Why I prefer Barbet's hypotheses over Zugibe's: 3) Crucifixion victims died primarily of asphyxiation

This is the final part 3 of my `mini-series' in response to a comment by a Jeffrey Liss under my post, "The Shroud of Turin: 3.6. The man on the Shroud was crucified":

"One question for you, though. I am curious why you prefer Barbet's research to that of Zugibe. My recollection is that they reach different conclusions as to placement of the nails and cause of death."

See part 1, "The nail wound in the hand" and part 2, "The thumbs are not visible because of damage to the hand's median nerve."

[Above: The Villandre Crucifix:

"Of this crucifix Dr. Barbet writes:-`As Charles Villandre was a past-master in sculpture as well as in surgery, I asked him to make a crucifix, according to the precise information I had given him; this is the crucifix which appears in the photograph.'" (Barbet, P., 1953, "A Doctor at Calvary," p.104L]

Included in that "precise information" which Barbet gave Villandre was the following marks of death by asphyxia which Barbet noted on the image on the Shroud:

"Let us say at once, so as not to confuse this study with that of the wounds, that this asphyxia is specially borne out by the marks which it has left on the shroud. We might even say that tetany and asphyxia, of which for a doctor there can be no doubt, prove that the imprints on the shroud conform with reality; this body died the death of a crucified body. We can indeed see that the great pectoral muscles, which are the most powerful inspiratory muscles, have been forcibly contracted-they are enlarged, and drawn up towards the collar-bone and the arms. The whole thoracic frame is also drawn up, and greatly distended, with a `maximum' inspiration. The epigastric hollow (the pit of the stomach) is sunk and pressed inwards, through this elevation and this forward and outward distension of the thorax; not through the contraction of the diaphragm, as Hynek writes. The diaphragm, which is a great inspiratory muscle, would also tend to raise the epigastrium in a normal abdominal respiration. With this distension and this forced elevation of the sides, it can only move back towards the abdominal mass; and that is why, above the crossed hands, the hypogastrium, the lower abdomen, can be seen protruding. (Barbet, 1953, pp.85-86. Emphasis original).

Crucifixion victims died primarily of asphyxiation (Barbet) The late Dr Pierre Barbet (1884–1961), who was Chief Surgeon at Saint Joseph's Hospital in Paris, adopted the hypothesis of his predecessor, Dr Le Bec, that the primary cause of death of crucifixion victims was asphyxia, a condition of severely deficient supply of oxygen to the body that arises from abnormal breathing:

"All that we have so far examined constitutes the causes of weakness and pain, which would have only been able to accelerate the agony. We still lack the determining cause of death; that which certainly, and independently of previous circumstances, always ended by killing the crucified. This cause, may I say at once, was asphyxia. All the crucified died asphyxiated. The work of Dr. Le Bec, my predecessor at the Hopital Saint-Joseph (Le Supplice de la Croix, April, 1925, loc. cit.), contains some precise, exact and complete ideas on this subject.." (Barbet, 1953, p.80).

Barbet agreed with Le Bec that the prolonged raised position of the arms of a crucifixion victim would hinder him breathing out, which would cause a progressive suffocation with a build-up of carbonic acid (carbon dioxide in water) which in turn would cause a "tetanic (sustained muscular contractions) condition of the whole body":

"For him, the raised position of the arms, which were thus in the position for inspiration, would entail a relative immobility of the sides, and would thus greatly hinder breathing out; the crucified would have the sensation of progressive suffocation. Anybody will be able to verify that such a prolonged position, even with no dragging on the hands, already entails an extremely disagreeable dyspnoea (difficulty in breathing). The heart has to work harder; its beats grow faster and weaker. There then follows a kind of stagnation in all the vessels of the body. And `as oxygenation is not properly produced in lungs which are not working sufficiently, the additional burden of carbonic acid provokes an excitation of the muscular fibres and, in consequence, a kind of tetanic condition of the whole body.' All this is perfectly accurate, physiologically correct, and logically deduced. Le Bec in 1925 had the immense merit of conceiving this theory, which is in strict agreement with reality." (Barbet, 1953, p.80. Emphasis original).

Independent confirmation of Le Bec's thesis was provided by the Czechoslavikan physician, Dr. Rudolph W. Hynek, who during World War I witnessed an Austro-German Army torture of hanging prisoners by their hands tied to a pole with their feet not touching the ground:

"It is indeed to Dr. Hynek of Prague that we owe the sad confirmation of Le Bec's thesis and this is the personal and important contribution to the study of the Passion which this author has made, for he saw with his own eyes that which Le Bec conceived with such fine intuition. (Dr. Hynek: ...The True Likeness, ..., 1951. ...) ... a torture ... which he had seen inflicted in the Austro-German army; as a Czech, he was called up in the 1914-18 war. This punishment ... consists of hanging the condemned man by his two hands from a post. The tips of his two feet can scarcely touch the ground. The whole weight of his body, and this is the important thing, drags on his two hands which are fixed above him." (Barbet, 1953, pp.80-81).

Within ten minutes (see below) the victim's muscles would begin to violently contract, starting in the arms and spreading to the chest, resulting in him being unable to exhale fully, leading to a progressive asphyxiation, "as thoroughly as if he was being strangled":

"After a certain time violent contractions of all the muscles are seen to appear, which end in a permanent state of contraction, of rigidity in the contraction of the muscles. This is what is usually called cramps. Everyone knows how painful cramps can be, and how they can only be stopped by pulling the afflicted limb in the opposite direction to the contracted muscles. These cramps begin in the forearm, then in the arm, and spread to the lower limbs and to the trunk. The great muscles which produce inspiration, the great pectorals and the sternocleidomastoids and the diaphragm are invaded. The result is that the lungs are filled with air, but are unable to expel it. The expiratory muscles, which are also contracted, are weaker than the inspiratory (under normal conditions, expiration is done almost automatically and without muscular effort, owing to the elasticity of the lungs and of the thoracic framework). The lungs being thus caught in a state of forced inspiration and unable to empty themselves, the normal oxygenation of the circulating blood is unable to take place and asphyxiation begins in the victim, as thoroughly as if he was being strangled. He is in the state of an emphysematous in a bad attack of asthma. This is also the condition produced by a microbial disease, tetanus, through the intoxication of the nerve centres. And that is why this combination of symptoms of general contraction, whatever may be its determining cause, and there are others, is called `tetany.' We must also note that this lack of oxygenation of the pulmonary blood causes a local asphyxia in the muscles, where it continues to circulate, an accumulation of carbonic acid in these muscles (Le Bec was right about this), which, in a sort of vicious circle, progressively increases the tetanisation of the same muscles." (Barbet, 1953, pp.81-82).

The victim's chest would be distended, a symptom of asphyxia, and if he was not cut down after about ten minute, he would die, as happened in Hitler's concentration camps:

"The victim, with his chest distended, is then seen to show all the symptoms of asphyxia. His face reddens, and then goes a violet colour; a profuse sweat flows from his face and from the whole surface of the body. If one does not wish to kill the unfortunate man, he must then be cut down. This common punishment, says Hynek, might not last more than ten minutes. In Hitler's deportation camps it was extended to the point of murder. Two former prisoners of Dachau have borne witness to this; they saw this torture inflicted on several occasions, and preserved a terrifying memory of it. Their testimony was taken down by Antoine Legrand ... It would seem, from what these witnesses have described, as also from what was seen by Hynek but ... was less prolonged, that suspension by the hands brings on asphyxia, with generalised contractions, as Le Bec has foreseen." (Barbet, 1953, pp.81-82).

From this, Barbet concludes that "the crucified" including Jesus "all died of asphyxia":

"... the crucified all died of asphyxia, after a long period of struggle. How then could they escape for the moment from these cramps and this asphyxia, so that they survived for several hours, even for two or three days? This could only be done by relieving the dragging on the hands, which seems to be the initial and determining cause of the whole phenomenon. After crucifixion, as we have seen, the body sagged, and dropped to a considerable extent, while at the same time the knees became more bent. The victim could then use his two feet, which were fixed to the stipes, as a fulcrum, so as to lift his body and bring his arms, which in the general sagging would have dropped by an angle of about 65°, back to the horizontal. The dragging on the hands would then be greatly reduced; the cramps would be lessened and the asphyxia would disappear for the moment, through the renewal of the respiratory movements ... Then, the fatigue of the lower limbs would supervene, which would force the crucified to drop again, and bring on a fresh attack of asphyxia. The whole agony was thus spent in an alternation of sagging and then of straightening the body, of asphyxia and of respiration. We shall see how this has become materialised on the shroud, in the double flow of blood issuing from the wound in the hand, where there is an angular gap of several degrees between the two flows. The one corresponds to the sagging, the other to the straightening position. One can see that an exhausted victim, such as Jesus was, would not be able to prolong this struggle for long." (Barbet, 1953, p.82).

