'Jesus-era' burial shroud found

[DavidDvorkin]

Source: BBC

A team of archaeologists and scientists says it has, for the first time, found pieces of a burial shroud from the time of Jesus in a tomb in Jerusalem.

The researchers, from Hebrew University and institutions in Canada and the US, said the shroud was very different from the controversial Turin Shroud.

Some people believe the Turin Shroud to have been Christ's burial cloth, but others believe it is a fake.

The newly found cloth has a simpler weave than Turin's, the scientists say.

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8415377.stm

---

It also mentions that the man died of leprosy, and that this is the earliest confirmed case.

[shadowknows69]

1. I find it funny that a true archaeologist would actually use the term "Time of Jesus"

There were other historical things going on 2000 years ago. Actual verifiable things.

[DavidDvorkin]

2. That's not a direct quote from the archeologist

So it could have been just the journalist's version.

[shadowknows69]

6. Then he isn't a very good journalist if his main reference source is mythology.

[DeSwiss]

8. +1

[DavidDvorkin]

9. He's writing for a non-professional audience

I think the phrase "time of Jesus" shows up often in news reports about archeological discoveries from that period.

[shadowknows69]

11. Which just proves how saturated our culture is with our non-official official religion.

[DavidDvorkin]

12. Very true.

[blueworld]

24. Josephus references Jesus' story independently of the bible

It isn't only the apostles who are witnesses to His existence. Whether someone chooses to believe He is the "Son of God", that's a different story.

[DavidDvorkin]

27. Long discredited as a Medieval interpolation

Not in the original.

[shadowknows69]

29. I was about to ask for Josephus' credentials but I'll take David's word for it.

[DavidDvorkin]

30. Josephus had credentials

He was a Jew who lived and wrote during the Roman era and witnessed history firsthand.

However, the lines in his history that refer to Jesus were added centuries later by the Church.

[dmallind]

48. Not only not in the original, but not even in early Church fathers' commentaries

Early christian commentatirs, who wrote on Josephus extensively, would have pounced on direct references and proclaimed it from the rooftops. The fact that they never even mentioned this passage until into the 400s, coupled with the decidedly non-Josephian wrding and grammar lifted straight out of the Lukan kerygam, make this a no-brainer ID as a later insertion for anyone not desperately seeking affirmation.

[stopbush]

50. And, the name Jesus doesn't appear in the Table of Contents Josephus

provide for his Annals, while everyone else he mentions does appear in the TOC.

Those 4th-century Xian forgers didn't think to cover all their bases.

[pleah]

4. +1

[TheCML]

15. Jesus-era is in quotes.

Whether or not you believe is irrelevant, it's a time line many are familiar with and it puts things into perspective. Do you get upset when B.C. is used as a date designation also?

[shadowknows69]

17. Frankly I find it absurd. Might as well measure time by BZ, Before Zeus.

[madamesilverspurs]

21. If it makes you feel better,

the designations "b.c.e." and "c.e." (before common era, common era) have been in use in the historical community for quite some time. Agree or disagree all you want, but the task of reconfiguring all of western civilization's calendars would be ridiculously monumental, not to mention needless.


---

[shadowknows69]

28. Why did the God of Abraham have to draw the lot though?

The Greek Gods were so much cooler. And there were monsters.

[Kali]

22. there are quite a number of "biblical archaeologists"

so that could be an explanation, as well

[snooper2]

3. I buried my cat Flake in her favorite blanky at my last house

Maybe in a couple thousand years somebody will dig her up and realize that she was a God of cats. I used an ammunition can so her shroud should last. :P



RIP Flake...

[DeSwiss]

10. Someone say CAT?!?!

[shadowknows69]

13. Lol. Ceiling Cat's Witnesses.

[snooper2]

16. That's greatness!

:)

[HopeHoops]

23. Where are their uncomfortable shoes?

[pattmarty]

5. Question??? Should I give a fuck??? Right now I am really busy...............

................"praying" for TRUE healthcare reform.

[AlphaCentauri]

7. it doesn't mean that it was the only shroud type used for burials n/t

[DavidDvorkin]

14. However

"The researchers believe the man was a Jewish high priest or member of the aristocracy ... " so surely he would have been buried in a good-quality shroud, not a simple, cheap one.

The article also says: "The researchers believe that the fragments are typical of the burial cloths used at the time of Jesus."

[AlphaCentauri]

18. luxury items sometimes are not the most used or popular

there could be other types with different textures and properties that poor people used for burials

[alfredo]

33. the shroud is not of the type used in that era and location. Also the

body is cleaned then dressed in burial clothes. It is simple clothes to denote no class distinction. A separate cloth was used for the head. They are also buried with their prayer shawl

BTW, the blood would have probably been dry by the time he was dressed for burial. I don't believe blood is washed off because the blood should be buried too.

[No Elephants]

42. Have the researchers seen enough 2000 year old cloth burial shrouds to have a basis for

believing this one is "typical" of them? If not, seems as though the researchers pulled "typical" right out of their respective ears.

