Saturday, December 7, 2013

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: Space in the wrist bounded by the hamate[H], capitate [G], triquetrals [C] and lunate [B] bones." ("√Čtienne 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".

12 comments:

Mike Morcous said...

Hi Stephen, I read your blog regularly and I really appreciate your work. However, I have to differ with you on that conclusion. I overlayed an X-ray of the carpus over the shroud and the exit wound matched zugibe's spot more than Barbet. I understand it looks like the wound is between the 2nd and 3rd digits but zugibe's spot is not far, it's under the 3rd digit too. What really excluded barbet for me was that it was too low on the wrist to match the exit wound. Zugibee's spot is higher in the wrist and matches the blood stain perfectly

Stephen E. Jones said...

Mike

>Hi Stephen, I read your blog regularly and I really appreciate your work.

Thanks.

>However, I have to differ with you on that conclusion.

My "conclusion" was that Zugibe was wrong in his claim that:

"... Destot's space was on the side of the wrist opposite to where the Shroud of Turin showed the wrist wound." (Zugibe, F.T., 2005, "The Crucifixion of Jesus," p.2).

In that Zugibe is patently WRONG. As can be seen on the above photos, Destot's space is at the base of the second (index) and third (ring) finger, where the exit wound is on the Shroud.

>I overlayed an X-ray of the carpus over the shroud and the exit wound matched zugibe's spot more than Barbet.

If by "Zugibe's spot" you mean "the thenar furrow ... a few centimeters from where the furrow begins at the wrist":

"The nail could have entered on the upper part of the palm of the hand-not the middle of the palm. This area is equally as sturdy as either Destot's Space or the radial area. A nail entering in this area would have emerged at the site depicted on the Shroud. To locate this area open your hands, palms up. You will notice bulky prominences extending into the hand from the base of the thumbs. These masses are called the thenar eminence muscles ... which cause the thumbs to flex (i.e., bend in to the palms). Touch your thumb to the tip of your little finger. A deep furrow called the thenar furrow is seen at the base of the bulky prominence extending from the base of the thumb. If a nail is driven into this furrow, a few centimeters from where the furrow begins at the wrist, with the point of the nail angled at about 10 to 15 degrees toward the wrist and slightly toward the thumb, the nail would be inclined toward an area created by the metacarpal bone of the index finger and the capitate and lesser multangular bones of the wrist, which I have coined the Z area ..." (Zugibe, 2005, pp.75-76).

then your overlay proves nothing. Because it is a dorsal EXIT wound it would be compatible with BOTH Barbet's and Zugibe's proposed palmar nail ENTRY points.

Zugibe himself admits, "We don't specifically know where the nail entered":

"Where would the wound have to be made to be consistent with the Shroud? Before answering this question, remember the hand wound image is located on the back of the hand on the Shroud and depicts only the exit of the nail, not its entrance. We don't specifically know where the nail entered!" (Zugibe, 2005, p.74).

But if by "Zugibe's spot" you mean his "Z area" exit wound, then your xray overlay proves even less than nothing, because Zugibe DEFINED his "Z area" as being where the exit wound is (see below).

>I understand it looks like the wound is between the 2nd and 3rd digits

Thanks for conceding my point! That is where Destot's space is. And therefore it must be closer to the little finger side, not to the thumb side of the hand, since the third (ring) finger and fourth (little) finger are not as wide as the second (index) finger and the forefinger.

>but zugibe's spot is not far, it's under the 3rd digit too.

So by your own admission, "Zugibe's spot" (i.e. the thenar furrow palmar entry point?) is not as close to the dorsal exit wound on the Shroud as `Barbet's spot' Destot's space.

>What really excluded barbet for me was that it was too low on the wrist to match the exit wound.

It depends on the angle of the nail. As we saw above, Zugibe's own thenar furrow palmar entry point requires a specific angle range: "the point of the nail angled at about 10 to 15 degrees toward the wrist and slightly toward the thumb" to match the nail exit wound on the back Shroud man's left hand.

[continued]

Stephen E. Jones said...

[continued]

And so does Barbet's hypothesis require an angled path of the nail, except it wasn't contrived as Zugibe's is. As quoted in my post above, in Barbet's experiments the nail exited naturally through Destot's space to the exit wound area on the back of the Shroud man's hand.

>Zugibee's spot is higher in the wrist and matches the blood stain perfectly

That is because Zugibe DEFINED his "Z area" to be where the exit wound blood stain is! There is no "Z area" in anatomy textbooks.

But again, the blood stain marking the hand wound is an EXIT wound on the back of the hand and so it is compatible with both Barbet's and Zugibe's proposed ENTRY points of the nail, on the palmar side of the hand.

