The Shroud Of Turin

[Uphill Battle]

strictly speaking, though the greek word can mean "strips of linen," it also can mean "linens" much in the sense that some call modern bedsheets linens. There is no word "strips" there, it is a translator's interpretation.

would it always be plural? or, could the Greek mean a single linen?

As far as the shroud goes, the Jury's still out as far as I'm concerned. I do not trust the carbon dating, due to the part of the cloth which was sampled. It is a simple fact (shown by photographic evidence), that that is the part of the cloth which was handled when the cloth was displayed. That is the A1 best way to contaminate and invalidate a Carbon 14 test.

I don't even bother with the carbon dating evidence, I don't trust C14 as far as I can spit anyways. Other evidences are more compelling to me.

[/b]Greek friend, Greek!

When you read the NT in Greek, "strips" is not used. Also, looking at some online Bible's, I would say at least 60% do not use the word "strips."

Fair enough. On closer inspection, that passage may or may not have been multiple pieces, and hence, can't be used as evidence to refute the Shroud.

G-d willing, we will see!


I disagree. Perhaps the shroud was around Jesus, including His face. Then, sort of like a little face bag was put over that. So basically there was a cloth on the head, not the same as the linen.. However, the linen was UNDER that burial cloth.

that would be rather odd, wouldn't it? I can find no reference in Jewish burial custom that shows them placing a "baggie" over the head of the dead.

Linen in strips, no.
Head separate from rest of linen.. Yes, but I already explained how the head could have been covered with simply a bag or something over, and the linen could have been under it.


Correct partially.



My Conclusion: The Bible does not contradict the Shroud one bit, and it can very well be authentic!

I don't think the biblical record bears that out, but let's discard that argument as a possiblility as well.

We are forced to look further then.

We have reports that on the shroud, evidence of chemicals found in ancient painting mediums.

We have a fully bearded image, whereas biblical prophecy states that his beard was plucked out.

The head is too large, the nose out of proportion, the arms too long.

The image is 6 feet tall, approximately.

Very tall for the average palastinian, and more so given this historical record of Josephus that described him as quite short. (of course, veracity of the Josephus passage is a bit muddy too.)


It would seem strange that the face of Jesus on the shroud resembles far more closely the artistic perceptions of the medieval times that the hoax is purported to come from, rather than that of what an average ancient Palastinian Jew would probably look like.


I don't hold much stock in the reconstruction of Jesus done not so long ago, where he supposedly looks like this.

although, this would be more consistant with the appearance of a 1st century jew, as opposed to the Euro Jesus seen here, that was extrapolated from the Image on the shroud:

 

[Epiphoskei]

would it always be plural? or, could the Greek mean a single linen?

I'm going to have to plead ignorance here. I don't think a study has been done to firmly establish what all the possible meanings of this word are in different contexts. Such a study would be required before we could firmly say that a one piece cloth is possible or impossible given the text.