Crucifixion victims died primarily of traumatic (injury) and hypovolemic (low blood volume) shock (Zugibe) Zugibe maintains that crucifixion victims, including Jesus, died primarily not of asphyxiation but of traumatic (injury) and hypovolemic (low blood volume) shock:

"During suspension on the cross, Jesus would have experienced a progressive loss of plasma to the pleural spaces (spaces around the lungs) and to the tissue spaces such as the ankles; pooling of blood to the lower parts of the body; and continued sweating caused by the direct rays of the hot midday sun, the heat produced by the increased muscular activity, and the hypotensive (low blood pressure) responses of the body to pain and hypovolemia (low fluid volume). Because there was no attempt to replace the lost fluids or to stop the pain, the compensatory mechanisms would have reached their saturation point. ... If I were to certify the cause of Jesus' death in my official capacity as Medical Examiner, the death certificate would read as follows:

Cause of Death: Cardiac and respiratory arrest, due to hypovolemic and traumatic shock, due to crucifixion."

(Zugibe, F.T., "The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry,"2005, pp.134-135. My emphasis).

But as can be seen above, even on Dr. Zugibe's own "death certificate" the actual (or what Barbet called the "determining" cause of Christ's death was "Cardiac and respiratory arrest"! So Zugibe seems to be just splitting hairs.

Zugibe claimed to have employed "the scientific method" in experimentally testing Barbet's asphyxiation hypothesis by suspending live volunteers from a wooden cross.

[Right: Dr Zugibe monitoring the heartbeat of one of his `crucifixion victims': Zugibe, F.T., 1995, "Pierre Barbet Revisited," Sindon N. S., Quad. No. 8, December.]

But Zugibe's own description of what happened during this experiment reveals that it was not an adequate test (to put it mildly!) of real Roman crucifixion, as suffered by the man on the Shroud/Jesus, as the following table shows (page numbers are to Zugibe, 2005):

Zugibe's experiment	Man on the Shroud/Jesus' crucifixion
`Victims' volunteers (p.107).	Victim a condemned prisoner.
Were healthy young men (p.107).	Had been scourged with over a 100 lashes of a metal-tipped whip which caused internal bleeding and fluid build-up in and around lungs.
Environment was an airconditioned room at a constant 70ºF = 21ºC (p.111).	Environment was open air, naked, under hot sun.
Hands and feet were attached painlessly to cross by straps (p.98).	Hands and feet were nailed to cross, causing constant extreme agony.
Knew that they were not going die: heartbeat, blood pressure, breathing, etc., constantly monitored by machines manned by Zugibe and assistant (pp.106-107).	Knew they were going to die after extreme pain and suffering.
Psychological stress minimised: when panic attacks occurred, Zugibe assured them they would be taken down immediately if they requested (p.112).	Psychological stress maximised: by public humiliation, mocking and knowledge they were not going to be taken down alive.
Evidence of breathing difficulties and increased CO2 levels were explained away by Zugibe (pp.110-113).	Zugibe admitted that real crucifixion victims would suffer extreme breathing difficulties, up to and including being a cause of their death (pp.21-22, 24).
Maximum time on the cross was 45 minutes (p.99). Zugibe dismissed Modder's crucifixion experiment as invalid because, "Jesus was suspended for several hours, not a few minutes" (p.104)!	Time on the cross alive was about 6 hours.
Were taken down from the cross when their breathing difficulties and/or discomfort became too great (p.112).	Not taken down until dead.

Zugibe claimed (boasted?) that he (alone among Shroud scholars?), followed "the scientific method":

"It was then that I realized that Barbet had not applied the principles of the scientific method to his various hypotheses-sine qua non in scientific research-yet his hypotheses were published in myriad journals, books, magazines, documentaries, and movies, and quoted ad infinitum. Subsequently, after extensive experimentation, I was able to demonstrate that his other hypotheses were also untenable ... Much to my dismay, my research revealed that the literature related to the medical aspects of the crucifixion and Shroud was inundated with a farrago of articles by unqualified individuals ... whose conclusions were based on anecdotal, a priori speculations rather than the results of scientific experimentation, a sine qua non required by the tenets of the scientific method. " (Zugibe, 2005, pp.2-3).

But Zugibe carried out his experiment with no other scientists present, apparently from his photographs in his own home. So Zugibe apparently was the sole judge and jury of his own experiment, unlike Barbet who submitted his experiments for review by his colleagues of the Societe de Saint-Luc (a society of Catholic doctors-Col 4:14):

"After I had submitted my researches for the approval of my colleagues of the Societe de Saint-Luc, I was delighted to hear of their unanimous agreement in support of my conclusions." (Barbet, 1953, p.176).

Zugibe's writings reveal that he is highly prejudiced against Barbet, even to the point of dishonestly misstating Barbet's position at several key points (see part 2), so there is reason to doubt his claims that his experiment disconfirmed Barbet's asphyxiation hypothesis. And even if they did, as the above table shows, Zugibe's experiment was not an adequate test of real crucifixion, as no legal experiment could be:

"Realistic experiments to explain the Shroud image are impossible. We cannot crucify someone to experiment on the corpse. Therefore, all explanations of the Shroud image will remain, in one respect or another, hypothetical." (Bulst, W., "Some considerations on the genesis of the body image on the Turin Shroud," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 19, June 1986, p.9).

Space does not permit a full refutation of Zugibe's critique of Barbet, so I will end with this quote from a review of Zugibe (and of a Dr Wijffels) by the then British Society for the Turin Shroud's Editor, himself a physician, Dr Michael Clift:

"It is healthy for the Shroud and Shroudies that controversy continues ... The medical articles in the last two Newsletters provide a prime example for which I have been invited to act as referee. In the red corner we have a ten page article by Dr Frans Wijffels, a Dutch Physician ... In the blue corner we have an eight page dissertation by Dr Fred Zugibe, an American Forensic Specialist, who seems to be claiming a refutation of Barbet's asphyxiation hypothesis ... Both of these doctors are at variance but have enough common ground to make the operation of sorting them out something like the separation of conjoined twins. Both of them leave much to be desired. ... When we turn to Dr Zugibe other problems beset us. .. he tells us that Modder's conclusions are `invalid' and uses the results of his own contrived experiments to show that the crucified victim could not have pushed himself up to gain extra air but that this didn't matter since the crucified did not die of asphyxia. Again none of this explains the Shroud image - and his studies of the various possible causes of death are really no advance on Barbet. I found some extraordinary lapses and inaccuracies in both writers. For example it is untrue that breaking a long bone causes haemorrhage and consequent surgical shock; it causes psychic shock which is a different matter. ... Both doctors seem to be muddled as to what acidosis means. ... Our Lord probably had respiratory acidosis from enforced shallow breathing causing retention of carbon dioxide. ... it seems clear that both sternomastoid muscles were in spasm allowing Our Lord's head to drop only in the forward position at the moment of death. There is confirmation of this in Saint John's Gospel Chapter 19 Verse 30 `...and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost'. ... Dr Zugibe seems not to have noticed one strong piece of evidence of rigor [mortis] on the Shroud. Seen from the back image it is obvious that one leg is bent, as it would have to be in using one nail for the two feet. It would be difficult to maintain this slight bend in life so we conclude it is a post mortem sign. ... Dr Zugibe tells us that the normal respiratory rate is 12 to 16 per minute ... The correct figure is 18. But then in the same paragraph he seems to think the change of position to get extra air would take place with every breath. It is surely much more likely that one position would endure for several breaths, so his estimate of over 4000 changes must be wildly wrong, and is therefore no evidence at all for or against the asphyxia hypothesis. It is wise and kind of any reviewer to find good things amongst those he criticises, but I cannot do so here. Firstly it is not at all clear what point each of the Doctors is making, and this is not helped by the use of turbid and turgid prose, unexplained medical terms, and unexplained reasoning - for example: if breaking the legs did not induce asphyxia why was it done? If the V-shaped blood flow is not owing to change of position what is it owing to?" (Clift, M., Dr., 2001, "Doctors at Calvary: Some reflections on the recent articles by Drs. Fred Zugibe and Frans Wijffels," BSTS Newsletter, No. 54, November, pp.63-65. My emphasis).

Dr Zugibe later replied to Dr Clift's criticisms in, "Dr Fred Zugibe - A Reply to Dr Michael Clift’s Comments," so I have omitted those points validly made by Zugibe. However, there were some points disputed by Zugibe that I did leave in my quote above because: 1) Zugibe's reply did not fully answer Clift's criticism; and 2) although Zugibe may not have included some points in his 2001 article, they are in his 1988 book (and in his 2005 book) which is probably why Dr Clift mentioned them, so again Zugibe was not being completely honest but was hiding behind a technicality.

Posted 21 December 2013. Updated 30 January 2022.

Jesus `most significant person ever' in new research study

"Jesus `most significant person ever' in new research study," BizPac Review, December 17, 2013, Myra Adams. My comments are in bold. Just in time for the Christmas gift-giving season, is a new and widely reported book with the

[Right: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." (Heb 13:8): Credit: Catsandtheirmews.blogspot.com]

revelation, "Jesus Christ named history's most successful meme." ... An idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture. Jesus is not a meme. The reason for the success of Christianity is that it is true! That is, it is objectively true: true whether it is believed or not. The growth of the Christian Church, that is the Church Invisible:

"The invisible church or church invisible is a theological concept of an "invisible" body of the elect who are known only to God, in contrast to the "visible church"—that is, the institutional body on earth which preaches the gospel and administers the sacraments. Every member of the invisible church is saved, while the visible church contains some individuals who are saved and others who are unsaved. According to this view, Bible passages such as Matthew 7:21-27, Matthew 13:24-30, and Matthew 24:29-51 speak about this distinction." "Invisible church," Wikipedia, 16 July 2013),

the one true Church, which is in every visible Christian denomination but transcends them all, is not due to human ideas but ultimately to the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit (Jn 14:26; Acts 1:8; 2:1-4; 37-39; 46-47; Rom 8:9).

