The body is Greek, but the soul is Semitic.
Only the Gospel accounts are the key that can decode and interpret the Shroud.
Francesco Agnoli offers us a fascinating perspective, Gospels and Shroud, an extraordinary coincidence in La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana. (The article title above and the extracts below are from a Google translation):
Philology has deepened the study of "linguistic forms" ancient identifying some typical structures of Aramaic (oral language, the dialect of Galilee) and Hebrew (written language, used by the scribes of Judea), the original language spoken by Jesus.
These structures language are foreign to Greek literature, so they are a clear sign of Semitic origin of the Gospels.We can say that the gospels were thought in Aramaic and then translated into Greek.
The body is Greek, but the soul is Semitic.
We thought, Emanuela Marinelli and myself, to enhance the display of the Shroud to be held in Turin from 19 April to 24 June 2015, offering to every honest seeker of historical truth, in one book, the most important historical knowledge of Jesus of Nazareth.
It is clear that the Shroud without the Gospel accounts remains an indecipherable enigma.
Only the Gospel accounts are the key that can decode and interpret the Shroud.
Then it becomes essential scientific investigation and documented not only on the Shroud, but also the authenticity of the Gospels.
Hat top to Joe Marino
More evidence that anyone who wishes to seriously study the Shroud must be prepared to dig deeply into three disciplines: science, history and religion. From what we can tell from the posting, this book deals with all three to a remarkable depth in order to reach its conclusions. One would expect no less from these authors.
Francesco Agnoli wrote: “These structures language are foreign to Greek literature, so they are a clear sign of Semitic origin of the Gospels.We can say that the gospels were thought in Aramaic and then translated into Greek.”
This is NO BREAKING NEWS at all since Claude Tresmontant’s most popular book The Hebrew Christ: Language In The Age Of The Gospels!
Moons ago, I myself dicussed on this very blog Hebrew/Aramaic-to-Greek translation entropy
– on August 22, 2012 at 10:38 am, on this very blog I wrote:
“Actually in “the Gospel of Mark” the Aramaic is Peter’s not Mark’s…”
– And on March 1, 2013 at 2:58 and 3:49) pm:
“Paulus/Shaul dictated it (The Letter to the Hebrews he sent to hellenised Judeans) in Aramaic/Hebrew while Lukas/Yair translated it into written Greek (or else the reverse: since Paulus/Shaul was a Judean who was Hellenised and also a Roman citizen, he could have dictated the letter in Greek and had Lukas/Yair translated it into written Hebrew/Aramic)”
– And on March 4, 2013 at 9:24 am and 7:27 pm, I wrote:
“Dave,you wrote: “… so that it’s if Mark who runs off naked, then clearly it’s not Mark who has his ear cut” as if I had ever claimed the contrary?! This is pretty obvious and was NOT the real issue under discussion! What I don’t really get is the reason why you had the ear cut incident come into the debate.
you also wrote: “It would seem that the only really good reason for asserting that Mark was the Sanhedrin’s secretary, was that all other three gospel accounts of the trial adhere to Mark’s version fairly closely, albeit with some minor additions. But both Nicodemus & Joseph of Arimathaea could also have provided oral accounts which all four gospels could have then followed.”
Reminder 1: According to Papias: ‘the Elder’ (Presbyter) used to say this, ‘Mark became Peter’s interpreter [hermeneutes, Greek that can also be rendered by ‘translator’ and/or ‘stenographer’] and wrote accurately (Peter’s memoirs).
Reminder 2: from a close scrutiny of the High Priest House nightly episode and knowledge of Sanhedrin procedures, the Sanhedrin could only be composed of 3 members.Thus the odds for “Nicodemus & Joseph of Arimathaea” to be both in attendance that very night are very weak. Now if we base our deduction from Hebrew-to-Greek translation entropy (Gr. hemeneutes + Gr. huperethen (applied to the same person namely John Mark) < Heb. sophereth, 'assistant secretary/assistant scribe = a young man), John (Mark) as High Priest Hanan's assistant/servant secretary (stenographer) does make more sense. Most likely he was the one to let Kêpha/Peter in and reported the dialogue between Yeshua and Hanan. Maybe we can go as far as deducing 'the young man who runs off naked' was John (later to be called) Mark. Maybe. The fact is this crypto-exegesis is totally consistent with our knowledge of Second Temple period Sanhedrin procedures, Aramaic/Hebrew-to-Greek translation entropy and NT Greek Version."
