Sindone di Torino
1. Il Volto dei Volti Cristo, Editrice Velar spa, 24020 Gorle, Italy 1998.
2. Jackson, John P. and Propp, Keith, "On the evidence that the radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was significantly affected by the 1532 fire", Actes du III Symposium Scientifique International du CIELT, Nice 1997.
3. Jackson, Rebecca, "Hasadeen Hakadosh: The Holy Shroud in Hebrew", Actes du Symposium Scientifique International, Rome 1993.
4. Conniff, James, The Story of the Mass, Dauntless Books, 1954.
5. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Robert Appleton Co., Vol. IV, 1908, pg. 386.
6. The Catholic Encyclopedia.
7. The Antirnension in the Liturgical and Canonical Tradition of the Byzantine and Latin Churches, Right Rev. Archimandrite Januarius M. lzzo, Pontificium Athenaeum Antonianum, Romae, 1975 and St. Sergius of Radonezh, Rodina-publisher, Russia, pg. 71. In the Turin Shroud was ever used liturgically by the Eastern Church, where flowers were laid directly upon it, as is the custom on symbolic Shrouds for the Divine Liturgy, it is likeiy that copious amounts of pollen and small flower parts would be deposited.
8. The Antimension in the Liturgica] and Canonical Tradition of the Byzantine and Latin Churches. This cloth seems to have evolved into representing both the altar itself as well as the cloth on the altar. The antimension syrnbolizes the burial shroud of Christ (sec pg. 34).
9. St. Germanus of Constantinople on the Divine Liturgy, St. Vladmir's Serninary Press, 1984.
10. The Antimension in the Liturgical and Canonical Tradition of the Byzantine and Latin Churches.
11. St. Germanus of Constantinople on the Divine Liturgy.
12. The Catholic Encyclopedia, pg. 386.
13. Very Reverend David M. Petras, Eastern Catholic Churches in America, Office of Religious Education, Diocese of Parma, Ohio, 1988, pg. 23.
14. Father Hillary Conti, Monastery of the Holy Face of Jesus in Clifton, New Jersey, USA, private communication.
15. Such a universality of liturgical practice may be the result of some Catholic rites (e.g. Malabar, Maronite, Chádean) adopting the custom of the historically dominant Roman rite. Further study is needed to clarify this possibility. However, the 4th-8th Century references discussed above, as well as the liturgical practice of using a shroud within the Orthodox communions that have been separated from Catholic Christianity for many centuries, point to an already-established practice within the Church of performing the Liturgy of the Eucharist on a special cloth associated symbolically with the burial cloth of Christ. To our minds, this supports the view that the use of a Corporal or its equivalent is a practice that is fundamental to each and every Catholic rite independently, allowing for the possibility that his practice could have been influenced in some cases by the Roman rite through missionary activity or by other means.
16. Liesel, Nikolaus, The Eucharistic Liturgies of the Eastern Churches, Liturgical Press, 1963.
17. For examplen, the Byzantine practice of adorning the Sbroud with flowers is not found in the Roman Rite. Hence, we would anticipate that this custom is a later development of the Post-Apostolic era in some Eastern Churches.
18. A logical question to ask is whether or not the early Christians, who where ethnic Jews, would find it appropriate to conduct their Eucharistic liturgies on the burial Shroud of Christ. The burial Shroud of Christ would undoubtedly have been stained with blood and we note that this is clearly the case for the Shroud of Turin. In the Bible, Jesus is referred to as the Lamb of God (john 129). The early Christian Jews may, therefore, have seen a parallel with the blood on the Shroud and the blood of the Passover lambs spilled on the Temple altar, with which they were familiar. From this perspective, and also in light of the Resurrection experience that was associated not with death, but with life, celebrating the early Eucharistson the Shroud containing the visible blood for the Divine Lamb may have been looked upon as very appropriate.