The book declaring "Jesus is number one" is entitled, Who's Bigger? Where Historical Figures Really Rank written by researchers, Steven Skiena and Charles Ward. To measure, meme strength and historical reputations, Skiena and Ward devised an internet-based ranking system and here is their top ten: 1. Jesus 2. Napoleon 3. William Shakespeare 4. Mohammad 5. Abraham Lincoln 6. George Washington 7. Adolf Hitler 8. Aristotle 9. Alexander the Great 10. Thomas Jefferson ... Based on meme strength, and how successfully the idea of the person has proliferated, Jesus was found to be "the most significant person ever." Again, Jesus is not a meme. And nor are the others either: they are all, real historical persons. Nevertheless, it is significant that even in this secular, post-Christian age, Jesus is still "the most significant person ever."

Being a "fan" of "the most significant person ever" I am in total agreement with Jesus topping the chart. In fact, back in July of 2012, I authored a piece that fully supports Skiena and Ward's research, but the context was the Shroud of Turin - what millions of others and I believe is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus: Here is an excerpt from Adams' 2012 article:

"Why is one of the most enduring mysteries of mankind still unresolved? With all the 21st century technology available to scientists, why does the faded image of a tortured man on a blood-stained cloth allegedly dating back 2000 years still baffle the scientific community? Of course the mystery I am alluding to is the Shroud of Turin – an artifact that millions of Christians believe to be the burial cloth of Jesus. For about 20 years I have been interested in the Shroud of Turin. Then in 2010, when it went on public display for only 44 days in Turin, Italy, I was fortunate to be among the two million people who saw it in person. My two decades of reading about the Shroud culminated in a first-hand look and led me to believe that this is the physical evidence proving that Jesus Christ was in fact resurrected from the dead." ("The Shroud of Turin: The Mystery that Science and Technology Will Someday Solve," PJ Media, Myra Adams, July 22, 2012).

Although I have never seen the Shroud, and at age 67 the odds are that I never will, nevertheless from what I have read intensively since 2005, I also believe that the Shroud is "the physical evidence proving" beyond reasonable doubt "that Jesus Christ was in fact resurrected from the dead"!

But regardless of whether you believe Jesus lived, died, and was resurrected, it cannot be disputed that he was then and still is today the most influential being who has ever existed in all human history. Jesus Christ's influence on the world in terms of culture, history, kingdoms, religion, empires, war, art, music, architecture, printing, human relations, charity, literature, exploration, population relocation, medicine, education, holidays, etc., cannot be refuted. In other words, if you live on this planet, Jesus has had an effect on your life whether you care to acknowledge Him or not. (An excellent book on this subject, What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?, was written by Dr. D. James Kennedy in 1994.) Here is a familiar quote from that book, which aptly summarises Jesus' influence on the world:

"Dr. James Allan Francis puts Christ's life and influence into perspective so well in his famous narrative:

One Solitary LifeHe was born in an obscure village, the child of a peasant woman. He grew up in another village, where He worked in a carpenter shop until He was thirty. Then for three years He was an itinerant preacher. He never wrote a book. He never held an office. He never had a family or owned a home. He didn't go to college. He never visited a big city. He never traveled two hundred miles from the place where He was born. He did none of the things that usually accompany greatness. He had no credentials but Himself. He was only thirty-three when the tide of public opinion turned against Him. His friends ran away. One of them denied Him. He was turned over to His enemies and went through the mockery of a trial. He was nailed to a cross between two thieves. While He was dying, His executioners gambled for His garments, the only property He had on earth. When He was dead, He was laid in a borrowed grave through the pity of a friend. Nineteen centuries have come and gone, and today He is the central figure of the human race. All the armies that ever marched, all the navies that ever sailed, all the parliaments that ever sat, all the kings that ever reigned, put together, have not affected the life of man on this earth as much as that one solitary life."

(Kennedy D.J. & Newcombe J., "What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?," 2001, pp.7-8).

Conversely, if Jesus had not been resurrected, the world's largest religion, Christianity, would not have grown and thrived for centuries and Jesus' influence on mankind would have been minimal or non-existent. Christianity is the only world religion which arose in the very heart - Jerusalem - of another world religion - Judaism. Imagine a new world religion arising in Mecca! Only Christ's physical resurrection can adequately explain the sudden origin and subsequent rapid rise of Christianity.

So that is why the mysterious Shroud, which could prove Christ's physical resurrection - the foundation of Christianity, is still an open and active cause célèbre among believers in Jesus' divinity and members of the scientific community who continue to study the Shroud and remain intrigued by its unique properties. The Shroud of Turin already has proved, beyond reasonable doubt, Christ's physical resurrection and therefore that Christianity is true. But that does not mean that that proof cannot continue to be unreasonably denied, by those (including some Christians) who don't like the implications of there being scientific proof that Christianity is true.

During these times when Jesus is under attack in our culture and Christian persecution is raging out of control around the world, it is reassuring that based on this latest study and historical research, Jesus as "meme" and person is still flourishing, despite all the attempts to undermine and negate HIM and HIS influence. Those who try to negate Jesus' influence, unwittingly confirm His influence, and carry out their part of His plan (Mt 13:24-30). But for those celebrating the real reason for the holiday season, the "Christ Mass," we believe Jesus is more than a person, thus holding an unfair advantage over the others on the list. The others on the list are mere men. But Jesus is the God-man (Jn 1:1,14; Php 2:5-7; Col 2:9). This of course is due to the mysterious circumstances surrounding his death, celebrated by another holiday in the springtime – you know the one with the marshmallow eggs and chocolate bunnies.

Finally, here is my favorite quote from the book's author, Steve Skiena, in an interview with the UK Independent that I link to above: "The significance of Jesus is shown by his mindshare today fully 2,000 years after his death. We don't see the same happening for Justin Beiber." Or anti-Christians like Richard Dawkins. He and his ilk will be forgotten in 20 years, let alone 2000 years. But Jesus won't forget them and they will stand before Him at the Last Judgment (Mt 25:31-32; Acts 10:41-42; 2Cor 5:10)!

Posted: 18 December 2013. Updated: 30 January 2022.

Why I prefer Barbet's hypotheses over Zugibe's: 2) The thumbs are not visible because of damage to the hand's median nerve

Continuing from part 1, with this part 2, of my response to a Jeffrey Liss' question in a comment under my post, "The Shroud of Turin: 3.6. The man on the Shroud was crucified":

"One question for you, though. I am curious why you prefer Barbet's research to that of Zugibe. My recollection is that they reach different conclusions as to placement of the nails and cause of death."

Liss did not specifically ask about the different conclusions Barbet and Zugibe reached over whether: 1) the hand's median nerve would be damaged by a Roman crucifixion nail through Destot's space; and 2) whether that would then cause the thumb to fold under, and thus explain why there are no thumbs visible on the Shroud.

[Above: Gray's Anatomy diagram 817 of the human right hand, palm facing, showing median nerve (yellow left) overlaid by the estimated pathway of a 1/3rd inch = 8.5mm square Roman nail from its entry point at Destot's space to its exit point about 1 cm back towards the wrist (see below)]:"Deep Palmar Nerves": Wikipedia. As can be seen, a nail of that square shape could cause damage the median nerve (both directly and by displacing carpal bones against the nerve) at a point which controls the thumb muscles.]

Nevertheless this was a major point of disagreement (again not personally because Barbet died in 1961) between Dr Pierre Barbet (1884–1961), Chief Surgeon at Saint Joseph's Hospital, Paris and Dr Frederick T. Zugibe (1928-2013), Chief Medical Examiner of Rockland County, New York.

The thumbs are not visible on the Shroud because of damage to each hand's median nerve (Barbet). Barbet reported on the results of experiments he performed during 1932-35 on freshly amputated hands, as Chief Surgeon of St Joseph's Hospital in Paris:

"But these experiments had yet another surprise in store for me. I have stressed the point that I was operating on hands which still had life in them immediately after the amputation of the arm. Now, I observed on the first occasion, and regularly from then onwards, that at the moment when the nail went through the soft anterior parts, the palm being upwards, the thumb would bend sharply and would be exactly facing the palm by the contraction of the thenar muscles, while the four fingers bent very slightly; this was probably caused by the reflex mechanical stimulation of the long flexor tendons. Now, dissections have revealed to me that the trunk of the median nerve is always seriously injured by the nail; it is divided into sections, being broken sometimes halfway and sometimes two-thirds of the way across, according to the case. And the motor nerves of the oponens muscles and of the short [119] flexor muscle of the thumb branches at this level off the median nerve. The contraction of these thenar muscles, which were still living like their motor nerve, could be easily explained by the mechanical stimulation of the median nerve. Christ must then have agonised and died and have become fixed in the cadaverous rigidity, with the thumbs bent inwards into His palms. And that is why, on the shroud, the two hands when seen from behind only show four fingers, and why the two thumbs are hidden in the palms." (Barbet, P., 1953, "A Doctor at Calvary," pp.118-119. Emphasis original).

