www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Burial cloths

Greetings to all in Christ,
While reading John 20 last night, I came across something that puzzled me. It read:

Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; he saw the linen cloths lying, and the napkin, which had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in place by itself.

My question is - Is there a significance to the napkin not being found with the linen cloths but rolled up by itself? The only thought that enters my mind is that this in some way represents something with regards to a Jewish burial custom.

Thank you in advance for any comments?

Rose2

If I remember correctly some interpret this as additional proof that Christ was resurrected and not simply his body stolen becasue grave robbers would not have taken the time to neatly fold the head wrap and place it aside.

How interesting, I'd never heard that before.

Thank you Deacon Lance.

In Christ,
Aaron

Thank you Deacon Lance,

That makes sense!

Rose2

I wish I were able to give you something solid - but I cannot. What I can do however, is indicate to you that the translation of �napkin� (meaning to us today a small cloth that cover the face alone) is misleading.

Greek: soudarion or sindon = covering cloth
Latin: sudarium = �sweat-cloth� or �veil-covering� or shroud
French: suaire = veil or shroud
Syriac: ^ardwo^ = a girdle or �binding about the head�
Aramaic = soudar� - veil or �covering cloth�

We today have a tendency to restrict words to one concrete meaning as a noun - but in the older language everything is much closer to a verb (what it did it function) and therefore tended to be more generic.

Only in that Latin can it mean a small sized (handkerchief sized) sweat-cloth used to wipe the face of sweat. Some say it is used like this in the Greek also - but I think only the Latin. It maybe that, since the Romans did not use cloth head coverings - as time went on - the word became more restricted to the �napkin� for wiping the face.

I believe that when one thinks of a face-veil one should not think of the smaller face veils used by ladies of the European ages on - but one should rather think of something much larger - covering the entire head down to at least the chest and waist - if not longer. The �Burka� of the Muslims is also a �veil� (the covering we are so familiar with as demanded by the Taliban for women in Afghanistan).

But in any case - a burial �shroud� - to the Jews of the time - was a generic term for �covering� which simply indicated what the body was covered or wrapped in. Wrappings - and was generic to indicate both the body wrappings (about the chest and limbs) as well as the full �shroud� (like Turin).

It is interesting that the name Veronica = vera-eikoon � which means �true-image� or perhaps 'victory'� and the veil of Veronica can therefore be translated as �shroud of the true image�. Veronica seems to have develoed into legend (based on some factual items but historically untrustworthy).

Jewish Burial�.
It was traditional for the Jews of the time to cloth or cover the dead in inexpensive �shrouds� (wrappings / coverings).

Today - tahrihim - in the Hebrew (what the dead are clothed or covered with) means simple white �coverings� of inexpensive linen that is hand sewn and takes the form of plain and simple white shirt, pants, and face covering. No pockets. There is no distinction between rich and poor.

Possibility ONE
At the time of Jesus the burial method was much like the Egyptians. The hands were folded across the chest (and wrapped with the chest) while the legs were wrapped separately (allowing Lazareth to walk out of his tomb). The body was smeared with oils etc.. and then wrapped. Not all bodies received the wrapping which was large (like that of Turin). It appears that if a coffin was used there was no full shroud over the body wrappings - and if there was no coffin then the large �full shroud� was used in its place.

In any event - the word soudarion in the Greek is also used in the Acts to indicate both a head covering and a �wrapper� within which money (coins) were placed and was folded around the money (making like a wallet). When money was paid one would hold the soudarion in his hand, unfold it - take the coin out, and then fold it over again. So again we see the generic use of �wrapper�.

If the Greek of the gospels is a transliteration from the Aramaic then John may have been making a connection with the �covering� or veil that Moses placed over his radiating face when he came down with the tablets in as much as John calls the linen wrappings for the chest and limbs �othonia� and the other �soudarion� (which was probably the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic �soudar� which covered the face of Moses).

I believe, that when the gospels indicate it cover the face or head - we should not necessarily automatically think this was small face sized covering but may just as well have actually been as large as the shroud of Turin. I also do not think we should see it as either folded of rolled up - but that the term simply either (in other words - neatly placed).

[quote]
John: "the othonia lying there, but the soudarion which had been over the head not lying with the othonia but folded/rolled-up in a place by itself."
[quote]
Which seems to indicate that the wrappings that were used to bind the body (wound around) were lying not [folded/rolled] and these bindings might have included the chin binding which kept the mouth closed. The large �shroud� which was used in the place of a coffin was rolled/folded neatly and separate from the bindings.

Possibility TWO
IF the word �soudarion� does indeed indicate the head and chin wrapping only (as a separate thing from the general body wrappings) then it is entirely possible that the meaning John is trying to say is that it remained �rolled� (as it would be about the head) - in its unique place� meaning that all the wrappings lay just as if a body had been in them and where the head would have been the soudarion was still �rolled� (circular) in its proper place just as it had been around the top of the head to the chin. In other words nothing had been unwrapped at all - yet the body was no longer in the wrappings.