[FarCenter]

19. A better version of the story

Radiocarbon methods date the cloth to the years from 1 to 50 C.E. "It doesn't match up with the Shroud of Turin," Shimon Gibson, who participated in the research and is a senior associate fellow at Jerusalem's W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, said in a phone interview.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1216/breaking19.htm

W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research
http://www.aiar.org/

[FarCenter]

20. Molecular Exploration of the First-Century Tomb of the Shroud in Akeldama, Jerusalem

The actual paper is at http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0008319

Abstract

The Tomb of the Shroud is a first-century C.E. tomb discovered in Akeldama, Jerusalem, Israel that had been illegally entered and looted. The investigation of this tomb by an interdisciplinary team of researchers began in 2000. More than twenty stone ossuaries for collecting human bones were found, along with textiles from a burial shroud, hair and skeletal remains. The research presented here focuses on genetic analysis of the bioarchaeological remains from the tomb using mitochondrial DNA to examine familial relationships of the individuals within the tomb and molecular screening for the presence of disease. There are three mitochondrial haplotypes shared between a number of the remains analyzed suggesting a possible family tomb. There were two pathogens genetically detected within the collection of osteological samples, these were Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Mycobacterium leprae. The Tomb of the Shroud is one of very few examples of a preserved shrouded human burial and the only example of a plaster sealed loculus with remains genetically confirmed to have belonged to a shrouded male individual that suffered from tuberculosis and leprosy dating to the first-century C.E. This is the earliest case of leprosy with a confirmed date in which M. leprae DNA was detected.

[No Elephants]

43. Leprosy AND tuberculosis. Poor thing.

[alfredo]

31. The bones were gone! He ascended into heaven. Actually they take

the bones and put them in a bone box, an ossuary.

Here's a little test:

Look at the Shroud of Turin, notice his arms and hands. His hands cover his genitals. Now lay down, and place your hands and arms as you see on the shroud. Try to get the bend of the elbow as close as possible. Do your hands cover your genitals like they do on the shroud? He must have had arms like an Orangutan.

[Beer Snob-50]

40. you will find that the romans kept the bodies up on the cross for a while

and thus rigamortis (sp) set in. they had to break the bones to get the body the way it is.

[alfredo]

41. They kept them up until the flesh rotted off the bones. In later years they

started running out of space. That was a further insult in that bodies had to be buried as soon as possible under Hebrew laws.

[No Elephants]

44. But Jesus had to be buried before sundown of the day he was crucified

because he had to be buried before the Jewish Sabbath. That's why they put a spear into his side (according to the Biblical version).

[Caretha]

45. True

But if the upper portion of the body & the head were raised as on pillows, the arms would be positioned to where the hands covered the are of the genital. Hmmm....why would you put pillows under a dead man's head?

[blueworld]

25. Their conclusions seem like leaps of faith to me

Perhaps even a rich aristocrat who died of leprosy would have been buried VERY quickly in whatever material was handy. They haven't proven or disproved squat with regard to the Shroud of Turin. They have an actual burial shroud that can be definitively dated to "Jesus-era" Jerusalem. That's a fact, and a valuable addition to the historical record.

The rest of their conclusions are purely speculation. Like when they taught me in school that all dinosaurs were cold-blooded and abandoned their nests and never hung around in groups. As scientists gathered more facts they changed their conclusions.

Anyway, I find it fascinating & thank you for posting.

[On the Road]

26. I Agree That the Finding is Inconclusive

although it is interesting in its own right.

I don't understand, though, how so many people people can still believe that the Shroud of Turin is genuine, or even consider that it might be.

Forgetting the carbon dating and arguments over body position, the cloth looks nothing like what a burial shroud would look like. The front and back of the head would not come out as two seaparated ovals, but a single continuous image. There's not even enough space between the front and back -- Jesus would have had to have a flat head to make that image.

[alfredo]

32. If the shroud was put over the face of a person you would get a very distorted

image because the cloth would drape. You wouldn't just get the front but the sides of the face. If the person has a flat head you could get a mirror image, but the head is 3 dimensional.
Also, testing of the blood came back as vermillion, red paint.

Anyway, the person who created the shroud confessed.

[DavidDvorkin]

36. And yet none of that matters

to the faithful. Their world is still flat.

[alfredo]

38. True, but it is those with little faith that wants to find "proof" and to place the

coercive force of law behind their beliefs.

Look at the mental twists and turns of the creationists/intelligent design crowd.

[JCMach1]

34. Exactly, they made a very big assumption that a trade crossroads

would have just one kind of material available.

A serious :wtf: to these scientists at ALL levels.

[DavidDvorkin]

37. It's not a question of what's available

but of what was used by the Jews of that time.

[Trajan]

35. Crimany .... It's a piece of cloth .....

I wrote a bunch of nonsense, then erased it ....

Interesting for the study of funerary practices and textiles, 'Jesus era' means little in this case ....

'Approx 50 BCE or earlier' does the trick too ....

[mainer]

39. The leprosy finding is more interesting

I don't know why everyone's all focused on the shroud. The fact he died of leprosy and had TB as well is far more interesting. Also that his coffin was sealed with plaster, which was very rare. It probably has to do with the fact he had Hansen's disease.

[bamademo]

46. I have yet to read conclusive evidence that Jesus actually existed...

and is not some myth. I'm pretty tired of the Christ-centricness down here in the Bible Belt of Alabama.

[DavidDvorkin]

47. There is no evidence that he existed, of course

And a lack of contemporary evidence that alone is suspicious. The events described in the Gospels would have been documented by both Romans and Jews, but they weren't.

But saying that in modern America causes outrage.

[dmallind]

49. Come on! Whay would they bother to mention things like..

...the sky turning black and teh dead rasing from their graves after one rabble rouser was cruicified? Given the dry atmosphere of the area we have many extant documents - including such monumentally important things as a price list at a tannery.. Nobody would bother writing down a miracle of the highest order or seven. Nobody would bother to mention an itinerant preacher who fed thousands with a single light snack either.