In his Doctor at Calvary Barbet shows two xrays of a large (1/3 inch = 8.5 mm square) Roman nail which entered a cadaver's hand at Destot's space and exited about a centimetre back towards the wrist:

[Above: Side view of xray of a 1/3rd inch = 8.5 mm square Roman nail of which entered a cadaver's hand at Destot's space and exited at the back of the hand, about a centimetre towards the wrist: Barbet, 1953, "Doctor at Calvary," p.104B).]

[Above: Top view (flipped vertically) of the same Roman nail above. The rectangular shape is because the nail is opaque to the xray. Note the displaced Capitate carpal bone riding over the Scaphoid and Trapezoid carpal bones. The underlying median nerve would likely be pinched against these displaced carpal bones and damaged as the large, 8.5 mm square Roman nail moved upward through Destot's space to exit slightly backward towards the wrist.]

The late Dr. Robert Bucklin, Medical Examiner, Los Angeles, agreed with Barbet's conclusion:

"The fact that on the imprint of the hands no thumb is visible is explained by the fact that the nail passing through the bones of the wrist either penetrated or stimulated the median nerve. The motor function of the median nerve is flexion of the thumb, and the flexed thumb over the palm remained in that position after rigor mortis was established and for that reason does not appear on the hand imprint. Some suggestion of the pain suffered by a suspended victim with a nail through or near his median nerve is possible when one realizes that the median nerve is a sensory as well as a motor nerve." (Bucklin, R., 1970, "The Legal and Medical Aspects of the Trial and Death of Christ," Medicine, Science and the Law, January).

But Zugibe simply dismissed Barbet's experimental findings as "not anatomically possible":

"Barbet made another serious error, claiming that when he drove the nail through Destot's Space, anywhere from 1/2 to 2/3 of the trunk of the median nerve was severed. This is not anatomically possible, because the median nerve is not located in the area of Destot's Space but instead runs along the wrist on the thumb side and along the thenar furrow into the palm of the hand. An easy way to locate the median nerve on your own wrist is to bend your wrist forward. You will see a firm, ropelike structure jutting outward. This is the palmaris longus tendon. The median nerve runs along the thumb side of this tendon, not the little-finger side. Obviously, Barbet was damaging the ulnar nerve, which runs in the area of Destot's Space." (Zugibe, F.T., "The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry," 2005, p.74).

It is ironic that Zugibe, in his books and at least one article, prides himself as being more scientific than other Shroud researchers, e.g.:

"Many medical articles have been written but are entirely speculative and devoid of experimental studies. Many scientists frequently forget that it is their duty, whenever possible, to provide experimental support for their hypotheses." (Zugibe, F.T., 1995, "Pierre Barbet Revisited," Sindon N.S., Quad. No. 8, December)

yet it is Barbet who did the experiments and reported his results. Moreover, Zugibe did not try to repeat Barbet's experiments but simply dismissed (wrongly) Barbet's experimental findings as "not anatomically possible"!

Apart from effectively calling Chief Surgeon Barbet a liar, and both Barbet and Medical Examiner Bucklin effectively incompetent, Zugibe again is demonstrably wrong! As can be seen above, a large square Roman nail, of side 1/3rd of an inch (8.5 mm) which Barbet used in his experiments:

"If one examines a frontal cutting of the wrist, and better still a radiograph taken from in front, one finds that in the middle of the bones of the wrists there is a free space, bounded by the capitate, the semi-lunar, the triquetral and the hamate bones. We know this space so well that we know, in accordance with Destot's work ... this space is situated just behind the upper edge of the transverse carpal ligament and below the bending fold of the wrist. I did not appreciate the importance of all this till I had made the following experiment: having amputated an arm two-thirds of the way up, I took, immediately after the operation, a square nail with sides of 1/3 of an inch (like those of the Passion), the length of which I had reduced to 2 inches for convenience of radiography. The hand was laid flat with its back on a plank, and I placed the point of the nail in the middle of the bending fold of the wrist, the nail being vertical. Then, with a large hammer, I hit the nail, as an executioner would do who knew how to hit hard. I repeated the same experiment with several men's hands (the first had belonged to a woman). Each time I observed exactly the same thing. Once it had passed through the soft parts, and the nail had entered fully into the wrist, I could feel it, in spite of my left hand which was holding it firmly, moving a little obliquely, so that the base was leaning towards the fingers, the point towards the elbow; it then emerged through the skin of the back of the wrist at about a centimetre above the point of entry, which I observed after removing the nail from the plank. (Barbet, 1953, pp.115-116)

could damage the median nerve, both directly and indirectly by displacing carpal bones against it.

Zugibe has two further arguments, both of them straw man fallacious (if not dishonest) against Barbet's "missing thumbs" hypothesis:

"The Missing Thumbs For decades, one of the major points used by the defenders of the Shroud's authenticity was the absence, of the thumbs. The expression `Could a forger have imagined this?' was coined by Barbet when he postulated that the missing thumb on the Shroud was due to injury to the median nerve by the passage of the nail, which stimulated the nerve, causing the thumb to be drawn in to the palm of the hand. This phrase has been quoted innumerable times in books, magazine articles, lectures, etc. It has become a `Shroud spin.' Barbet's explanation, however, is incorrect, and there is a simple explanation that separates fact from fiction. The reason the thumbs are not visible on the Shroud image is because their natural position both in death and in the living person is in the front of and slightly to the side of the index finger. This is readily demonstrated by extending your arms in front of you with your hands in a relaxed position. Note that the thumbs are below and behind the index finger. Cross your wrists and note that your thumbs are hidden behind the index fingers. I have observed this on a daily basis in the medical examiner's office for over 34 years on deceased individuals who are regularly brought into our morgue wrapped in shrouds or sheets with their wrists crossed and frequently tied together. The shrouds or sheets that cover the bodies never contact the thumbs. In every case, the thumbs are in a position in front of and slightly to the side of the index fingers." (Zugibe, 2005, p.80).

The strawman fallacy of Zugibe's argument above is that Barbet was not referring to the normal relaxed state of the thumb. The recently dead hands that Barbet performed his experiments on would already have assumed the normal relaxed state that Zugibe is referring to. What Barbet described (see above) is a further state of contraction of the thumb:

"I was operating on hands which still had life in them immediately after the amputation of the arm. Now, I observed on the first occasion, and regularly from then onwards, that at the moment when the nail went through the soft anterior parts, the palm being upwards, the thumb would bend sharply and would be exactly facing the palm by the contraction of the thenar muscles." (Barbet, 1953, p.118. My emphasis).

It is unscientific (if not dishonest) for Zugibe to not properly state Barbet's description and then attempt to refute that. That Zugibe does not do so is itself evidence that he cannot refute Barbet's "missing thumbs" hypothesis and needs to resort to setting up a strawman of Barbet's position and then `refute' that:

"A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally, is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position." ("Straw man," Wikipedia, 2 December 2013).

Moreover, Zugibe's claim that "the thumbs ... natural position ... in death" is "below and behind the index finger" cannot be a general rule. A Google search on "Egyptian mummy hand" revealed that many (if not most) Egyptian mummies had their hands arranged flat across their bodies with their thumbs visible, e.g. the mummy of Egyptian pharaoh Ramses I, whose hands are crossed flat on his body with both his thumbs clearly visible (see below).

[Above: The 3,000-year-old Egyptian mummy believed to be that of King Ramses I: Ancient Egypt. Note that his hands are crossed flat over his body and his thumbs are clearly visible, not "in the front of and slightly to the side of the index finger" which Zugibe claimed was "their natural position both in death and in the living person."]

The man on the Shroud's left hand is crossed over his right and the

[Above: The man of the Shroud's hands crossed in front of him, with his right hand against his body (left because of mirror reversal)and his left hand against his right wrist, and (unlike most Egyptian mummies, e.g. Ramses I), his thumbs are not visible, consistent with Barbet's hypothesis that crucifixion nails hammered in through Destot's space damaged the hands' median nerves, causing the thumbs to flex tightly against the palms: Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical.]

most natural way to arrange his hands would have been for his hands to be flat, with his right thumb against his body and his left thumb against his right arm, unless his thumbs were so bent back hard against his palms, as the thumbs in Barbet's experiments were, and then fixed by rigor mortis so that they could not be easily straightened out.

Zugibe's second argument against Barbet's "missing thumbs" hypothesis, is also fallacious (and seemingly dishonest):

"Therefore, Barbet's explanation is incorrect for two reasons: 1) the median nerve does not pass through Destot's Space, and 2) even if it did and was injured, there would be no flexion of the thumb. Dr. Lampe relates that in severance of the median nerve, `there is inability to flex the thumb, index and middle fingers.' This was confirmed in the case of the women described above who was stabbed in the Z-area of the hand while defending herself. Although the median nerve was injured and the knife exited in the exact place where the Shroud shows the hand wound image, the thumb was not drawn in to the palm.' (Zugibe, 2005, p.80).