Further Note�
I do not know if this is pertinent or not. It was Jewish custom - that during a feast - the guests could leave and come back. The servants were not allowed to inquire �Are you finished? Are you coming back?� If the guest was leaving - and not coming back - he would stack his plates at his place at the table - crumple the napkin (covering for the chest and lap) and place it on top of the plates. That was the sign to the servants that the guess was done and would not be coming back. If the guest was leaving - but would be back - he would stack his plated at his place at the table - and neatly fold his napkin - placing it on top of the stack. This was the signal that he - he would return.

Someone with more Greek knowledge than I would have to tell us when sindom is used and if that can be transposed with soudarion or might indicate a certain kind of wrapping. That I do not know.

I happen to lean that the Shroud of Turin is genuine - but - I not certain that there is evidence of it in the gospels. Which lack of eveidence may mean - nothing. It remains a mystery.

I am sorry that I could not nail it down for you Rose2.

-ray

This has always been one of my questions too.
Certainly it is recorded in John very carefully and must have a meaning which escapes us.

But also no one has made comment to the fact that John "waited" for Peter's arrival before he entered the tomb. Does not this also have a significant meaning?
Stephanos I
Unworthy Monk and Arch sinner

Thank you Ray, As usual your posting is very insightful.

Stephanos I - I was always taught that since Peter was their "leader", John waited out of respect for him to enter first. If anyone has a different interpretation, I'd like to know too.

Rose2,
It was a rhetorical question. I knew the answer.
Thanks anyway.
Stephanos I

On doing a little research (I have never considered these things before) it seems that since the holy women had not yet applied the oils (they intended to do so after the Sabbath) it seems reasonable that the body of Jesus had not been washed and had not been wrapped about with the final wrappings (mummy style).

Joseph of Arameth (sp) had brought a new linen sheet (and I believe one of the gospels adds �un-stained - a curious detail to add??) to the cross and Nicodemus had brought myrrh (100 pounds?? When only ten are needed?? Why?).

The bodies of the thieves were taken down and buried without Jewish ritual, by the Roman soldiers.

Joesph of Aremeth had requested the body from Pilate. Nicodemus showed up. Peter and John came back after the soldiers were gone - to help. Magdalene, Mary (sister of Martha?) and mother Mary remained all during.

The servants of Joseph and Nicodemus would have lowered Jesus (and perhaps Joseph and Nicodemus helping). His body would have been presented to his mother first. And then - if they knew that there was not time to fully prepare the body (entirely washed and final wrapped mummy style) - but would remain in the tomb through the Sabbath - the myrrh would have been placed around the body to counter the stench that would be expected when the body was revisited after the Sabbath and after laying unwashed so for long. It seems reasonable that the body may have been laid on a wooden pallet like streacher and carried or carted to the tomb (which I guess was not far away). But maybe, in the haste, nothing like the strecher and cart were availisble and it was hand carried.

Since the gospels seem to make it clear that Mary Magdalene had intended to apply the funeral oils - after the Sabbath - it seems reasonable that the final wrappings (mummy style) had not been done - and that the body lay in the tomb in only the temporary linen sheet covering (body bag like)that Joseph supplied.

So apparently (and I am probably playing catch-up with other who already knew this) the �wrappings� that John describes as �othonia� were the linen strips that were tied around the legs, chest and arms, and chin (keep the jaw closed) before being folded in the �body bag� of the shroud. These minimal bindings would have been reasonable to make the body easier to carry from the cross to the tomb.

So (thinking aloud) if John mentioned the othonia (bindings) and the makes the distinction of the soudarion (covering) as folded (one would not roll a large sheet) then it now seems to me that the soudarion - was indeed - probably the shroud of Turin.

I am sorry if I confused you as I wandered through these items. I was not so much as giving you an answer in the last post - as I was thinking aloud about the subject. While others have already determined that the soudarion was the shroud - it does me personal good - to examine the details that I do know - to see if things fit or do not fit the common accepted answer.

It seems to me that the folded item laying separate was the shroud and if a chin binding was used then it lay with the other bindings.

I would not imagine that Jesus would have folded the shroud (or the angels of whatever) in an effort to indicate that the body had not been stolen. That seems to me to be �political�. It does not seem to me to be something that God would bother himself with (the possibility of the many misinterpretations of those who do not believe). But on the other hand maybe it was an additioan sign that the disciples needed to see upon looking inside. I do not know.

So why was it folded?

Jesus was a neat-nic? And folded it because his mother trained him to be that way? Not likely under these circumstances!

If something is folded - why do we fold things?
Folded - ready to �go� ready to be �put away�. We do not neatly fold 'trash' or things that will be thrown away but only things that will be used again.