"Dave you wrote: Mark 14:53-56: “They led Jesus off to the high priest; and ALL THE CHIEF PRIESTS AND THE ELDERS AND THE SCRIBES ASSEMBLED THERE. [Peter warms himself at fire] THE CHIEF PRIESTS AND THE WHOLE SANHEDRIN were looking for evidence against Jesus on which they might pass the death-sentence. SEVERAL indeed brought false evidence against him, but their evidence was conflicting. …”
And you comment: “It is plain from Mark that there were rather more present than the three rostered members of the Sanhedrin.”
The TRUE fact is this is ONLY PLAIN FROM the above CURRENT TRANSLATION. Is the CURRENT TRANSLATION from the ancient koine Greek version accurate? I very much doubt so. What about the most likely Galilean Aramaic substratum? The same text can be understood in a quite different way, it just depends of the translation strategy (word-for-word translation vs. sense-for-sense translation/source-oriented translation vs. target-oriented translation, direct translation vs. oblique translation (by Vinay & Darbelnet), adequacy vs. acceptability, formal equivalence vs. dynamic equivalence (by Eugene Nida), semantic translation vs. communicative translation (by Peter Newmark), overt translation vs. covert translation (by Juliane House), documentary vs. instrumental translation (by Christiane Nord), foreignization vs. domestication (by Lawrence Venuti), etc. While these binary oppositions have much in common, they reflect different perspectives and emphasize different translation aims and effects).
The other TRUE fact is the same text can be translated according to a time-perspective more consistent with the real chronology in terms of Yeshua’s trial by the Sanhedrin. The same sentences can be read as follows:
1-They led Jesus off to the high priest
2- And It was there all the chief priests and elders and the scribe WOULD assemble
3- The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin HAD BEEN looking for evidence against Jesus on which they might pass the death-sentence. Several (witnesses) indeed HAD BROUGHT false evidence against him, but their evidence was conflicting.
Reminder for Dave: Yeshu'a HAD ALREADY BEEN judged and sentenced to death in absentia. To confirm a death sentence in presentia ONLY 3 Sanhedrin members were needed."
You can use the AFM technique also for ancient scrolls…
John Klotz wrote:
>… anyone who wishes to seriously study the Shroud must be prepared to dig deeply into three disciplines: science, history and religion. …
Today I was looking for some news about Alessandro Paolo Bramanti (author of a book on the Shroud: “Sacra Sindone. Un mistero tra scienza e fede” [= Holy Shroud. A mystery between science and faith], published in 2010) and I’ve found the old news (= year 2013) under following address:
19.03.2013 – Sindone: science or faith?
>On March 19, at 18.30 pm in the “Open Space” Room, Palazzo Carafa (entrance from Sant’Oronzo Square), Lecce, the fifth meeting of “La Scienza Spiegata (=”Science Explained)” will take place. Alessandro Paolo Bramanti (physicist, electronic engineer, researcher) and Daniele De Matteis (lawyer) will talk about “Sindone: science or faith?” “La scienza spiegata” [= “The science explained”] is a series of informal meetings in which people have the chance to talk to scientists about the great scientific themes, in an informal way, as if sitting at a Science café.
>Scientists do not teach or give a conference, but dialogue with the audience, so that everybody feels at ease and dares to ask and tell.
>This project has been conceived and developed by Gabriella Zammillo of
CnrNano NNL center, with the collaboration of Liberrima
Unfortunately I have not found other news about this interesting past meeting…
But I think that the gentlemen present at the meeting have not discussed what we could really do using AFM techniques on linen fibrils coming from the Ancient Linen Cloth!
AFM is considered to have high resolution and thus is potentially capable of precise measurements.
