Friday, January 11, 2013

The Shroud of Turin: 2.4. The wounds

Here, belatedly, is part 10, "2.4. The wounds" in my series, The Shroud of Turin My previous post in this series was part 9, "2.3. The man on the Shroud ." See the series' part 1, Contents for more information about this series.


THE SHROUD OF TURIN
2. WHAT IS THE SHROUD OF TURIN?
2.4. THE WOUNDS
© Stephen E. Jones

Wounds. The man on the Shroud has numerous wounds [1], to

[Above: The wounds, bloodstains and other marks on the Shroud of Turin[2]]

his head (front and back)[3] and his face[4]; his body (front and back)[5]; his arms[6] and hands[7]; and his legs[8] and feet[9].

As will be seen, both the wounds[10] and the bloodstains[11] have an anatomical[12], scientific[13] and historical [14] accuracy which was unknown in the 14th century[15], and therefore represent yet another major problem of the forgery theory[16, §3].

Head and face. The man's scalp, front and back[17], has numerous puncture wounds[18] which correspond to a crown, or rather cap, of thorns[19] being thrust over the top of the man's head[20]. These puncture wounds match those on the Sudarium of Oviedo[21 ] which has been in Spain since the seventh century[22]. This is evidence that the 13th-14th century radiocarbon date of the Shroud[23] is wrong[24] and is another major problem for the forgery theory[25, §4]. His face has been severely beaten[26] with a broken nose[27, 28], and swelling of both eyebrows, below his right eye, nose, left cheek, and left side of his chin [29].

Body. The man's shoulders have abrasions consistent with having carried a Roman crossbeam[30]. His chest and back have over a hundred small dumbbell shaped

[Left: A Roman flagrum from Herculaneum (modern Ercolano) near Pompeii[31]]

wounds[32] which correspond to the pieces of metal[33] attached to the three thongs of a Roman whip called a flagrum[34]. On his right side[35], just below his heart[36] there is a large wound which corresponds to a thrust of a Roman lance[37].


Arms and hands. The man has a wound at the wrist of his left hand consistent with a large nail having been driven through it[38]. Unlike traditional depictions of Christ with nails in the palms of his hands[39], the Shroud is scientifically[40] and historically[41] accurate because nails through ithe palms cannot support a man's body[42]. The man's left hand is crossed over his right[43] so any nail wound in his right hand cannot be seen[44].

Legs and feet. The man's knees have lacerations[45] consistent with the man having fallen to his knees on hard ground or paving[46]. The back of his calves and front of his thighs also have numerous dumbbell shaped wounds[47] from scourging with a Roman flagrum[48]. The right foot only is visible on the Shroud[49] and then only on the dorsal side[50]. It has a wound consistent with a large nail having been driven through it[51]. The left foot is not visible presumably because it was placed over the right foot[52], and the two feet affixed to the cross by a single nail[53]. Then rigor mortis would prevent the feet being laid out flat on the cloth[54].

Most of these wounds are accompanied with bloodstains[55] which will be considered separately in part 11, "2.4. The bloodstains." The wounds correspond with the Gospel's description the suffering and death of Jesus Christ[56] and will be further considered in "3. The Bible and the Shroud."

NOTES
1. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.21. [return]
2. Brooks, E.H., II., Miller, V.D. & Schwortz, B.M., 1981, "The Turin Shroud: Contemporary Insights to an Ancient Paradox," Worldwide Exhibition: Chicago IL, p.13. [return]
3. Wilson, I. & Miller, V., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, pp.17,20.[return]
4. Wilson & Miller, 1986, p.17. [return]
5. Wilson & Miller, 1986, p.20. [return]
6. Wilson & Miller, 1986, p.22. [return]
7. Wilson & Miller, 1986, p.22-23. [return]
8. Wilson & Miller, 1986, p.20. [return]
9. Wilson & Miller, 1986, p.24. [return]
10. Wilson & Miller, 1986, pp.26,29. [return
11. Wilson & Miller, 1986, p.29. [return]
12. Wilson, 1979, p.32. [return]
13. Wilson, 1979, p.36. [return]
14. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, pp.43-48)[return]
15.Wilson, 1998, p.9 [return]
16. Wilson, 1979, p.41. [return]
17. Wilson, 1979, pp.36-37. [return]
18. Wilson, 1979, p.36. [return]
19. Wilson, 1979, p.37. [return]
20. Barbet, P., 1953, "A Doctor at Calvary," Earl of Wicklow, transl., Image Books: Garden City NY, Reprinted, 1963, pp.93-94. [return]
21 . Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, pp.30,32. [return]
22. Guscin, 1998, pp.13-17. [return]
23. Damon, P.E., et al., "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, 1989, pp.611-615. [return]
24. Adler, A.D., 1998, "Concerning the Side Strip on the Shroud of Turin," in Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy, 2002, pp.89-90. [return]
25. Guscin, 1998, pp.84-87. [return]
26. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.32. [return]
27. Zugibe, F.T., 1988, "The Cross and the Shroud: A Medical Enquiry into the Crucifixion," Paragon House: New York NY, Revised edition, p.28. [return]
28. That is, the nasal cartilage has separated from the bone (Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, pp.2-3). [return]
29. Wilson, 1979, p.36. [return]
30. Wilson, 1979, pp.38-39. [return]
31. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.56. [return]
32. Wilson, 1979, p.38. [return]
33. Wilson, 1979, p.38. [return]
34. Wilson, 1979, pp.47-48. [return]
35. Wilson, 1979, p.30. [return]
36. Barbet, 1953, pp.137-138. [return]
37. Wilson, 1979, pp.48-49. [return]
38. Wilson, 1979, pp.40-41. [return]
39. Wilson, 1979, p.40. [return]
40. Wilson, 1979, pp.40-41. [return]
41. Wilson, 1998, pp.44-48. [return]
42. Wilson & Miller, 1986, pp.22-23. [return]
43. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.165. [return]
44. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.165. [return]
45. Wilson, 1979, p.39. [return]
46. Wilson, 1998, p.33. [return]
47. Wilson, 1979, p.38. [return]
48. Wilson, 1986, p.20. [return]
49. Wilson, 1979, p.42. [return]
50. Wilson, 1979, p.22. [return]
51. Wilson, 1986, p.24. [return]
52. Wilson, 1979, pp.41-42. [return]
53. Wilson, 1979, p.42. [return]
54. Antonacci, 2000, p.32. [return]
55. Wilson, 1979, p.36. return]
56. Wilson, 1979, p.36. [return]
§3, §4. To be further examined under "9. Problems of the forgery theory". [return]