Ah ha! Ready to be �put away�. Put away to be used again!

> Is there a significance to the napkin not being found with the
> linen cloths but rolled up by itself? The only thought that enters
> my mind is that this in some way represents something with
> regards to a Jewish burial custom.

The only reason I might guess as to why it was folded in a neat stack is that it was intended to be - taken. God was saying �Here - take this. It shall be used again.�

-- - -----

I remain open to anyone else's thoughts.

I wish very much that I could supply with you a real answer. It remains an intriguing mystery. I suggest that you ask Him about it. And if anything comes to you in the next weeks - that you suggest it to us.

-ray

I remembered where I saw the commentary from my original post:

The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible
RSV
Second Catholic Edition
The Gospel of John

Introduction, notes and commentary by Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch

Deacon Lance,
What did the commentary say? You have me curious now.
As you know St John is a master at using the natural level to convey an underlying spiritual meaning.
Stephanos I

St John Chrysostom has an interesting comment on the whole event.
He says; "They drew near and saw the linen cloths (othonia) lying, which was a sign of the resurrection. For neither anyone intending to remove the body would have first stripped it. Nor if any had stolen the body would thy have taken the trouble to remove the napkin and wrapped it up in one place. How would they have done it? They would have taken the body as it was. For this cause, the Evangelist John tel us by anticipation that it was burried with much myrrh, which glues linen cloths to the body not less firmly than lead. Thus, when you hear that the napkin lay apart, you may not bear with those who say that He was stolen. For a thief would not have been so mindless as to spend so much trouble on a superfluous matter. For why should he undo the cloth and remove the napkin? Besides, how could he have escaped detection if he had taken so much time in so doing? He would have been caught delaying and loitering. But why do the linen cloths lie apart, while the napkin (soudarion) was wrapped together by itself? That you may learn that the action was not done hastily or in a clamorous manner, the placing some in one place, some in another, and wrapping them together."
(Hom. 85,P.G. 59:509,510 col. 465.)
In other words it shows that Jesus was resurrected, his body was not stolen as was claimed
Stephanos I

I appreciate St. Chrysostom pious fervor, but at time find some of the early fathers more pious in sentiment than correct in facts. Which does not mean at all that I discount them - only that I do account them as human and to be read as such humans.

Now thinking out loud again - I am exploring and not presenting any firm beliefs� only tentative.

It seems to me that�

1) The �linen cloths� are these bindings which were probably tied around ankles, knees, and chest with arms folded, and under the chin - making it easier to carry the body. Thehse were not the final full wrappings.

2) The napkin (soudarion) should be thought of as a large sheet (similar to the shroud of Turin) used as a kind of body bag. But - it is still a possibility that it was a face-cloth. For the sake of discussion I will call it the large sheet.

>by anticipation that it was buried with much myrrh, which glues linen cloths
>to the body not less firmly than lead.

Chrysostom says it is glue like �lead� which must be a reference to how lead binds metals (like sweating copper pipes together when plumbing) � that would seem to say that it would glue the linen binding ties to the skin so that it would be impossible to remove the ties (for washing the body) without tearing the skin. Also - it would seem impossible to wash the body at all later - for if it were covered in a head to toe sheet then anywhere the sheet touched the myrrh coated body - it would be impossible to remove the sheet for it would be glued �as lead� to the skin. I can understand Chrysostom saying this about the final mix with oils - but he misses the temporary nature of this temporary myrrh coating (which I would not have noticed without him!)

Now here is where Chrysostom gets carried away.

The Egyptian method entailed frankincense (for scent) myrrh (anti-bacterial and also has scent) and oils (palm/lotus/cedar) the oils dissolved the frankincense and myrrh (both tree resins) creating a clear resin like thick liquid that could be smeared (more likely painted with brush) on the body. Almost like a polyurethane like liquid that cured into a hard shell. Now here is what Chsysostom is thinking of. This created an anti-bacterial and anti-moisture coating� seeping into the outer layer of skin � which sealed the body in a water resistant and bacterial resistant - �shell�. This would be Chrysostom �glue� binding the wrappings to the skin in a hard shell.

Myrrh is a thick resin from a tree. It slowly seeps in a whitish thick sap. For storage and shipping it would have been evaporated of oils and ground into a powder. In order for either myrrh or frankincense to be turned back into any kind of paste again - oils would be added which dissolve the powder reconstituting it back into a sap like liquid again.

Two types of base additives could be used with the powder�
A) Oils - dissolving the powder to reconstitute it back into resin consistency - or thinner.
B) Aloes - rather than dissolving the powder this would be a suspension of the power in a non-oil base more like water. Aloe is soluble with water.

