A linen cloth: The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus! #10

The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus!
A LINEN CLOTH
© Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is "A linen cloth," part #10 of my online book, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus!" For more information see the Cover #1, Contents #2 and Preface #3, of this series. I originally wrongly had this page under chapter 1. What is the Shroud of Turin? #8" when it should be chapter 2's heading. So it, "Colour #11," and "Dimensions #11" are now permanently out of topic order in this online version of my book! However, they will keep their chronological part numbers #10 & #11 and also their hyperlinks. And if readers follow each page's "Previous" and "Next" links they won't notice, apart from the out of order part numbers.

[Contents #2] [Previous: Names of the Shroud #9] [Next: Colour #11]

---

2. A linen cloth #10
1. Colour #11
2. Dimensions #12
3. Selvedges #19
4. Sidestrip #20

The Shroud cloth is fine linen[2]. As was Jesus’ linen burial shroud

[Above (enlarge)[3]: The Shroud cloth laid flat at the 2010 exposition.]

(Greek sindon)[4] recorded in the Gospels (Matthew 27:59; Mark 15:46 and Luke 23:53)[5]. The exceptional fineness of the Shroud’s linen suggests that the cloth could have been intended for the linen vestments worn by first-century Jerusalem temple priests[6].

In 1973, Professor Gilbert Raes (1914-2001) of the Ghent Institute of Textile Technology in Belgium, examined four small pieces of material from the bottom left-hand corner of the Shroud[7]. Known from then on as “Raes’ corner,” it was from there the radiocarbon dating samples

[Above (enlarge)[8]: Raes' corner location at the bottom left-hand corner of the Shroud, showing Raes' fragment, the retained sample and the three laboratories' sub-samples.]

were cut in 1988 (see above). Raes identified the flax fibres from which the Shroud’s linen yarn was spun as from the flax plant Linum usitatissimum[9], which is native to the region from the eastern Mediterranean to India[10].

Raes found minute traces of cotton, Gossypium herbaceum, a species of cotton native to the semi-arid regions of sub-Saharan Africa and Arabia where it still grows in the wild as a perennial shrub[11]. The cotton was actually part of the linen thread[12], so it was not the result of later contamination of the Shroud[13]. Therefore Raes attributed the cotton traces to the loom upon which the Shroud had been woven having also been used to weave cotton[14].

It was at first thought that cotton was not grown in Europe in the Middle Ages and so this was further evidence that the Shroud was not produced by a medieval forger[15]. However it was later realised that the Muslim Moors had grown cotton in Spain since the ninth century[16] and cotton had been woven in Italy from the fourteenth century.

The Old Testament prohibited Jews from wearing clothes “made of two kinds of material” (Leviticus 19:19). For example animal (wool) and vegetable (flax and cotton) fibre[17] and specifically not “wool and linen mixed together” (Deuteronomy 22:11)[18]. So if traces of wool had been found woven into the Shroud rather than cotton, that would have been evidence that the Shroud was not a Jewish burial cloth[19].

Raes also found that the yarn had been hand-spun[20] with a clockwise Z-twist rather than an anti-clockwise S-twist[21]. Linen with a Z-twist has been found in ancient Syria, whereas ancient Egyptian linen normally has an S-twist[22]. This points to the Shroud’s linen having had a Syro-Palestinian, rather than an Egyptian origint[23].

Raes noted that the Shroud’s weave is a complex three-to-one (3:1) herringbone twill[24]. In this type of weave a weft (widthwise) thread

[Above: The Shroud's complex herringbone three-to-one twill weave (a) compared to a plain weave (b)[25].]

passes alternatively under three warp (lengthwise) threads[26], forming a diagonal or “herringbone” pattern[27] (see previous).

Herringbone twill weave is rare[28]. It is has been found in silk and wool from antiquity but not yet in linen[29]. The only surviving example of herringbone twill weave in linen are coarse fourteenth century fragments in London’s Victoria and Albert Museum[30]. As

[Above (enlarge)[31]: The larger of the only two known examples of herringbone twill weave in linen (the grey part is a reconstruction), dated the second half of the fourteenth century, in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, ref. no. 8615-1863[32].]

evidence of the rarity of the Shroud’s weave, when the British Museum’s Dr Michael Tite tried in 1988 to obtain control samples for the Shroud’s radiocarbon dating, he was unable to find any examples in linen similar to the Shroud’s weave for the dating to be `blind’[33].

Being rare, herringbone twill weave is also expensive[34]. So the Shroud is consistent with the linen shroud bought by the “rich man” Joseph of Arimathea in which to bury Jesus (Matthew 27:57-60; Mark 15:42-46)[35]. The Shroud most definitely is not just any “bit of linen” that Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory’s Professor Edward Hall (1924-2001) rightly told reporters that a medieval forger would have used to fake Jesus' burial shroud[36]!

Continued in part #11 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of this post (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. de Wesselow, T., 2012, “The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection,” Viking: London, p.110. [return]
3. "Shroud of Turin goes on public display," Emirates 24/7/AFP, 11 April 2010. [return]
4. Bauer, W., Arndt, W.F., Gingrich, F.W. & Danker, F.W., 1979, "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature," University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Second edition, p.751. [return]
5. Guerrera, V., 2001, “The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity,” TAN: Rockford IL, p.30. [return]
6. de Wesselow, 2012, p.110. [return]
7. Antonacci, M., 2000, “Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence,” M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.98. [return]
8. Benford, M.S. & Marino, J.G., 2008, “Discrepancies in the radiocarbon dating area of the Turin shroud,” Chemistry Today, Vol 26, N0. 4, July-August. https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/benfordmarino2008.pdf. [return]
9. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, “The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science,” Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.197. [return]
10. Wilson, I., 2010, “The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved,” Bantam Press: London, p.71. [return]
11. “Gossypium herbaceum,” Wikipedia, 13 October 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gossypium_herbaceum. [return]
12. Iannone, J.C., 1998, “The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence,” St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.14. [return]
13. Wilson, 2010, p.71. [return]
14. Iannone, 1998, p.14. [return]
15. Wilson, 1979, p.70. [return]
16. Iannone, 1998, p.14. [return]
17. Iannone, 1998, p.15. [return]
18. Antonacci, 2000, p.99. [return]
19. McNair, P., 1978, "The Shroud and History: fantasy, fake or fact?," in Jennings, P., ed., "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, p.22. [return]
20. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.197. [return]
21. Wilson, 2010, p.71. [return]
22. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.197. [return]
23. Ibid. [return]
24. Antonacci, 2000, p.98. [return]
25. Wilson, 2010, p.75. [return]
26. Humber, T., 1978, “The Sacred Shroud,” [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY, p.34. [return]
27. Antonacci, 2000, p.98. [return]
28. Wilson, 2010, p.74. [return]
29. Wilson, I., 1998, “The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real,” Simon & Schuster: New York NY, pp.68-69. [return]
30. Wilson, 1998, p.69. [return]
31. "Printed linen," The Victoria and Albert Museum, London, Ref. no. 8615-1863. http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O144714/printed-linen-unknown/. [return]
32. Wilson, 1998, p.69. [return]
33. Wilson, 1998, p.68. [return]
34. Wilson, 2010, p.74. [return]
35. Iannone, 1998, p.13. [return]
36. Sheridan, M. & Reeves, P., 1988, “Turin Shroud shown to be a fake,” The Independent, 14 October, in Wilson, 1998, p.7. [return]

Posted: 4 March 2020. Updated: 20 April 2021.