First, Barbet never said that the median nerve passed through Destot's space, nor does his "missing thumbs" hypothesis require it. As can be seen above, what Barbet said was, that "at the moment when the nail went through the soft anterior parts the palm being upwards, the thumb would bend sharply and would be exactly facing the palm by the contraction of the thenar muscles" (see below):

[Above: Cross-section of the wrist, palm facing upwards, with simulated Roman nail having already passed through "the soft anterior parts", including the median nerve, and about to enter Destot's space between the hamate and capitate carpal bones: "Relevant Wrist Anatomy," joint-pain-expert.net]

It is difficult not to think this was a deliberate attempt to mislead his readers by Zugibe, who would have been thoroughly familiar with the anatomy of the human wrist, and so must have known what Barbet meant, but chose to misrepresent it, so that his unsuspecting readers would prefer his hypothesis over Barbet's.

Second, Barbet never claimed that there was complete "severance of the median nerve". Obviously if a nerve is completely severed, then it cannot conduct any nerve impulses at all to the muscles it serves, and in the case of the hand's median nerve, if completely severed, it could not cause the thumb to flex. What Barbet claimed, as can be seen above, was that the hands' median nerves were "seriously injured by the nail" in that they were incompletely severed, "sometimes halfway and sometimes two-thirds of the way across":

"Now, dissections have revealed to me that the trunk of the median nerve is always seriously injured by the nail; it is divided into sections, being broken sometimes halfway and sometimes two-thirds of the way across ..." (Barbet, 1953, p.118. My emphasis)

Zugibe was well aware that this is what Barbet claimed, because as we saw above, he himself states:

"Barbet made another serious error, claiming that when he drove the nail through Destot's Space, anywhere from 1/2 to 2/3 of the trunk of the median nerve was severed." (Zugibe, 2005, p.74. My emphasis).

So again, it is difficult not to believe that Zugibe was not deliberately and dishonestly trying to mislead his readers (as I for one was mislead, until I went back and read what Barbet actually wrote and checked it against diagrams of the hand's bones and nerves).

From the foregoing evidence of Zugibe's apparent dishonesty, it is difficult to place any credence on his claim that":

"2) even if it did [the median nerve ... pass through Destot's Space (which Barbet did not claim)] and was injured, there would be no flexion of the thumb."

First, Barbet carried out the experiments and found that there was flexion of the thumbs. So Zugibe was, in effect, calling Barbet either a liar, or incompetent (along with those, like Medical Examiner Bucklin who agreed with Barbet), without performing the experiment himself.

Second, as we saw above, the late Dr. Robert Bucklin, a Medical Examiner of Los Angeles County, agreed with Barbet's finding. Indeed, Dr Bucklin later wrote in a 1982 paper that Barbet's experiment "has been repeated by others" and he added that damage to the median nerve may cause the thumb to "either be adjacent to the hand or flexed over the palm":

"The thumb may either be adjacent to the hand or flexed over the palm A nail can be easily driven through the bones of the wrist, separating these bones but not producing fractures. This was done experimentally by Barbet and has been repeated by others. Since the right wrist is covered by the left hand, no puncture mark is visible on the right wrist. The fact that on the imprint of the hands no thumbs are clearly visible is explained by the penetrating pointed objects passing through the wrists having damaged the median nerve. The motor function of the median nerve is to produce flexion of the thumb. The thumb may either be adjacent to the hand or flexed over the palm." (Bucklin, R., 1982, "The Shroud Of Turin: Viewpoint of a Forensic Pathologist," Shroud Spectrum International, December, p.7).

So again, Zugibe was wrong and Barbet's hypothesis stands unrefuted: the thumbs of the man on the Shroud, are not visible because of damage to the hand's median nerve!

Continued in "Why I prefer Barbet's hypotheses over Zugibe's: 3) "Crucifixion victims died primarily of asphyxiation".

Posted: 12 December 2013. Updated: 23 January 2022.

Why I prefer Barbet's hypotheses over Zugibe's: 1) The nail wound in the hand

A commenter named Jeffrey Liss asked under my post, "The Shroud of Turin: 3.6. The man on the Shroud was crucified":

"One question for you, though. I am curious why you prefer Barbet's research to that of Zugibe. My recollection is that they reach different conclusions as to placement of the nails and cause of death."

I started answering this as a comment under that post, but it grew too long and required photographs to illustrate my points, so I decided to answer the question in this three-part series of blog posts.

[Above: "Destot's space (circled by me in yellow): Space in the wrist bounded by the hamate[H], capitate [G], triquetrals [C] and lunate [B] bones." ("Étienne Destot, Wikipedia, 18 March 2013). This diagram is of the right hand, distal (i.e. palms facing) ("Carpus," Wikipedia, 20 November 2013).]

First, I didn't realise that my preference for Barbet's hypotheses over Zugibe's regarding the placement of the nails in the man on the Shroud's hands and the cause of his death, was evident in my posts. But presumably the commenter was referring to these statements in my previous post:

"The man on the Shroud ... has a swollen abdomen which indicates that he died of asphyxiation, the way crucifixion victims died" [Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud," p.45. My emphasis]

and

"The Shroud re-enacts the scene. It raises the arms of Christ to the angle at which they were extended on the cross. It shows the point where the hands were pierced, and how the fingers and thumbs responded to the pressure on the median nerve." [Wuenschel, E.A., 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ," pp.55-56. My emphasis)

because they reflect Barbet's views, not Zugibe's.

In September I posted an obituary of Dr Zugibe, who died on 6 September of this year, so readers who knew of Zugibe's strong criticism of Barbet regarding the placement of the nails in the Shroud man's hands and the cause of his death, could be forgiven for thinking that I sided with Zugibe. And indeed having read Zugibe's forceful criticisms of Barbet's position for my recent posts in my "The Shroud of Turin" series, I was initially disposed to think that Zugibe must be right and Barbet wrong. But my doubts were growing about Zugibe's position relative to Barbet's and it was when I got to the point in my previous post, "3.6. The man on the Shroud was crucified:

"Both the man on the Shroud's and Jesus' legs were not broken The legs of the man on the Shroud are not broken. This is despite the crurifragium, the breaking of a crucifixion victim's leg-bones with a heavy mallet, to hasten his death, because he then would be unable to use his legs to raise himself up to breathe, being the norm in Roman crucifixions. As we saw above, Jehohanan's legs had been broken and the Gospel of John records that the Roman soldiers broke the legs of the two robbers crucified with Jesus, to bring about their immediate deaths (Jn 19:31-32).

that I mentally came down on the side of Barbet on that point at least.

So when I received Liss' comment a day after my post, I did some further research into what Barbet's and Zugibe's respective positions actually were on the "placement of the nails and cause of death". I was amazed to discover not only that Barbet was right and Zugibe was wrong, but also why. I found that Zugibe's error was not anatomical, but that he had simply misinterpreted where the nail exit wound is on the man on the Shroud's left hand (as I will demonstrate).

The location of the nails in the hands. Dr Pierre Barbet (1884–1961) was a former French Army surgeon in World War I, who later became the Chief Surgeon at Saint Joseph's Hospital in Paris:

"Pierre Barbet (1884–1961) was a French physician, and the chief surgeon at Saint Joseph's Hospital in Paris. By performing various experiments, Barbet introduced a set of theories on the Crucifixion of Jesus. In 1950 he wrote a long study called A Doctor at Calvary which was later published as a book. Barbet stated that his experience as a battlefield surgeon during World War I led him to conclude that the image on the Shroud of Turin was authentic, anatomically correct and consistent with crucifixion." ("Pierre Barbet (physician)," Wikipedia, 28 April 2013).

So Barbet was no slouch, in both experience and qualifications. Indeed, Barbet, as Chief Surgeon at a major Paris hospital, surgically outranked Zugibe, the Chief Medical Examiner in Rockland County, New York State.

On the location of the nails on the man on the Shroud, Barbet wrote:

"If one examines a frontal cutting of the wrist, and better still a radiograph taken from in front, one finds that in the middle of the bones of the wrists there is a free space, bounded by the capitate, the semi-lunar, the triquetral and the hamate bones. We know this space so well that we know, in accordance with Destot's work, that its disappearance means a dislocation of the wrist, the first stage of the major carpal traumatisms. Well, this space is situated just behind the upper edge of the transverse carpal ligament and below the bending fold of the wrist." (Barbet, P., 1953, "A Doctor at Calvary," pp.115-116. My emphasis).

