No examples of complex herringbone weave are known from the time of Jesus when, in any case, burial cloths tended to be of plain weave. In addition, Jewish burial practice utilizedand the Gospel of John specifically describes for Jesusmultiple burial wrappings with a separate cloth over the face, e.g. John 20:6, King James version:
Matthew 27:59-60 states otherwise. It states:
59Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, 60 and placed it in his own new tomb
Matthew is considered to be the most Jewish of the Gospels. That being said, it is much more likely that a Jew would know the Jewish burial practices at that time. At most though, it shows the author is taking a biased look at the accounts. After all, they took the Gospel that is usually deemed to be the least historical.
Second, there have been other similar burials cloths found. In fact, there have been shrouds similar found in Jerusalem, dating from the first century. So it does follow that it would be likely.
Aberration in the wrap dimensions: For a shroud that was supposedly wrapped around the body of Christ, the lack of wraparound distortions across the torso, thighs, and legs is striking - the figure does not satisfy the geometric conditions of contact formation.
But we aren't talking about a normal sort of image either. After all, it is in a cloth, from an unknown source.
Legacy of fake shrouds in the Middle Ages: The practice of faking 'holy relics' was widespread during the Middle Ages. It would be incomprehensible if multiple fake Shroud attempts were also not made.
This is a lame argument. Just because something could possibly have happened doesn't mean that it did happen.
Disparity in ages from fragments: The current researchers insist their samples are from the correct period, and the 1988 researchers somehow mistakenly selected samples not part of the original shroud but repairs following fire damage in 1532. This claim holds no water- since the original workers were always well aware of what parts of the cloth were repaired and which were older!
Actually, there has been a number of works on the subject that suggest that researchers, until recently, knew that there was repair done on those sections.
Erratic or conflicting history: At the very least any real relic ought to have a trackable history! However, little reliable information is known of the shroud before the 15th century, beyond it being present in France in the 14th century. In 1453 Margaret de Charny deeded it to the House of Savoy, and in 1578 the then-Duke transferred it to Turin. The description of the Turin cloth at this point differs from that of the original cloth first presented in the 14th century
This simply shows a lack of knowledge. Most relics do not have a trackable history. After all, we are talking about long periods of time in which the majority of people were illiterate. We are also talking about a period of time in which many works were destroyed or lost.
A great example is the Dead Sea scrolls or the Nag Hammadi library. They were lost for centuries only to later turn up. It is not uncommon for artifacts to become lost, and only later found.
Blood stains would render it more icon than relic: There are claims of "bloodstains" on the cloth, but Hebrew law dictated cleansing of the corpse before wrapping and bodies don't bleed after death. Chemist Walter McCrone identified the substance as a "combination of red ochre and vermilion tempera paint." However only fibrils lifted from the shroud on sticky tape were tested for blood
Other researchers have verified that it was blood. Second, why would we assume that Hebrew law was followed? After all, he was killed by Romans. If the accounts are true, he was placed in the tomb right before the Sabbath, which would have made it a rushed job.
Image proportions are wrong: As for the image on the Shroud, some basic elements: the image is muscular and 1.70 to 1.88 meters, or about 5'7" to 6'2", tall, with wound points as though they could have been caused by the process of crucifixion, but there is no generally accepted theory to explain how the image was impressed onto the cloth. However, it is accepted that the image is not anatomically correct the head is 5% too large for its body, the nose is disproportionate, and the arms are too long. In many ways then, it bears similarity or at least image analogy to the fake Oswald photos (holding a rifle) reproduced in LIFE magazine, which were later shown to be fake since while Oswald's head was the same scale in each photo, the bodies were almost always larger. And by about 5-10%.
Yes, because images can never be distorted. Considering we don't even know the process in which the image was captured, it is premature to rule out the possibility that some distortion was involved. Even in regular pictures, distortion happens.
Another little known aspect is the height of the Shroud Man (from the image) appears way too large for a Jew living at the time 100 B.C. E. - 100 C.E. At that period, the tallest Jewish males were roughly 5'4" and perhaps 5'5" at most. To therefore have a person as much as 6'2" would be absurd. The 5'7" is more in the spectrum of probable heights but still out by at least two Gaussian standard deviations.
How is the author aware of how tall the tallest Jews were? Using the average height of Jews does not actually work. More so, we are talking about an image that appears to be distorted anyway. Why should we assume that it was the exact height? Certainly such an image could have been enlarged.
