domenico in a response to Professor Lombatti, nails it with good logic over at The Bible and Interpretation:
From a 2009’s National Geographic article about the Akeldamà Shroud in wich is interwieved Prof. Gibson, the discoverer of the Akeldamà Shroud:
1)"In all of the approximately 1,000 tombs from the first century A.D. which have been excavated around Jerusalem, not one fragment of a shroud had been found" until now, said archaeologist Shimon Gibson. "We really hit the jackpot".
– So the typical burial shroud of the first century is an unique "jackpot". I would know his statistical significance.
Mati Milstein indeed writes: "Assuming the new shroud typifies those used in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus, the researchers maintain that the Shroud of Turin could not have originated in the city. That’s perhaps a big assumption [sic!], given that there are no other known shrouds from the same place and time for comparison".
2) "Both the tomb’s location and the textile offer evidence for the apparently elite status of the corpse, he added. The way the wool in the shroud was spun indicates it had been imported from elsewhere in the Mediterranean—something a wealthy Jerusalem family from this period would likely have done".
– So the "typical" shroud was imported! Someone (i.e. A. Gorski) says that this family was connected with Greece, wich makes the shroud even less typical.
3)"The newfound shroud was something of a patchwork of simply woven linen and wool textiles, the study found. The Shroud of Turin, by contrast, is made of a single textile woven in a complex twill pattern, a type of cloth not known to have been available in the region until medieval times, Gibson said".
– That is a bit strange: Gibson says that the Akeldamà Shroud is imported from elsewere but when he speaks about the Turin Shroud he can not think that also it could be imported (we know complex twills from Syria, Egypt and also Europe).
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091216-shroud-of-turin-jesus-jerusalem-leprosy.html
Prof. Lombatti, I do not have to agree or disagree with the distinguished scholars you mention but I consider totally arbitrary that the Shroud of Akeldamà is presented to the public as the typical Jewish first-century shroud considering all the uniquenesses that the discoverer Prof. Gibson must admit.
– First off, I’m not sure how this blogging thing works, but I can use some help from people who know a lot about the Shroud of Turin — and, from what I’ve read so far, you guys know a lot. I have some questions.
– I read somewhere that the proper Jewish shroud in the first century would have been wrapped around the body like the wrapping of a mummy. Somewhere else, I read that the wrapping displayed by the Shroud of Turin was the proper way. But, I can’t remember where I read either one… I’m getting pretty old.
– Which is it? And, where can I find a good citation.
– Thanks.
Jabba, see the posting Paper Chase: A Clean Cloth directly above this posting: http://shroudofturin.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/paper-chase-a-clean-cloth-by-diana-fulbright/