Barbet described the results of experiments that he was permitted to carry out on cadavers at St Joseph's Hospital:

"I repeated the same experiment with several men's hands ... Each time I observed exactly the same thing. Once it had passed through the soft parts, and the nail had entered fully into the wrist ... it then emerged through the skin of the back of the wrist at about a centimetre above the point of entry ... The nail has entered into Destot's space; it has moved aside the four bones which surround it, without breaking one of them, merely widening the space ... The point of entry, being a little outside and medial to Destot's space, the point of the nail reached the head of the great bone, slid along its mesial slope, went down into the space and crossed it. The four bones were pushed aside, but were intact and by reason of thus being pushed were closely pressed against the nail. Elsewhere the latter was resting on the upper end of the transverse carpal ligament ... The point of emergence is thus a little above and a little within the point of entry. If I had driven in the nail a little on the inner side of the bending fold I should have fallen straight into Destot's space, which is a little on the inner side of the axis of the wrist in the axis of the third intermetacarpal space. The obliquity of the nail pointing backwards and upwards is solely caused by the arrangement of the bony surfaces around Destot's space, for this happened every time during my experiments ... In each case the point took up its own direction and seemed to be slipping along the walls of a funnel and then to find its way spontaneously into the space which was awaiting it ... Is it possible that trained executioners would not have known by experience of this ideal spot for crucifying the hands, combining every advantage and so easy to find? The answer is obvious. And this spot is precisely where the shroud shows us the mark of the nail, a spot of which no forger would have had any idea or the boldness to represent it ... the nails in the hands were driven into a natural space, generally known as Destot's space, which is situated between the two rows of the bones of the wrist." (Barbet, 1953, pp.116-119).

However, Zugibe claimed that "Barbet's observations and conclusions were medically and scientifically inaccurate":

"In 1950, when I came across Pierre Barbet's book, A Doctor at Calvary, I was enthralled with the subject and lectured to numerous audiences on his findings. However, it was not until I attended graduate school at Columbia University to pursue a Ph.D. in human anatomy, that I started to realize that Barbet's observations and conclusions were medically and scientifically inaccurate. For example, the anatomy students had a number of mnemonics to memorize various anatomical structures in a particular order. When I applied one such mnemonic for the bones in the wrist, I realized that Destot's space was on the side of the wrist opposite to where the Shroud of Turin showed the wrist wound. I then began to investigate Barbet's missing thumb theory, his asphyxiation hypotheses, and more. It was then that I realized that Barbet had not applied the principles of the scientific method to his various hypotheses-sine qua non in scientific research-yet his hypotheses were published in myriad journals, books, magazines, documentaries, and movies, and quoted ad infinitum. Subsequently, after extensive experimentation, I was able to demonstrate that his other hypotheses were also untenable." (Zugibe, F.T., 2005, "The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry," p.2. My emphasis).

But in fact it is Zugibe who, while not "medically and scientifically inaccurate", has simply misinterpreted the Shroud image! The key is in Zugibe's claim above that "Destot's space was on the side of the wrist opposite to where the Shroud of Turin showed the wrist wound" (my emphasis). But this is simply not so as we shall see.

Later Zugibe clarifies what he believes is wrong with Barbet's hypotheses on where the Shroud man was nailed through his hands:

"BARBET'S HYPOTHESES ...The man of the Shroud was nailed through the area of the wrist called Destot's Space and not through the palm of the hand. After Barbet concluded that nails driven through the palms of the hands could not hold the weight of the body, he looked for a stronger area. After a few experiments, he concluded that the man of the Shroud was nailed through the area of the wrist called Destot's Space and not through the palm of the hand. To quote from his book Doctor at Calvary, `one finds that in the middle of the bones of the wrists, there is a free space bounded by the capitate, the semilunar, the triquetral and the hamate bones. We know this space so well that we know (that it is) in accordance with Destot's work ...' (Barbet 1963). Unfortunately, this cannot be true because these four bones are located on the little finger (ulnar) side of the wrist, not on the thumb (radial) side of the wrist as is depicted on the Shroud! Look at the hand wound image on the shroud to confirm this. Note that the hand wound image on the Shroud is indeed on the radial (thumb) side of the wrist. ... Having earned an M.S. and a Ph.D. in Human Anatomy in addition to my M.D. degree, and having taught gross anatomy to medical students, Barbet's error hit me like a ton of bricks. However, I gave him the benefit of the doubt and carefully checked to see if the space might angle toward the site depicted on the Shroud, emerging at the point Barbet suggests. But, upon checking, I found that anatomically there was no way such a connection could have been made. While some people might believe that Barbet simply made an error in naming the bones of the wrist, I do not believe this to be true. First, in Barbet's 1937 book, Les cinq plaies du Christ, written 13 years prior to Doctor at Calvary, he included a diagram of the wrist ... showing Destot's Space bordered by the capitate, semilunar, triqueteral, and hamate bones on the ulnar (little finger) side of the wrist, not on the radial (thumb) side of the wrist where the wound image is depicted on the Shroud. This can be confirmed in any anatomy textbook. ... Second, in the same book there is a photograph of a cadaver that Barbet nailed to a cross that also shows that the nails are indeed nailed through the small finger (ulnar) side of the wrist and not on the thumb (radial) side" (Zugibe, 2005, pp.72-73).

[Right: Diagram in Barbet's 1937 book, Les cinq plaies du Christ ("The Five Wounds of Christ"), showing Destot's Space[1] bordered by the capitate[5], semilunar[8], triqueteral[3], and hamate[11] bones on the ulnar (little finger) side of the wrist: Zugibe, F.T., 1995, "Pierre Barbet Revisited," Sindon N. S., Quad. No. 8, December.]

Again the key is in Zugibe's claim that "these four bones are located on the little finger (ulnar) side of the wrist, not on the thumb (radial) side of the wrist as is depicted on the Shroud"! Both Barbet and Zugibe were agreed on where Destot's space is. What they were disagreed on (not personally since Barbet died in 1961) is Zugibe's claim that the nail exit wound on the left hand of the man on the Shroud is closer to the thumb's side of the hand than the little finger's side. So who is right?

Below is a close-up of the nail exit wound on the back of the left hand of the man on the Shroud. The thumbs are not visible but readers can

[Above: The nail exit wound and bloodstain on the back of the left hand of the man on the Shroud: Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical. The thumbs are not visible but on the left hand it would be on the upper side, towards the elbow of the right hand and furthest from the right hand's fingers. Note that the wound is at the base of the second (middle) and third (ring) fingers, where Destot's space is on the diagrams above.]

verify for themselves, with their left hand crossed over their right, that the thumb would be on the side of the hand nearest the elbow of the right hand and furthest from its fingers. It is clear from this photograph that the nail exit wound is between the base of second (middle) finger and the third (ring) finger. And as can be seen in the diagram above, Destot's space is at that same location-the space between the second and third fingers. Readers can verify from their own left hand that that space, because of the larger size of the first (forefinger) and second (middle) fingers compared with that of the third (ring) and fourth (little) fingers, is "in fact closer to the ulnar (little finger) side of the wrist" than "the radial (thumb) side." So Barbet was right and Zugibe was wrong on that point (and as we shall see on two other points). While it seems difficult to believe that Chief Medical Examiner Zugibe could make such a mistake, it would be equally difficult to believe that Chief Surgeon Barbet could.

Perhaps Zugibe's error was due to him in the 1960s, when he formed his opinion that Barbet was wrong, using an Enrie 1931 negative

[Above: Close-up of an Enrie 1931 negative photograph of the Shroud man's hand wound: Shroud Scope: Enrie Negative Vertical. Note that while the brightness of the bloodflow from the wound may make it appear to be closer to the thumb (upper) side of the hand, nevertheless the exit wound is clearly at the base of the second and third fingers where Destot's space is.]

photograph of the Shroud, which due to the brightness of the bloodflow from the hand wound, creates an optical illusion that the wound is closer to the thumb? And then having formed his erroneous view on the location of the hand wound and written two books and at least one article critical of Barbet's hand wound hypothesis, Zugibe never critically re-examined the basis of his own hand wound hypothesis? Whatever the reason, it is clear that Zugibe was wrong and Barbet was right on the location of the nail in the left hand (and presumably in the covered right hand) being in Destot's space. And as we shall see, Zugibe's error on that point lead to another error.

Continued in part 2, "Why I prefer Barbet's hypotheses over Zugibe's: 2) The thumbs are not visible because of damage to the hand's median nerve".

Posted 7 December 2013. Updated 3 April 2024

The Shroud of Turin: 3.6. The man on the Shroud and Jesus were crucified

Here belatedly, is part 24, "3.6. The man on the Shroud and Jesus were crucified," of my series, "The Shroud of Turin." My previous post was part 23, "3.5. The man on the Shroud and Jesus were crowned with thorns." See part 1, "Contents" for more information about this series.

---

THE SHROUD OF TURIN
3. THE BIBLE AND THE SHROUD
3.6 THE MAN ON THE SHROUD AND JESUS WERE CRUCIFIED
© Stephen E. Jones

Introduction The man on the Shroud was crucified as the New Testament records that Jesus was[1]. The first century BC Roman orator Cicero called crucifixion "the most cruel and atrocious of punishments" and the first century Jewish historian Josephus, described it as "the most pitiable of deaths"[2].

[Above: "G. Ricci, `Crucifixion,' sculpture in wood according to research carried out on the Holy Shroud"[3].]

