Another Overwhelming Evidence Argument?

The graphic above, and much of Stephen’s argument concerning the selvedge, looms of 11′-6″ width during the Roman period, etc are almost a direct uptake from Ian Wilson’s 2010 book. Wilson cites as his authority a Flury-Lemberg article which she published in ‘Sindone’, new series no.16, December 2001, p.58. It is claimed that Egyptian looms of this width were known, and were required for the then much-prized fashionable seamless tunic. Complex weaves from this period are certainly known, but more often in fabrics other than linen. A counter-argument might be that the three-pedal loom required for the most efficient production of the herring-bone twill seems to have been a later invention. My own view is that in view of the extensive trade within the empire and beyond, together with far-flung military garrisons, it is not necessary to presume a Middle Eastern provenance for a product such as the Shroud cloth emerging in 1st century Jerusalem.

Stephen’s argument goes like this:

1) The side strip appears to have originally been part of the Shroud, cut off and resewn.

2) This could have been because a strip from within the sheet was taken out, and the edges resewn together, in order for the finished cloth to have a selvedge on each side.

3) The cloth could have been woven on a 3m loom, and a strip about 2m wide removed.

4) The ancient Egyptians had looms 3m wide, and medieval weavers didn’t.

5) This proves that the Shroud is authentic.

Apart from No.1, none of these statements bears any scrutiny, and the conclusion is tenuous in the extreme. As usual, Stephen relies almost exclusively on secondary sources, so it is difficult to track down the truth of any of his references, but here we go.

Point 2. With the greatest respect to Mme Flury-Lemberg, I do not go along with the selvedge argument at all. The ancient Egyptians, 1st century Palestinians, and medieval weavers were quite capable of producing cloths of various widths, with selvedges both sides. If you wanted a 110cm width of cloth, you made a 110cm width of cloth, you didn’t get a 3m width of cloth and cut a strip off it or out of it. The only reason for such an action would be if you wanted a 110cm strip of cloth, and the only one available was a 3m wide one. However, if this was the case, you’d be in a hurry, and surely not bothered about matching the selvedges, especially if it meant putting in an ugly seam all the way down the cloth. You would cut the cloth to the required width and hem the edge, so there was no ugly seam down the length of the cloth. This would be more attractive to look at and easier to do, than cutting out a strip and resewing the edges, giving you the seam down the middle. Furthermore, all you would need to do to the remaining cloth would be to hem the single cut edge, rather than having to hem both cut edges as in Flury-Lemberg’s scenario. I’m afraid I think her idea very far-fetched, and would need evidence that it was a common practice, or even a rare one, before I gave it credence.

Points 3 and 4. Even if the strip removal thing were granted, the cloth from which it was removed was not necessarily originally 3m wide with 1.9m removed. It could have been 2m wide and a 90cm strip removed. Although I do not know about how wide medieval looms could be, they certainly had them at least 2m wide. Viking looms are described as “typically” 2m wide.

Point 5. The fact that the Shroud could possibly have been woven originally 3m wide, had a 10cm strip, followed by a 190cm strip cut off, and then the 10cm strip sewn back on, does not mean that this scenario is at all likely, let alone proof of anything.

While we’re at it, few of the rest of Stephen’s facts bear much scrutiny either.

The dimensions of the Shroud equate to “8 x 2 Assyrian cubits, the standard unit of measurement in Jesus’ time, even among the Jews.” There is no evidence for this at all, and some to the contrary.

“The reason for such wide looms was to produce the tunica inconsutilis, or seamless tunic, which was particularly fashionable in the Roman period.” I do not know about Roman fashions, but unless a tunic is woven as a tube, or consists of nothing more than a long thin sheet with a hole in it, it has to have at least one seam to hold the sides, or one side, together. If, as I suspect, the word seamless means that it was woven from just one piece of cloth (which may have had seams at the sides), then a strip about 14 ft long and 3 ft wide would be about right, but this would not be a 3 ft length cut from a piece of material 17 ft wide, it would be a 14 ft length cut from a piece of cloth 3 ft wide. I do not think the wide Egyptian loom had anything to do with the Roman tunica inconsutilis. Is there any evidence for this?

“The unusual stitching, binding and finishing of the selvedges is, like the stitching of the seam joining the sidestrip to the main body of the Shroud, known only from the first century Jewish fortress of Masada.” This statement is a familiar misinterpretation of Flury-Lemberg’s opinion that the stitching at Masada means that the Shroud could have been contemporaneous, not that the stitching is not known anywhere else, or that it must have been.

Curiously, although Stephen professes not to read this blog, I’ll bet a pound to a penny that a diatribe against me in response to this comment will appear on his blog within the next 24 hours… (4.41pm UK time)