19. Apologia, Justin Martyr, quoted in Croeschel, Benedict, "In the Presence of Our Lord", Sunday Visitor, 1997.
20. These burn holes are clearly not part of the 1532 fire, because their pattern implies that the Shroud was folded only twice, whereas the 1532 fire implies that the Shroud was folded five times. Moreover, these burn holes can be seen on a Shroud painting from 1516, implying that they predate the 1532 fire.
21. We can see additional small burn boles at the midline in the dorsal image region where the Shroud was folded lengthwise at the time the burn holes were generated. In our interpretation, this could be the edge of a table, or more likely an altar, where the censor impacted, causing the accident. It is as if some hot debris spilled onto the table and its forward motion (from a spilled censor) was stopped and trapped by the outside edge of the folder Shroud. Burning continued there and upon the Shroud until it was extinguished immediately after the accident occurred.
22. Danin, Avinoam and others, Flora of the Shroud of Turin, Missouri Botanical Garden Press, 1999.
23. The Antimension in the Liturgica] and Canonical Tradition of the Byzantine and Latine Churches.
24. General Instruction on the Roman Missal, Cenam Paschalem, 12 March 1970, found in Vatican Council 11, vol. 1, the Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documentes, Costello Publishing, Austin Flannery ed., 1996, pg. 191 (Emphasis ours).
25. St. Germanus of Constantinople on the Divine Liturgy.
26. Unlike today, the original Jerusalem Community was in a unique position to follow the command of Christ, "Do this as a remembrance of Me", not only liturgically, but also literally. It seems plausible that the Early Christian Jews would have preferred, if possible, to conduct their Eucharistic remembrances of the Last Supper using the actual implements that were used at that meal, for example the actual wine cup used by Jesus (perhaps located in Valencia, Spain) and possibly the tablecloth itself, as we suggest. We note further that the Apostles after the Resurrection met in an upper room in Jerusalem (Acts 1:13). It is possible that this room was the asme as the upper room of the Last Supper (Mark 14:15, Luke 22:12). This circumstance might reflect a fidelity of the Apostles to not only use the utensils of the Last Supper, but to also gather in exactly the same room as the Last Supper. Using the actual tablecloth of the Last Supper, rather than some other cloth would be consistent with such a mindset.
27. This thesis was first presented at the Shroud of Turin International Research Conference in Richmond, Virginia, USA, June 1999.
28. This obsession with coverings and buffers is illustrated in Numbers 4:14 where it is written: "When Aaron and bis sons have finished covering the sacred objects and all the furnishings of the sacred objects at the breaking of camp, only then shall the Kohathites come and lift them, so that they do not come in contact with the sacred objects and die. These things in the Tent of Meeting shall be the porterage of the Kohathites" (Tanach, The Holy Scriptures, Jewish Publication Society, 1985).
29. Exodus 12:15. "For seven days you must eat unleavened bread. From the very first day you shall bave your houses clear of all leaven. Whoever eats unleavened bread from the f́rst day to the seventh shall be cut off from Israel" (The New American Bible).
30. Judaic Classics Library, Shulkhan Arukh Orach Hayim. "Shulkhan Arukh" means literally, "set table", which connotes the idea of arranging a table.
31. Ariel, Israel, The Temple Haggadah, The Temple Institute, 1996. The Ternṕe Institute is involved with every aspect of Temple refated research: the structure of the Holy Temple and its chambers, its vessels, the priestly garments as well as the scientifle identif́cation of the plants, dyes, and precious stones that were used in the Temple.
32. Book of Legends, Seger Haagadah, Edited by H.N. Bialik, CD-Rom Edition, Davka Corporation, 1995, Section 491.
33. The Mishnah Mashkirim, 5:8 (Logos Research Systems, 1994).
34. There have often been debates as to the use of tables among the Jews at the time of Christ and during the Old Testament Period. In the Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land edited by Aharon Negev, it is written: "Although tables were a normal item of furniture in the houses of biblical times, a dining table was found in rich houses only" (Logos Research System, 1994). We not that the unnamed man, who was largely responsible for having arranged the Passover Meal of the Last Supper, was evidently a man of wealth and would therefore have been able to afford a large dining table that could accomodate Jesus and His Disciples.
