinople, there were at least 3 cloth, the current TS, and two others. Conrad von Krosigk (or Kroigk) took back to Halberstadt from the 4th Crusade parts “de sindone eiusdem et de sudario”, while Nivelon de Cherisy to Soissons part “de sindone munda”. Robert de Clari took to Corbie parts “de sudario Domini in duobus locis”. And last, but not least, french king Louis IX bought from the ALtin Emperor Baldwin II 25×35 cm part of burial linens, which were distinct from TS, see http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n56part5.pdf According to Kersten&Gruber, part of the sudario was made from cotton, while part of Louis IX linens currently stored in Toledo is made of linen.

  55. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 15, 2013 at 11:26 am

    O.K., I DO know (on my 1994 TS man’s attempt at burial reconstruction; I didn’t use “substitute clothes” for the Kornelimünster Sudarium Domini as large all-envelopping outer burial cloth nor the Manioppello Veil as burial face cloth placed first in-soaked with a watery solution right on the head then removed to be placed on top of the Turin face and underneath the skull cap. On my 1997 attempt, I used them). The Oviedo Sudarium is an intruder. It was just a PRE-burial cloth.It is definitely NOT the Johannite soudarion/sudara.

    The true fact is I was just in short reply to Daveb of Wellingon NZ’s comment on October 10, 2013 at 3:40 pm | #32: “Max: You’ll be aware that your tasking me : “should appreciate some clarification and expansion of your reasons for your assertion, and how is the departure from the more usual translations of ‘soudarion’ and ‘othonia’ resolved.”

    I am very busy at the moment, I just cannot get into ALL the details of it.

  56. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 15, 2013 at 11:36 am

    Coorection: nor the CAHORS HEADDRESS as burial SKULL CAP placed first in-soaked with a watery solution right on the head then removed to be placed on top of the Turin face and underneath the skull cap. Sorry just typing in too much haste…

  57. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 15, 2013 at 11:40 am

    More correction: nor the CAHORS HEADDRESS as burial SKULL CAP placed first in-soaked with a watery solution right on the head then removed to be placed on top of the MANOPELLO VEIL AND TURIN SHROUD to close the upper end. Sorry just typing in too much haste…

  58. Louis
    October 15, 2013 at 12:07 pm

    O.K. I would hesitate to use the Kertsen/Gruber duo to back up any claim.

    • O.K.
      October 15, 2013 at 12:45 pm

      I know Kersten&Gruber duo, and their conspiracy theories. However, the historical part of their book tracing the Shroud from Palestine to Turin (they NEED it for their absurd claims) is quite good and reliable.

  59. Louis
    October 15, 2013 at 1:10 pm

    They got it from other sources, not involved in conspiracy theories.

    • O.K.
      October 15, 2013 at 1:14 pm

      Not only, in case of Halberstadt they checked themselves. And it is the only source I know which mentions what is actually stored in Halberstadt.

  60. Louis
    October 15, 2013 at 5:31 pm

    Alright, if you say so then it was worthwhile, but be careful with the rest.

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