See also the widespread availability of the AFM technique.
Here is yet another interesting (but a bit vague, because we have to wok on linen fibrils and not on wood materials… apart the possible fragments from the Holy Cross) bibliographic reference:
“Structure and properties of the cellulose microfibril”
by Yoshiharu Nishiyama, Journal of Wood Science
August 2009, Volume 55, Issue 4, pp 241-249
Date: 10 Jun 2009
>The Basilica of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem keeps the Relics of
the Passion of Jesus in the Chapel of Relics, which is upstairs the left aisles.
>The most famous ones are the fragments of the Holy Cross of Jesus,
found by St. Helena on Calvarium in Jerusalem. … …
And, if you want to improve your knowledges (= AFM on red blood cells, etc.),
there is another argument:
Simultaneous Atomic Force Microscopy, TIRF, and
FSD Confocal Microscopy for Live Cell Mechanotransduction Studies
— — —
I think that the study of history often (unfortunately) comes into
questionable arguments, instead Science offers the possibility of an objective truth!
Anyway, here I take this opportunity to apologize about my past useless quotes
on researches about the DNA found in reperts found in the Jewish tombs
because those investigations are sometimes questionable.
Then see also aal the interesting discussions by Louis on Talpiot’s tomb, etc., etc.
Then there is to remember the interesting webpage by Tabor:
“Ben Witherington on the James Ossuary and the Talpiot “Jesus” Tomb”
and the inherent
— *** —
By and by, sooner or later the truth will out …
In any case, we know that the analysis of ancient DNA is not
something so simple as it may appear to the Internet surfers…
First of all:
I apologize for the issue of the appearance of that cover of the book by Charlesworth.
It was not my intention to send the cover of that book on the “Tomb of Jesus and His Family” … I had only indicated the address (in my original message)!
Second problem to consider.
Fungal attacks on cellulose : the attacks by fungi can alter the cellulosic DP.
I think it’s good to remember that fact when you want to indicate or suggest control of DP cellulose as a way of “dating of the Shroud” …
Here some words:
Fungal cellobiohydrolases act at liquid-solid interfaces. They have the ability to hydrolyze cellulose chains of a crystalline substrate because of their two-domain structure, i.e. cellulose-binding domain and catalytic domain, and unique active site architecture…
Cellobiohydrolases (CBH’s), attack cellulose from the non-reducing ends of the cellulose polymers and yield cellobiose (a glucose dimer) as a majorproduct. Two types of CBH enzymes are known: cellobiohydrolase-l (CBHI) which generates cellobiose exclusively, and cellobiohydrolase-ll ~CBHII) which generates a mixture of cellobiose and glucose. CBH enzymes have not been found in cellulolytic, non-filamentous bacteria, and thus appear to be limited to fungal and filamentous bacterial sources.
I never try to polemizar with Jamon on what has instead written Agnoli …
because I’ve already enough pockets full of false coins with what
I jump out with the bad Google translations …
— — —
In any case I have found the following paper:
Complexity of Spoken Versus Written Language for Machine Translation
Conference: European Association of Machine Translation, At Dubrovnik, Croatia
>When machine translation researchers participate in evaluation tasks,
they typically design their primary submissions using ideas that are not genre-specific.
In fact, their systems look much the same from one evaluation campaign to another. In this pa-per, we analyze two popular genres: spoken language and written news, using publicly available corpora which stem from the popular WMT and IWSLT evaluation campaigns. We show that there is a sufficient amount of difference between the two genres that particular statistical modeling strategies should be applied to each task. We identify translation problems that are unique to each translation task and advise researchers of these phenomena to fo-cus their efforts on the particular task
In short: what I wanted to say to you is that I’m curious about
the “machine translation” even in the case of ancient texts …
I have found the following tool:
I’m no expert on Ancient Greek and then I ask you:
When it is possible to use that tool?
Among the many interesting things I have to confess that I’d like to better
understand the dispute between Peter and Paul … because I recently read a book
written by an agnostic archaeologist (an Italian professor, who teaches in Rome)
that perhaps confused my own ideas on the two great Apostles.