35. Acts, 10.-9-16 (The Jerusalem Bible) (Emphasis ours).
36. In this discussion we are not necessarily trying to identify the Shroud with the "Big Sheet"; we are only trying to show that tablecloths were used by Jews of the First Century.
37. Mt 27.-57-61, Mk 15:42-47, Lk 22:50-56, Jn 19:38-42.
38. Matthew 27.57.
39. John 19:38.
40. Luke 23.-50-52. The Sanhedrin was the supreme political, religious, and judicial body in Israel during the Roman period, both before and after the destruction of the Temple, until 425 A.D. The Sanhedrin, as mentioned in Josephus and the Gospels, served chiefly as a legislative body dealing with religious matters, and, in rare cases, acting as a court with the authority to try a false prophet or high priest (Encyclopedia Judaica, Keter Publishing House Ltd., Jerusalem, 1997). Membership in the Sanhedrin was considered most prestigious in First Century Jewish Society. Josephus refers to the Sanhedrin elders as "the princes of the Sanhedrin" (The Works of Josephus, Chapter 4:7:105, Logos Research Systems, 1994).
41. Mk 15:45-46 (The New American Bible).
42. This translation is similar to that given by the late scripture scholar, Raymond Brown. The Death of the Messiah, Doubleday, 1994, vol. 2, pp. 1242-1245.
43. In the Mishnah Tractate of Shabbat (Shabbat 1:2-3), a definite tone is set outlining the limitation of one's labor activities prior to the start of Sabbath. This streamlining of activities also applies to the hours before all major Jewish holidays such as Passover. This tractate says: "A man should not sit down before the barber close to the afternoon prayer.. nor should a man go into a bathhouse or into a tannery, nor to eat, nor to enter into judgment. A tailor should not got out carrying his needle near nightfall... nor a scribe his pen". At another location in the Mishnah it is written: 'The House of Shammai say, They do not (on Friday afternoon) soak ink, dyestuffs, or vetches, unless there is sufficient time for them to be (fully) soaked whil it is still day' (Shabbat 1.-5, Jacob Neusner, The Mishnah: A New Translation (New Haven & London, Yale University Press), 1988).
44. Even Caiaphus, according to Jewish Law, would have been compelled to tend immediately to the burial of Jesus ahead of all religious matters except for weddings: "... even the study of the Torah must be interrupted in order to participate in a funeral procession" (Code of Jewish Law, Chapter 198, n. 9). The Jewish obsession with eath-base burials, the funerary process, and the fear of burial at sea can be epitomized by the following story from Mishnaic times that is sited in the Aggadah or Book of Legends. "Rabbi Joshua son of Rabbi Tanhum son of Babbi Hiyya... wished to embark on a sea journey that would last from the Feast of Tabernacles to Hannukkah, but a (Roman) noblewoman cautioned him: "Should one set out on a sea voyage at this tirne of the year?". Moreover, his father appeared to him in a dream (and warned him): "My son, (you will die) without burial: not to be accorded a burial" (Sefer Ha'Aggadah, Davkah CD- Rom Edition, pg. 770, Segment 111, Shocken Books, 1992). In the Aggadah, it is mandated that one bury a body immediately and not delay the burial process. 'When a man finds an unidentified body, he should attend to its needs and bury in the place where it was found". Rabbi Akiva (of the Mishnah) said.- "... Once while walking on a road, I found a slain man. I carried him a distance of four mil to a burial place where Iinterred him. When I came to Babbi Eliezer and Babbi Joshua, I told them what had happened. They said to me. "Every step you took is deemed against you as though you had shed blood" (Sefer Ha'Aggadah, Davkah CD-Rom Edition, pg. 65, Segment 408, Schocken Books, 1992). These citations show that Joseph, as a devout Jew and Knowledgeable of Jewish Law, would have done everything possible to immediately remove the dead Jesus from the cross and bury Him.