Both the man on the Shroud and Jesus carried a cross Jesus carried His own cross (Jn 19:17)[4], at least part of the way to the site of His crucifixion (see below)[5]. It was an integral part of Roman crucifixion that the condemned man carried his own cross to the site of his execution (Mt 10:38; Mk 8:34; Lk 9:23; 14:27). Historical sources indicate that it was not the full cross that was carried, as depicted in Christian art, but rather the crossbeam only, called in Latin the patibulum[6], to which the victim's outstretched arms were bound[7]. It was also part of Roman crucifixion that the victim was made to carry his cross naked through the streets to the site of his execution[8], but as a concession to Jewish morality, Jesus was given back his clothes after being scourged (Mt 27:31; Mk 15:20)[9].

Abrasions on the shoulders of the man of the Shroud, particularly on the dorsal image of the right shoulder[10], indicate that he carried a heavy object[11], such as the transverse beam of a cross[12]. This must have occurred after he was scourged because the scourge wounds are underneath the shoulder abrasions[13]. But if the crossbeam had been in direct contact with his scourged shoulders, the lacerations would have widened, but on the Shroud, they have kept their shape[14]. This is consistent with the man on the Shroud carrying his cross under which was a garment protecting his scourge-wounded shoulders[15], as we saw that the gospels of Matthew and Mark recorded of Jesus.

[Above: Abrasions (circled) on the back right shoulder (left because it is a negative photograph) over the scourge marks[16].]

Both the man on the Shroud and Jesus fell. The man on the Shroud has cuts to both knees, especially to his left knee, indicating an unprotected fall onto a hard surface[17]. A Roman crucifixion victim was made to carry the horizontal crossbeam tied to his outstretched arms and placed across the back of his neck[18]. Which meant that when he fell, which would have been often in his scourged-weakened condition under the heavy weight of the crossbeam[19], he could not protect his face from the impact of the fall[20]. This explains why the man on the Shroud's nose is swollen, displaced and had been bleeding[21]. It also explains why the nasal area of the Shroud contain a high concentration of ground particles and dust[22].

The gospels do not record that Jesus fell carrying the crossbeam[23]. However three of the gospels say that that a passerby named Simon of Cyrene was compelled by the Romans to carry Jesus' cross for him (Mt 27:32; Mk 15:21; Lk 23:26)[24], and this implies that Jesus, weakened by his unusually severe scourging (see part 21, "The man on the Shroud and Jesus were scourged"), was unable to carry the crossbeam all the way to the place of His crucifixion[25]. It is therefore very likely that it was Jesus' stumbling and falling under the weight of the crossbeam which prompted his executioners to compel Simon of Cyrene to carry the cross for him[26].

Both the man on the Shroud and Jesus were crucified. The man of the Shroud was nailed to a cross[27]. He has a bloodstain on the back of his left hand, which overlays his right hand, showing that his hands were pierced by nails through his wrists, not through his palms[28]. This is anatomically accurate as French surgeon Dr. Pierre Barbet (1884–1961) demonstrated, that nails through the palms would tear through by the weight of a man's body on a cross[29]. The man's left foot appears to have been forced over his right foot and both fixed to the cross by a single nail driven through the insteps[30].

The skeleton of a first-century crucifixion victim named Jehohanan (or Yehohanan), revealed he was nailed to his cross[31]. His heel bones had been transfixed by a single nail[32] and his legs had been broken[33] There were no nails found in Jehohanan's wrists, but there were marks of scratching on the radial bones of his forearms consistent rubbing against nails[34].

[Above: A heel bone transfixed by a Roman nail discovered in the first-century ossuary of a crucified Jew named Yehohanan[35].]

All four Gospels record that Jesus was crucified (Mt 27:31-38; Mk 15:20-27; Lk 23:24-33; Jn 19:16-20)[36]. There was no need for the Gospel writers to describe details of Jesus' crucifixion[37] since these were common knowledge, as the Romans carried out their crucifixions along public thoroughfares so that the greatest number could watch and be deterred[38]. Like Jehohanan, Jesus was nailed to the cross[39] (tying with rope was an option)[40]. To prove that He had risen bodily from the dead, Jesus showed the disciples (absent the Apostle Thomas) the wounds in "his hands and his side" (Jn 20:20), and later to Thomas to put his finger in the nail wounds of Jesus' hands and side (Jn 20:25,27). Then to two disciples on the road to Emmaus, the risen Jesus said, "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself" (Lk 24:39-40)[41], which can only mean that Jesus had nail wounds in both hands and both feet[42].

Both the man on the Shroud and Jesus died on a cross The man on the Shroud is dead[43]. He has a swollen abdomen which indicates that he died of asphyxiation, the way crucifixion victims died[44]. Also, the body of the man on the Shroud is in a state of rigor mortis, in which the muscles stiffen, keeping the body in the position it was immediately prior to death[45]. Signs of rigor mortis on the Shroud man include: his head is bent forward, the chest and abdomen are "frozen", and his whole body is rigid and stiff, occupying some of the positions it did on the cross, especially his left leg[46]. Further evidence that the man on the Shroud was dead is the post-mortem blood flows, especially from the chest wound[47]. If the man's heart had been beating the blood would have spurted out onto the cloth, instead of oozing out as it did[48].

All four gospels record that Jesus died on a cross (Mt 27:50; Mk 15:37; Lk 23:46; Jn 19:30)[49]. The gospels of Mark and Luke explicitly state that Jesus "breathed his last" on the cross (Mk 15:37; Lk 23:46)[50]. The Roman centurion in charge of Jesus' crucifixion confirmed to the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate that Jesus, who was then still on the cross, was dead (Mk 15:44-45)[51].

Both the man on the Shroud's and Jesus' legs were not broken The legs of the man on the Shroud are not broken[52].

[Above (enlarge): As can be seen, the legs of the man on the Shroud (left) are straight and unbroken[53]. Compared to the evident results (right) of broken lower legs bones: fibula (calf bone) and tibia (shin bone)[53a].]

This is despite the crurifragium, the breaking of a crucifixion victim's lower leg-bones with a heavy mallet[54], to hasten his death[55], because he then would be unable to use his legs to raise himself up to breathe [56], being the norm in Roman crucifixions[57]. As we saw above, Jehohanan's legs had been broken and the Gospel of John records that the Roman soldiers broke the legs of the two robbers crucified with Jesus, to bring about their immediate deaths (Jn 19:31-32)[58].

The Roman soldiers, having broken the legs of the two robbers crucified with Jesus, when they came to Jesus they saw that he was already dead, and so they did not break His legs(Jn 19:32-33)[59]. Despite breaking of the legs of crucifixion victims was the norm in Roman crucifixions, neither the man on the Shroud nor Jesus had their legs broken, which is further evidence that the man on the Shroud is Jesus[60].

Both the man on the Shroud and Jesus were speared in the side. The man on the Shroud was speared in his right side[61]. Clearly visible on the Shroud is a lance stab wound in the man's right side together with an effusion of blood and clear fluid[62]. The wound is on the left-hand side of the Shroud image but because of mirror reversal it was in the right side of the man of the Shroud[63]. The wound and its bloodstain is immediately adjacent to one of the triangular-shaped burn marks from the fire of 1532[64] (see "part 12"), yet miraculously[65] was not covered by it[66].

[Above: The wound on the right side of the man on the Shroud[67] (on our left because the Shroud is, like a plaster cast, a mirror image[68]). Note the wound (circled in red) which corresponds to the incision of a Roman lancea and the light and dark stains corresponding to blood and lung cavity fluid. The dark border to the right is the remains of a burn from a fire in 1532.]

The origin of the flow of blood and fluid is an elliptical wound at its top edge[69] about 4.4 cm long by 1.1 cm wide (1.75 x 0.44 inches)[70]. The size and shape of the wound in cross-section[71] conforms perfectly to a Roman lancea (Greek λογχη - logche)[72]. The wound is in the intercostal space between the right fifth and sixth ribs[73]. From below this is directly in line with the right auricle of the heart which fills with blood after death[74]. From the angle of flow[75] the body must have been erect and leaning forward when the side was pierced, for the blood and the fluid flowed downwards and frontwards from the wound[76].

There was a second flow of blood and fluid from the wound in the side across the small of the back, evidently from when the body was laid on the Shroud[77].

[Above: the flow of blood across the small of the back from the wound in the side[78.]

As we saw above, the Roman executioners did not break Jesus' legs because they could see that he was dead. But to make absolutely certain that Jesus was dead[79], one of the soldiers speared him in the side with a lance, and immediately there came out blood and water (Jn 19:32-34)[80]. The Greek word logche), for the Roman lancea, was the very word used in John 19:34 to describe the weapon used by the Roman soldier to check that Jesus was dead[81].

This eyewitness testimony of the Apostle John[82] of "blood and water" flowing from the lance-wound in the dead Jesus' side, matches the blood and fluid on the right side, under the heart, of the man on the Shroud[83](see above). Most medical specialists agree that the "water" was probably fluid that had steadily accumulated in Jesus' lung cavity as a result of the unusually brutal scourging (see part 21) He was subjected to[84]. The lance then released this watery type fluid from the lung cavity followed by blood from the perforated heart[85]. A mixture of blood and lung fluid is also the basis of the stains around the nasal area of the Sudarium of Oviedo, which is more evidence that both it and the Shroud once covered the same body[86]. But the Sudarium of Oviedo has been in Spain since the 6th century[87]. This will be covered in more detail in "7. The Sudarium of Oviedo."