To be continued in part 11, "2.5. The bloodstains."

Last updated: 15 July, 2013.

5 comments:

The Deuce said...

Thanks for another great post, Steve!

I've said this before, but what really gives away the Shroud skeptics' inability to look the Shroud rationally is that if they really thought it was a work of art, they'd be trumping it's status as one of the great wonders of the world, and as the most extraordinary piece of art by the most extraordinary artist in all of human history, past or present! For a Medieval artist (or even a modern one for that matter) to have made it would almost be more miraculous than the actual miracle that did create it. The reality is, the skeptics don't do that because they don't want to think realistically about how the Shroud could have come into existence at all. The very topic makes them uncomfortable, and they just want to be able to dismiss it as quickly as possible and not have to worry about it any further.

Stephen E. Jones said...

The Deuce

>Thanks for another great post, Steve!

Thanks, and good to hear from you again.

>I've said this before, but what really gives away the Shroud skeptics' inability to look the Shroud rationally is that if they really thought it was a work of art, they'd be trumping it's status as one of the great wonders of the world, and as the most extraordinary piece of art by the most extraordinary artist in all of human history, past or present!

Great point. That was Walsh's bottom line:

"Only this much is certain: The Shroud of Turin is either the most awesome and instructive relic of Jesus Christ in existence-showing us in its dark simplicity how He appeared to men-or it is one of the most ingenious, most unbelievably clever, products of the human mind and hand on record. It is one or the other; there is no middle ground." (Walsh, J.E., "The Shroud," Random House: New York NY, 1963, pp.xi-xii).

Yet the Shroud `sceptics' (i.e. true believers in the Shroud's inauthenticity) in dismissing the Shroud as a 14th century forgery, show by their ignoring of it thereafter, that they don't REALLY believe the Shroud is a 14th century forgery!

>For a Medieval artist (or even a modern one for that matter) to have made it would almost be more miraculous than the actual miracle that did create it.

Agreed. The fact is that no one yet has been able to come EVEN CLOSE to making a faithful replica of the Shroud, complete with its major features of photographic negativity, three dimensionality, extreme superficiality, non-directionality, etc, and all with the knowledge and technology available in the 14th century.

>The reality is, the skeptics don't do that because they don't want to think realistically about how the Shroud could have come into existence at all. The very topic makes them uncomfortable, and they just want to be able to dismiss it as quickly as possible and not have to worry about it any further.

Agreed. Their own `body language' betrays them. It shows that they know in their heart of hearts that the Shroud really is (or at least could be) the very burial sheet of Jesus Christ, complete with the imprint of His crucified, buried and RESURRECTED body. But they also know for them, as atheist/agnostics, to even seriously consider that the Shroud is (or even could be) authentic, would start them on the slippery slope (actually upward incline!) to becoming Christians.

Stephen E. Jones
-----------------------------------
Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. I reserve the right to respond to any comment as a separate blog post.

Nomadenseele said...

Am I allowed to use the grapic on my literature blog? Its in German, but here is the link: http://nomasliteraturblog.wordpress.com/

I want to write a citique of the book *The Sign. The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection* by Thomas de Wesselow

Stephen E. Jones said...

Nomadenseele

>Am I allowed to use the grapic on my literature blog? Its in German, but here is the link: http://nomasliteraturblog.wordpress.com/

Sorry, but not on this my The Shroud of Turin blog. Blogger only allows graphics on posts, not comments, and I don't allow others to post here to my blog.

>I want to write a citique of the book *The Sign. The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection* by Thomas de Wesselow

Again, I don't allow others to post to this blog, so you could not post your critique here.

If you wish to briefly comment on de Wesselow's book here, to be not "substandard" (see policies below) it would have to be in English, and to be "on topic" it would have to be under one of my posts about the book:

01-May-12: Combined Review of: "The Sign" by Thomas de Wesselow and "Resurrected or Revived?" by Helmut Felzmann
10-Apr-12: `De Wesselow fails to answer the reasons why rational people accept the Shroud is a fake'
29-Mar-12: My comments on a Telegraph article about Thomas de Wesselow's claim that the Shroud is authentic but Jesus was not resurrected #2
28-Mar-12: My comments on a Telegraph article about Thomas de Wesselow's claim that the Shroud is authentic but Jesus was not resurrected #1.

Stephen E. Jones
-----------------------------------
Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. I reserve the right to respond to any comment as a separate blog post.

Stephen E. Jones said...

Hugh Farey

Whether by accident or design you made a comment on 23 Mar 13 (GMT +8:00) about the `poker holes' under this "The Wounds" post.

As this post says nothing about the `poker holes' your comment would have been off-topic under it.

So I have copied your comment to under my post, "The Shroud of Turin: 2.6. The other marks (2): Poker holes" and responded to it there.

Stephen E. Jones