45. The fact that the burial narratives in the Gospels do not explicitly make the association of the linen shroud with the Tablecloth of the Last Supper may be due to the fact that such an association was already known and well established in the early Christian Communities. Such a familiarity, in fact, is consistent with the statement from Saint Optatus above, "What Christian is unaware that in celebrating the Sacred Mysteries, the wood (of the altar) is covered with a linen cloth?". In other words, perhaps it was unnecessary to state what was already obvious liturgically to the Christian community and divert attention from the flow and purpose of the burial narrative.
46. Matthew 27:59 (Jerusalem Bible).
47. Code of Jewish Law 176.-1, "It is forbidden to wear a garment mixed with the wool of ewes or rams with line, because of the Command forbidding shaatnez (the mixture of woold and linen)" (See also Leviticus 19:19, Deuteronomy 22:11).
48. The various meanings of 'kaqarov', the Greek word for clean that is used in Matthew 27:59 (i.e. kaqara), are as follows: 1) free from corrupt desire, from sin and guilt, 2) free from every admixture of what is false, sincere, genuine, 3) blameless, innocenti 4) unstained with the guilt of anything and 5) ritually clean, the use of that which is not forbidden (Enhanced Strongs Lexicon, Logos Rescarch Systems, 1994). In the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Base on Semantic Domains, vol. 1, Logos Research Systems, we find the following discussion of the word kazarov: "pertaining to being ritually clean or pure... In a number of languages there is simply no relationship between physical cleanliness and ritual acceptability or purity". While some cholars might interprets kaqarov in a physical sense, we argue that ritual purity is what was meant by Matthew. We note that the Essene community of Jews also had a tipically Mosaic interpretation of the word 'clean'. In the Book Jewish Sects of the New Testament by Dr. Randall A. Weiss, it is written of the Essenes: "Since all their food had to be ceremonially clean, any infringements leading to excommunication rneant that the adherent could ultimately starve to death". In the Jewish-Hellenistic translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint (or, in Hebrew, 'Targum Hashivim'), one notes that the seventy Alexandrian Jews who translated the Old Testament from Hebrew to Greek mainly used the Greek word 'kaqarov' - or derivatives of that word - for their translations of the word 'clean'. Except for Luke, the Synoptic Gospel writers, like the seventy Jewish scholars of the Septuagint, were all Jews who had the noble task of delving into the Greek Language, an Indo-European language that was far removed from their ancestral Semitic tongues (Hebrew and Aramaic.) (Encyclopedia Judaica, 1997, The Septuagint, Logos Research Systems, 1994). It is, therefore, reasonable to think that both the Diaspora and Palestinian Jews projected their own traditional interpretations of the word clean' (ritually or spiritually clean) onto their Greek translations and writings respectively. It is also reasonable, therefore, that Matthew used the word kaqarov in this traditional sense.