More problems for the forgery theory:
• Christian art has consistently depicted Jesus as having been nailed through His palms, even though, as we saw above, medical experiments have shown that nails through the palms could not support the weight of a man's body[88]. But it would be unlikely that a medieval forger would have known this and even if he had, he would have conformed to prevailing Christian tradition and depicted the nail wounds in Jesus' palms[89, §27].

• Crucifixion was outlawed by the Roman Emperor Constantine in 313 and was not practiced since then in the Western world[90]. Yet a forger of the Shroud would have to know a lot about crucifixion to produce such an anatomically and historically accurate representation[91, §28].

• Three dimensional computer processing of Shroud photographs has revealed a slight forward lean of the man on the Shroud's body, consistent with him having been suspended by the arms on a cross, and then that forward lean having been set by rigor mortis[92]. It is highly unlikely (to put it mildly) that a medieval or earlier forger could have encoded light intensity information into his composition which would accurately depict in three-dimensions, the forward lean of a crucified man[93, §29].

• A medieval or earlier forger would have been most unlikely to have gone to the trouble of depicting the man on the Shroud's nose as swollen, displaced and bleeding, let alone added ground particles and dust to his nasal area, consistent with his having fallen on his face while carrying his crossbeam, given that the Gospels do not explicitly mention those (see above)[§30].

• A medieval or earlier forger is unlikely to have been able to depict the convincing medical detail of the lance wound in the side of the man on the Shroud, given that none of the many depictions of that lance wound in Jesus' side in mediaeval or earlier art do so[94, §31].

• The Gospels do not tell us in which side (right or left) Jesus was pierced by a Roman soldier's lance, so a medieval forger would most likely assume it was the left side, as he would be unlikely to realise that the last beat of a heart empties its left ventricle of blood while the right auricle fills with blood after death[95, §32].

• That the Sudarium of Oviedo has blood and lung fluid stains around its nasal area, indicating that both it and the Shroud once covered the same crucifixion victim's body, yet the Sudarium has been in Spain since the 6th century, means that either there were two forgers[96] or a single forger would have had to forge both the Shroud and the Sudarium in or before the 6th century[§33].

Conclusion. There is an amazing correspondence between the details that are observed on the Shroud, and the description of Jesus's crucifixion as narrated in gospels, given that each crucifixion was "personalized" according to the victim executed, the crime committed[97] and the whims of the executioners[98]. The Shroud supplements the Gospels as a photograph supplements a verbal description[99]:

"The Gospels say only that Christ carried His cross. The Shroud depicts Him bent under the transverse beam lying across the shoulders, with His outstretched arms bound to the instrument of His death. And there are the excoriations on the shoulder-blades, the oozing and the aggravated wounds of the scourging. He was crucified, is all the Evangelists say of the awful climax of the drama. The Shroud re-enacts the scene. It raises the arms of Christ to the angle at which they were extended on the cross. It shows the point where the hands were pierced, and how the fingers and thumbs responded to the pressure on the median nerve. It crosses the feet and shows how they were pierced with a single nail through the insteps, how the wounds bled at the beginning of the crucifixion, how they bled again when the nail was extracted. It reconstructs the position in which the body was left by death, because the body grew rigid on the cross and remained so while impressing its image on the Shroud. There is also the final outrage committed upon that sacred Body. The Shroud evokes the vision of the soldier plunging his spear into the right side between the fifth and the sixth rib. It shows us the very wound into which Thomas was invited to thrust his hand, and it almost analyses the issue of blood and water which was such a marvel to John"[100]

In conclusion:

"In summary, the man of the Shroud was crucified the way Jesus was. The comparison of the New Testament and the Shroud image lines up at every point"[101]

NOTES
1. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, p.44. [return]
2. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, pp.61-62. [return]
3. Ricci, G., 1978, "The Way of the Cross in the Light of the Holy Shroud," Center for the Study of the Passion of Christ and the Holy Shroud: Milwaukee WI, Second edition, Reprinted, 1982, p.61. [return]
4. Wuenschel, E.A., 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, Third printing, 1961, pp.42-43. [return]
5. Robinson, J.A.T., 1978, "The Shroud and the New Testament," in Jennings, P., ed., 1978, "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, p.78. [return]
6. Wuenschel, 1954, pp.42-43. [return]
7. Wuenschel, 1954, p.42. [return]
8. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, p.45. [return]
9. Bennett, J., 2001, "Sacred Blood, Sacred Image: The Sudarium of Oviedo: New Evidence for the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin," Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA, p.125. [return]
10. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.38-39. [return]
11. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.44. [return]
12. Wuenschel, 1954, p.43. [return]
13. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.44. [return]
14. Ricci, G., 1977, "Historical, Medical and Physical Study of the Holy Shroud," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., 1977, "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, p.69. [return]
15. Ibid. [return]
16. Shroud Scope: Enrie Negative Vertical (inverted). [return]
17. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.45. [return]
18. Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, p.28. [return]
19. Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.165. [return]
20. Guscin, 1998, p.28. [return]
21. Ibid. [return]
22. Ibid. [return]
23. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, p.86. [return]
24. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.44. [return]
25. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.45. [return]
26. Ibid. [return]
27. Wuenschel, 1954, p.43. [return]
28. Wuenschel, 1954, p.44. [return]
29. Ibid. [return]
30. Wuenschel, 1954, pp.43-44. [return]
31. Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.90. [return]
32. McNair, P., 1978, "The Shroud and History: fantasy, fake or fact?," in Jennings, 1978, p.36. [return]
33. Ibid. [return]
34. McNair, 1978, p.36. [return]
35. Friedman, M., 2012, "In a stone box, the only trace of crucifixion," Times of Israel, March 26. [return]
36. Wuenschel, 1954, p.43. [return]
37. Ibid. [return]
38. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.62. [return]
39. Wuenschel, 1954, p.43. [return]
40. Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.90. [return]
41. Wuenschel, 1954, p.43. [return]
42. Bulst, 1957, p.48. [return]
43. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.45. [return]
44. Ibid. [return]
45. Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, pp.112-113. [return]
46. Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.113. [return]
47. Ibid. [return]
48. Ibid. [return]
49. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.45. [return]
50. Ibid. [return]
51. Wuenschel, 1954, p.45. [return]
52. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.45. [return]
53. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
53a. "Lower Leg Fractures (Broken Tibia and Fibula) with Surgical Fixation," Doctor Stock, 2012. [return]
54. McNair, 1978, p.24. [return]
55. Antonacci, 2000, p.120. [return]
56. Wilson, 1979, p.42. [return]
57. McNair, 1978, p.24. [return]
58. Robinson, 1978, p.78. [return]
59. Ibid. [return]
60. Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, pp.90-91. [return]
61. Wilson, 1979, p.43. [return]
62. Robinson, 1978, p.78. [return]
63. Wilson, 1979, p.43. [return]
64. Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, pp.24,26. [return]
65. Wilson, 1979, p.24. [return]
66. Wilson, 1979, p.43. [return]
67. Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical. [return]
68. Antonacci, 2000, p.33. [return]
69. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.63 [return]
70. Wilson, 1979, p.48. [return]
71. Wilson, 1986, p.34. [return]
72. Ibid. [return]
73. Wilson, 1986, p.26. [return]
74. Wilson, 1979, p.44. [return]
75. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, p.37. [return]
76. Wuenschel, 1954, p.46. [return]
77. Wilson, 1979, p.44. [return]
78. Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical (inverted). [return]
79. Ruffin, C.B., 1999, "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, p.44. [return]
80. Wuenschel, 1954, p.45. [return]
81. Wilson, 1979, p.49. [return]
82. Wilson, 1996, pp.132,133. [return]
83. Robinson, 1978, p.78. [return]
84. Wilson, 1996, pp.132,133. [return]
85. Bucklin, R., 1997, "An Autopsy on the Man of the Shroud," Third International Scientific Symposium on the Shroud of Turin, Nice, France, 12 May. [return]
86. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.78. [return]
87. Guscin, 1998, p.31. [return]
88. Robinson, 1978, p.77. [return]
89. Ibid. [return]
90. Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.69. [return]
91. Culliton, B.J., 1978, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin Challenges 20th-Century Science," Science, Vol. 201, 21 July, pp.235-239, p.238. [return]
92. Jackson, J.P., Jumper, E.J., Mottern, R.W. & Stevenson, K.E., ed., 1977, "The Three Dimensional Image On Jesus' Burial Cloth," in Stevenson, 1977, p.92. [return]
93. Ibid. [return]
94. Wilson, 1998, p.38. [return]
95. Oxley, 2010, p.167. [return]
96, Bennett, 2001, p.89. [return]
97. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.229. [return]
98. Bulst, 1957, p.49. [return]
99. Wuenschel, 1954, p.55. [return]
100. Wuenschel, 1954, pp.55-56. [return]
101. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.45. [return]
§27, §28, §29, §30, §31, §32, §33.. To be further examined under "9. Problems of the forgery theory". [return]

---

Continued in part 25, "3.7. The man on the Shroud and Jesus were buried (1)."

Posted 2 December 2013. Updated 28 April 2024.