He also spoke of the interesting concept of the Pope viewed as a
“primus inter pares” (in a council assembly) and not as an absolute
monarch out of date, typical of other historical times …
Perhaps he too stressed the fact that Peter and Paul were not bishops
(as now we conceive the role of bishop) …
The book, published by Laterza, was dedicated to Pope Francis.
I hope you will excuse me,
for my mistake:
>I never try to polemizar with Jamon on what has instead written Agnoli
>I do not want to discuss and make a controversy with Hamon on what was written instead by Agnoli
… and other errors …
This is a good piece, but not exactly original, and Max rightly points to Claude Tresmontant.
One should also add Father Jean Carmignac, who worked on the Aramaic origin of the gospels decades ago.
The book reviewed is ‘Luce dal sepolcro: Indagine sull’autenticità della Sindone e dei Vangeli’ by Emanuela Marinelli and Marco Fasol.
The title of the book by Andrea Carandini
(= the “agnostic archaeologist”) is the following:
“Su questa pietra” = Upon this rock…
Link (Sorry, in Italian language!):
Here a rough translation:
>Jesus renamed Simon the fisherman “Kepha”, Aramaic name equivalent to the greek “petra”, stone, from which “Petros”, Peter. The new name foreshadowed a special destiny.
>The mystery of Peter, the fisherman, the first apostle, the cornerstone of the Church: a gentle man, illiterate, of human weakness, and yet, the death of Jesus, able to guide the Christian community.
>From Apostle fragile innovator horizon preaching wanted by Jesus, which extend up to the ‘ends of the earth’, from the East to the West pay greek centered on Rome.
>A man whose life is full of dark moments. Who was really Peter? You really come to Rome? >Archaeology helps us to discover the history of the first apostle, from his home in Capernaum in Galilee, where Jesus was home, until his tomb (150 AD), found under the main altar of the basilica of St. Peter, never before adequately explained.
Andrea Carandini, combinando l’analisi delle scritture all’indagine archeologica, ricostruisce la figura storica e umana dell’uomo cui Gesù affidò la fondazione della sua comunità.
… etc. … etc. …
— — *** — —
I must also mention that already several days ago I had already indicated to you the book written by Marinelli and Marco Fasol …
Try to see under:
Here an excerpt from what I wrote:
>During the night I heard an interview with the authors.
>Marinelli took care of the first part (= scientific themes) instead Fasol speaks on the topic of the Gospels.
>In the interview the Marinelli cited both the Ing. Fanti and his three alternative methods to C14 that the expert botanical Boi (Marzia Boi, a university researcher at the University of the Balearic Islands) … this researcher has found three types of balms “very expensive”.
>I have found a link:
>>Marzia Boi …
>>… Her examination with the electron microscope yielded a different result: the main pollen residue comes neither from Ridolfia, nor Gundelia, but from Helichrysum (29.1%). Cistaceae pollen (8.2%), Apiaceae pollen (4.2%) and Pistacia pollen (0.6%) are also present on the shroud in smaller quantities. “All the plants mentioned here are entomophilous, that is, their pollen is carried by insects rather than air. This shows that there must have been direct contact with either the plants or the materials used for the funeral. … etc. … etc. …
I see that unfortunately was lost the last part of the translation (a very little part):
Andrea Carandini, combinando l’analisi delle scritture all’indagine archeologica, ricostruisce la figura storica e umana dell’uomo cui Gesù affidò la fondazione della sua comunità
= Andrea Carandini, combining the analysis of the scriptures to the archaeological, historical figure and reconstructs the human man whom Jesus entrusted the foundation of her community.
Le sepolture di Pietro e Paolo, martiri trionfanti, si trovano ancora oggi dove erano nell’antichità, perfettamente conservate grazie alla continuità della cristianità in Occidente e del cattolicesimo in Roma. … …
= The tombs of Peter and Paul, martyrs triumphant, are still where they were in antiquity, perfectly preserved thanks to the continuity of Christianity in the West and of Catholicism in Rome. … …
Comments are closed.