49. Normally, for a Jewish burial, it is desirable to use a 'cosmetically clean' cloth. However the body of Jesus must have been covered with blood that could not be washed away, because it flowed during the process of dying and would have been considered to be lifeblood. The Code of Jewish Law states 197:9, 10 says: 'If a person falls and dies instantly, if his body was bruised and blood flowed from the wound, and there is the apprehension that his lifeblood was absorbed in his clothes, he should not be ritually cleansed, but interred in this garments and shoes. He should be wrapped in a sheet, above his garments... We are only concerned with blood which one looses while dying, for it is likely that this was his lifeblood, or it is possible that lifeblood was mixed with it. Thus, the body of Jesus, since it was buried according to Jewish Law (John 19:40), must have been covered with the crucifixion-induced lifeblood. It would also have been covered with dirt and sweat. In the case of the Turin Shroud, we observe that the crucifixion blood was not washed from the body because the natural flow directions and blood serum separations from the crucifixion position are evident. Thus, we can legitimately ask the question as to why Matthew would bring up the cleanliness of the cloth to be used in burial if he meant only physically clean. As soon as the cloth enveloped the body in this state, the cloth would immediately be stained with blood, sweat, and dirt, and no longer be physically clean. This obviously makes the requirement for using a 'cosmetically clean' cloth seemingly irrelevant. What makes more sens in these circumstances is that Matthew, when using the word clean, was describing the ritual state of the cloth that was used. We also note that using a physically clean cloth would be of secondary importance to the requirement of burying the body before the start of Passover and/or Sabbath at sundown. The number one emergency is getting a Jewish person buried by sundown, particularly because this was the start of the eight day festival of Passover. In this regard, the Code of Jewish Law 200:1 says: 'A Jew is not allowed to bury his dead on the first day of a festival, even if.. there is the danger that decay may set in'. Rules such as using a stainless cloth can be broken if it makes the difference between a Jewish body being buried or not being buried. Even with a physically stained cloth, under these circumstances, the burial of the Man of the Shroud would have taken precedence and still qualify as a Kosher Jewish burial. Hence, possible food residues or soiling from a Passover meal would not be an obstacle to using the Shroud as an impromptu burial cloth the following day. Such residues would also not be in conflict with the Jewish understanding of the word 'clean', i.e. free of Shaatnez, as recorded in Scripture. In this regard, let us note that we cannot be sure if the Shroud was stained significantly at the Last Supper.
50. Consider the following examples that show how these Hebrew words were used. King Solomon in Proverbs 2:25 uses a form of the word "tahor" in the following sentence: "Ohev tihar lev" ('Love a pure heart'). The Psalmist writes in Psalms 51:43: "Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow". The word that the Psalmist used for 'purify' is 'tahareni', the verb form of the word 'tahor. In Psalm 51:12, the Psalmist continues: 'Lev tahor birah li, Elohim' ('Create in me a clean heart, oh Lord' - King James Translation). In 2 Kings 21:16 it is written: 'Vigam dam naki shafach Menashe' ('And Menashe also spilled innocent blood'). In Psalm 106:38, the Psalmist used the word 'naki'. 'Vayishpichu dam naki, dam bnayhem oovinotayhem' ('And they spilled innocent blood, the blood of their sons and their daughters') (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia - Morphologically Tagged Edition). The Harper Biblical dictionary when referenced for the word 'clean' brings up the word pure and describes purity as the condition of being free from any physical, moral, or ritual contamination Harpers Bible Dictionary, Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1994. In conducting a survey of the word 'clean' and the contexts in which it was used in the Old and New Testaments, we have determined the following. The word clean' is used to give a mere physical/cosmetic evaluation in only three cases, all in the Book of Genesis, for example: Gen. 7:2 and Gen. 7:8, a work that is the very essence of the pre-Mosaic mentality. The word 'clean' is utilized as an expression of an exclusively ritual purity twenty-six times, all in the Old Testament books of Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy with their Tabernacle-driven laws of ritual purity. The word 'clean' is written twenty-seven times to describe both ritual and physical/cosmetic elements of cleanliness, mostly in the Book of Leviticus with its statutes governing the quarantine of lepers and the re-assimilation of those Israelites stricken with skin diseases and bodily emissions, thirty-eight times - mostly in the writings of the early and later Hebrew Prophets, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Job, and in the New Testament to emphasize a combined ritual/spiritual approach to the Jewish concept of cleanliness. In contrast the word 'clean' is used with this same ritual interpretation only once in the New Testament, as we propose in Matthew 27:59. In the Synoptie Gospels, works that describe miracolous physical and spiritual healings, one discovers the word 'clean' mentioned seven times, all depicting a ritual, physical, and allegorically spiritual state of cleanliness (1901 American Standard Version, Logos Systems, Inc. 1994). Jesus and the Gospels writers were unique in the fact that they espoused a revolutionary interpretation of the concept of cleanliness, one that would emphasize 'spiritual cleanliness' as opposed to a Levitical ritual cleanliness. Matthew, however, wrote his Gospel especially for the Jewish people of his day whose essential understanding of the word 'clean' was probably still that of a Mosaic ritual cleanliness. When the Jews learned that Joseph of Arimathea, a leading member of the Sanhedrin, bought a 'clean' linen cloth, they would have, in our estimation, immediately assumed that the cloth was ritually pure, free of the linen-wool mixture called shaatnez, and would have hardly considered the physical state of the cloths cleanliness.
