She says that Jesus’ burial certificate was glued to the cloth covering him and then the ink was transferred to the cloth:
Dr Barbara Frale, a researcher in the Vatican secret archives, said “I think I have managed to read the burial certificate of Jesus the Nazarene, or Jesus of Nazareth.” She said that she had reconstructed it from fragments of Greek, Hebrew and Latin writing imprinted on the cloth together with the image of the crucified man.
[...]
Dr Frale said that many of the letters were missing, with Jesus for example referred to as “(I)esou(s) Nnazarennos” and only the “iber” of “Tiberiou” surviving. Her reconstruction, however, suggested that the certificate read: “In the year 16 of the reign of the Emperor Tiberius Jesus the Nazarene, taken down in the early evening after having been condemned to death by a Roman judge because he was found guilty by a Hebrew authority, is hereby sent for burial with the obligation of being consigned to his family only after one full year”. It ends “signed by” but the signature has not survived.
The Times Online article states that the Roman authorities would hold the body for a year in a common grave placing a death certificate on the burial cloth for later retrieval. I find it hard to believe that was the custom when dealing with those who had been crucified. I’d read that they either left them to rot on the cross as a deterrent to others or throw their body in their body in the trash. From Antonio Lombatti, a church historian:
He also rejected the idea that authorities would officially return the body of a crucified man to relatives after filling out some paperwork. Victims of that form of execution used by the Romans would usually be left on the cross or were disposed of in a dump to add to its deterrent.
And though she claims that her account is consistent with the Gospels, I don’t think it fits with this:
John19:38 After these things Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus, and Pilate gave him permission. So he came and took away his body. 39 Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds in weight. 40 So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews. 41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid. 42 So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there.
Why would they need a certificate to identify the body when they took it right after his death?
posted November 21, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Something of note is that it is claimed that the note reads “in the year 16 of the reign of the Emperor Tiberius”. Tiberius’ reign began in the year 14 AD. Therefore the date is 30 AD. However, in the middle ages, the commonly thought date of Jesus’ death was 33 AD. 30 AD fits with modern scholarship of the issue.
posted November 21, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Uh, yeah, right.
posted November 22, 2009 at 2:13 am
Why would they need a certificate to identify the body when they took it right after his death?
Because it wasn’t a certificate of identification for those who knew him, but for those who didn’t know him, so that when those who knew him came to take him, the certificate was checked to make sure the correct body was given to them.
Joseph of Arimathea obviously had some standing and some wealth, to acquire a secret audience with Pilate, and to already possess a burial site. It’s obvious that when Pilate gave his permission, he told Joseph that he would incur all costs in moving the body and supplying the burial site. He may have even charged Joseph for the costs to guard the tomb.
All the ‘experts’ who reject the possibility that Pilate would make these exceptions in Jesus case, forget that it is likely that Pilate knew Jesus was completely an innocent man and it was likely he had a higher regard for a man like Joseph of Arimathea than he did for wicked men like the Jewish religious leaders who conspired to kill Jesus.
posted November 22, 2009 at 2:51 pm
The Roman lawyer Tertullian was recorded during one of his cases before the Imperial Senate using earlier Roman records as a witness that Pilate had been so impressed with Jesus that he wrote a letter to Caesar and on the basis of that letter, Caesar declared Jesus to be one of the gods. (Of which Rome had many and it was reasonable for them to appease what they thought might be some strange new one.) That is a matter of history. We don’t have Pilate’s letter that Tertullian refers to, but since Pilate authorized the burial and required a guard force on the tomb, it’s not out of the realm of possibility that there might be markings. Until the evidence of radiation burns (which would require hard gammas to produce something like that)in the negative image in the shroud was found, which is something that is quite impossible to explain with any scientific phenomena that I’m familiar with, I thought the shroud was simply another “relic” created by the catholic church during one of their campaigns to pay for cathedrals.
posted November 23, 2009 at 3:32 am
Thanks for posting this. I’ve followed the Shroud story for thirty-five years. If the shroud is truly the burial cloth of Jesus, then He has left us with an image of His earthly body as a sign to assist with our faith. Ultimately, the Shroud says that He died.
However, true faith is in the Resurrection. For Catholics and Orthodox, we receive His glorified body and blood, soul and divinity in the Holy Eucharist. That reality should not be eclipsed by any other.
posted November 23, 2009 at 8:47 am
That reality should not be eclipsed by any other.
Amen, Gerard.
posted June 14, 2010 at 8:25 am
You have done it again! Amazing read.