�there came Nicodemus, which at first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about 100 pounds weigh�

So the myrrh-aloe coating was not permanent nor would it dry and harden like glue - but could be washed off with water. Allowing the holy women, after the Sabbath, to fully wash the body and then apply the real funeral mix (oil based) and then wrap the chest, limbs and head� etc..

The water based myrrh and aloes - then kept the linen FROM sticking to the skin. And all was easily cleaned away with water when the body would be properly washed much later.

Now that does - answer the question �Why so much myrrh?� because the mixture of aloes and myrrh - was water soluble - and to last without drying out - over the next 24 hours - it had to have been applied very thick over the entire body. 100 pounds of this mix still seems like a lot. Apparently this stuff was really slathered on because the body would draw moisture from it.

Thank you for the direct St. Chrysostom quote - I would not have noted the temporary and water soluble nature of the myrrh and aloes - with out him. His interpretation of the meaning of the folded sheet - may still be in the ball park and the best one. But I am not sure.

Certainly grave robbers would not have bothered to unwrap the body at all - in order to take it - but would have left it wrapped and covered - preferring to carry a wrapped body than having to carry a naked body, slathered with aloes, with its blood and seepage getting all over them. That would be much like trying to carry a greased pig. Also - leaving the wrapping behind might make it appear that Jesus had not died and someone unwrapped him. So again - there is no added benefit to the face-cloth or sheet (which ever) as being folded in a separate place - to indicate that the body was not stolen.

Grave robbers would have unwrapped the body to get at the jewels - but left the body.

Body thiefs would not have unwrapped the body.

So then - it remains - why was the sheet folded? Folded - or rolled??

John 11:34 says that Lazereth came out wrapped hand and foot - and his �face was covered in a face cloth�. So now we do get back to the possibility of a small cloth used to cover the head and face alone. But this was the final wrapping (Lazereth) which Jesus had not yet gotten - so we do not know about a face cloth.

This is all very interesting Rose2.

On looking into the Greek (and trusting a third party) it seems that according to the Greek - John looked into the tomb and saw the two items and immediately understood while Peter looked in and saw the two items and did not yet understand.

And we have this: "as yet they did not know the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead."

So John understood but did not yet know it was predicted in scriptures - and Peter did not understand at all yet.

When Peter and John left and Mary was alone - apparently they had gone saying anything Mary is left to believe that the caretaker might have taken the body.

Mary now too, looks in the tomb and sees, not the two items of the body ties and the sheet (or face cloth?) but two angels... hmmm... two and two - why two angels? - when traditional scriptures either has one or three?

This is most difficult. There is quiet a mystery here. I have made some progress but also brought up other questions.

It is looking more and more to me as if John were saying that the bindings lay still wrapped - and the face-cloth sill folded (as if still over the head) in its unique place. In other words nothing was unwrapped - just no body anymore inside it.

Or that the body had been fully wrapped - with the aloe misture - and would be unwrapped after the Sabbeth (the aloe keeping it from sticking to the body) and that all this lay just as it was - with the outer sheet (shroud like at Turin) still over it.

But the shround of Turin show direct contact with the body - so if that is real - then the bindings were not all around but simpley the minimimal (around feet, legs, chin) with the shroud over that.

For John to make the immediate connection that Jesus had risen... it would not have been that he had seen a folded cloth laying by itself - it would have been the immediately astounding sight of all wrappings laying - still wrapped - but no Jesus inside them. While Peter could make no sense of that - John knew right way that this - was impossible - no one had unwrapped him and Jesus had not unwrapped himself (as if still alive despite the cross). Something which was humanly impossible - had happened.

-ray

Imagine saying "He is risen!!" and someone asking you "well how do you know?" and you answering "because the face-cloth lay folded."

that seems a little weak.

Now imagine saying "He is risen?"... well how do you know? "because nothing was unwrapped and all still in its proper place - yet there was no body in the wrappings!"

While Peter could make no sense of that - John knew right way that this - was impossible - no one had unwrapped him tp steal a naked body and Jesus had not unwrapped himself (as if still alive despite the cross) yet there was no body inside! Something which was humanly impossible - had happened.

It is further interesting that there may be a connection here with something that Jesus himself quoted� about himself ... Pslam 44

Dear Rose 2 - I think that we can trust this - that John saw the wrappings - still wrapped - but no body inside them. All was in its proper place. No one had unwrapped anything.

-ray

Ray I would just like to point out a few things.
I am not saying that the cloths were taken off the body. However there is the specific note that the cloth for covering the face that is the (Gr soudarion)Lt sudarium was not with the other cloths that is the (Gr othonion)(Lt linteamina) it was (Gr entulisso) rolled up seperately.

The aloe was not what we moderns think of aloe (Gr aloe) at all but rather a scented wood, a dry substance. It was about 70 lbs by our modern weight standards.

The point remains that the position of the grave clothes gave credence to the fact that Jesus was truly risen indeed.

Stephanos I