51. The reason why a cloth containing Shaatnez can be used for burial is that the deceased is no longer bound to follow Jewish Law. It is worthy to note that prior to burial, one of the four fringes of the prayer shawi of the deceased is cut in order to make this prayer shawi invalid (Code of Jewish Law 197:1). This action further emphasizes the fact that in death one is no longer bound by Jewish law.
52. John 19:41. That Jesus was buried according to Jewish Law and Custom, as recorded in Scripture, can also be deduced from the image on the Turin Shroud, if it is the burial cloth of Jesus (i.e. the crucified body was not washed (Code of Jewish Law, 197-9, 10), fingers were extended (Code of Jewish Law, 197- 5). Man of Shroud appears to be ethnically Jewish (Jackson, Rebecca, 'Hasadeeb Hakadosh: The Holy Shroud in Hebrew, Actes du Symposium Scientific International, Rome 1993), etc.).
53. Code of Jewish Law 176:7, '".. tablecloths... are subject to the law of Shaatnez".
54. Raes, G., Appendix B, La S. Sindone, Supplemento Rivista Diocesana Torinese, gennaio 1976.
55. The three Synoptics write that Jesus was buried in a single cloth, whereas John alone describes Jesus as being buried in more than one cloth. The concept of Jesus being buried in a tablecloth would not make sense to those who imagine, from Johns description that Jesus was buried in strips of linen. We think that the single versus multiple cloths problem in the Gospels might be resolved by noting that the Turin Shroud is actually two cloths of the same material that had once been separated and sewn back together along one edge. This was established when the Raes sample was cut from the Shroud in 1969 and the radiocarbon samples were cut from the Shroud in 1988. To remove these samples, the seam joining the side strip to the Shroud had to be cut through. It was discovered that the side strip had previously been cut from the main body of the Shroud and then reattached at the seam. The transmitted light photographs taken in 1978 showed bands of discoloration that propagate continuously from the main body of the Shroud, through the seam, and into the side strip. This proves that the side strips was once part of the Shroud, cut away, and then reattached. We also note that Middle Byzantine fold lines propagate continuously through the side strip and the seam itself, showing that the reattachment of the side strip must have occurred earlier than the eleventh Century at the latest. It is, therefore, possible that the side strip of the Shroud was used to tie or wrap the body that had been previously wrapped in the main part of the Shroud. At the time of burial, we propose that the side strip could have been cut away from the main cloth in order to produce an impromptu external binding cloth and then, subsequently, reattached, as we see today, to evidently keep the two cloths together. it is possible that this fact about the Shroud could resolve the apparent difference between the Synoptics and John; the Synoptics could be referring to the Shroud as a single cloth BEFORE the side strip was removed, whil John was thinking about the Shroud AFTER the side strip was detached to wrap the Shrouded body. From this perspective, we find no inconsistency with our hypothesis that Jesus was wrapped in a tablecloth, as opposed to strips of lines.
56.Mt 26:17-19n Mk 14:12-16, Lk 22;7-13, Jn 13:1-30.
57. The Jerom Biblical Commentary, Prentice-Hall, 1968, vol. 2, pg. 53, Sec. 84, n. 13.