Page - 54 - in JRFM - Journal Religion Film Media, Volume 05/01

Having offered documentation on different categories of Egyptian burial, Chifflet had prepared the ground for contrasting these rather elaborate rites with the more ordinary ones most commonly used by the Jews in Palestine: chapter 4, Ritus sepulturae Iudaicae duplex: mortui loti, uncti, involuti. Christi funerationi adhibita Sindon, Sudarium, linteamina, institae (The twofold rite of Jewish burial: the dead washed, anointed, wrapped. The sindon used for the funerary rite of Christ, the sudarium, the linen cloths, the bandages), and the four chapters that followed represent a decisive part within the treatise. The Besançon author repeatedly referred to “Rabbi Jacob” as an important source. Surely, the highly influential medieval legal scholar Jacob Ben Ash- er is meant, who in Yoreh De’ah, the second section of his compilation of Jewish law, discussed mourning for the dead and burial rites.19 Working his way through the detailed information on funerary procedure, with frequent comparisons and references to classical and biblical text passages, Chifflet recounted the individual steps: the closing of the eyes, the shaving of the hair (with the specification, quoting the ecclesiastical historian Cardinal Bar- onius,20 that it was not performed in the case of Jesus because he was a con- vict), the washing, the anointing and the wrapping of the body. A careful dis- tinction between the various fabrics used in the process was crucial for the erudite author, in particular in the case of the “sindon” and the “sudarium”, whereby the first term, according to Chifflet, referred to the linen cloths that, following the evangelist John, were folded in one part of the tomb, whereas the second described a cloth that had been on the face of Jesus and that was found put down in a different area of the tomb. Comparison with the vocabu- lary used in the Gospel of John to describe Jesus’ last miracle before his cruci- fixion, the resurrection of Lazarus of Bethany four days after Lazarus’ burial, was important in Chifflet’s eyes, as was a discussion of some of the central terms on a linguistic level. Sindon and sudarium, the author remarked, were often used as synonyms, but the words had very different etymologies and meanings.21 Chifflet was convinced that in matters of religion and faith it was essential to avoid mere references to miracles and one should instead draw on arguments and facts.22 Well aware of the fame of the Turin shroud but also of the fierce criticism of relic cults brought forth by many, in particular the open challenges posed by Jean Calvin’s successful and widely known treatise 19 The reference given by Chifflet in the right margin of the page is to a work titled Thurim Iora Degha. This small distortion might be explained by his having mistaken the last part of one of the names the rabbi was known by, Ba’al ha-Turim, for part of the publication’s title. 20 Caesar Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici a Christo nato ad annum 1198 (Romae: Typographia Torneriana, 1588–1607). 21 Chifflet 1624, chap. 5. 22 Chifflet 1624, 35. 54 | Paola von Wyss-Giacosa www.jrfm.eu 2019, 5/1