My main point was that Zugibe was wrong, when he claimed that the nail wound in the left hand of the man on the Shroud is closer to the thumb side of the hand than the little finger side. The fact is that the exit wound is closer to the little finger side of the hand than the thumb side.

The nail exit wound on the Shroud man's left hand not only LOOKS like it is closer to the little finger side of that hand, it MUST be closer to the little finger side, because as you yourself admitted:

"... the wound is between the 2nd and 3rd digits".

But then again, since it IS "between the 2nd and 3rd digits", the nail exit wound MUST be closer to the little finger side, than to the thumb side, of the hand, since the third (ring) finger and fourth (little) finger are not as wide as the second (index) finger and the forefinger.

Look at your own hand. Which is closer to the space "between the 2nd and 3rd digits": your thumb or your little finger? On the back of my left hand, with my thumb folded in, the width over my carpal area just before it narrows to my wrist is about 80 cms. Extending the space between my 2nd (index) and 3rd (ring) fingers to intersect that 80 cms imaginary line, it is about 30cm to the little finger side of my hand and about 50 cms to the thumb side.

Using Zugibe's own logic, that if the dorsal exit wound on the left hand of the man on the Shroud is closer to the thumb side of the hand, then the palmar entry point must also be closer to the thumb side of the hand.

But since the dorsal exit wound on the left hand of the man on the Shroud is closer to the little finger side of the hand, then the palmar entry point must also be closer to the little fingerer side of the hand.

Therefore, on Zugibe's own logic, his thenar furrow palmar nail entry point must be wrong, and Barbet's Destot space palmar entry point could be (not must be) right.

But of course Zugibe's premise is illogical, since even if the palmar entry point of the nail was closer to the thumb side, the dorsal exit wound could still be closer to the little finger side.

For one who, in his books, claims to be superior scientifically to Barbet and his followers, there are other logical problems (including even possible dishonesty) with Zugibe's arguments for his hypotheses and against Barbet's hypotheses.

But I don't want to go there unless I have to. And I will have to go into some of these logical problems in my next two posts about Barbet's hypotheses that the man on the Shroud's thumbs are hidden because of damage to his hands' median nerves; and that crucifixion victims died primary of asphyxiation.

My simple claim in the above post is that Zugibe is simply WRONG, in his basic claim that: "... Destot's space was on the side of the wrist opposite to where the Shroud of Turin showed the wrist wound."

The fact is that Destot's space is closer to the SAME, little finger, side of the wrist where the Shroud of Turin shows the wrist wound!

Stephen E. Jones

Stephen E. Jones said...

>...the nail would be inclined toward an area created by the metacarpal bone of the index finger and the capitate and lesser multangular bones of the wrist, which I have coined the Z area ..."

I later realised that I had confused Zugibe's "Z area" proposed nail ENTRY point with the nail EXIT wound on the left hand of the man on the Shroud.

But it doesn't affect my main argument, that Zugibe was wrong in his claim that the exit wound was on the thumb side of the hand, when it is on the little finger side.

And I still maintain that Zugibe arbitrarily CONTRIVED his "Z area", which unlike Destot's space is not in the anatomy textbooks, to fit where the exit wound is.

But Barbet, starting with an entry point that IS in the anatomy textbooks, Destot's space, found in multiple experiments with different cadavers, that a Roman nail driven into the palmar side of the wrist near Destot's space, found its way naturally into Destot's space and then exited naturally out to where the hand exit wound on the Shroud is.

Stephen E. Jones
---------------------------------
Readers, if you like this my The Shroud of Turin blog, and you have a website, could you please consider adding a hyperlink to my blog on it? This would help increase its Google PageRank number and so enable those who are Google searching on "the Shroud of Turin" to more readily discover my blog. Thanks.

Stephen E. Jones said...

>As can be seen on the above photos, Destot's space is at the base of the second (index) and third (ring) finger, where the exit wound is on the Shroud.

>And therefore it must be closer to the little finger side, not to the thumb side of the hand, since the third (ring) finger and fourth (little) finger are not as wide as the second (index) finger and the forefinger.

>Extending the space between my 2nd (index) and 3rd (ring) fingers to intersect that 80 cms imaginary line, it is about 30cm to the little finger side of my hand and about 50 cms to the thumb side.

Where I wrote "index" finger, it should have been "middle" finger.

I didn't realise, or had forgotten, that the first finger, or forefinger, is the index finger, and the second finger is the "middle" finger.

I have changed all MY (i.e. not Zugibe's) references to "index" finger to "middle" finger in my post above, but Blogger won't allow me to change my own comments.

Stephen E. Jones

richard malmed said...

I am a lawyer and have no training in anatomy except what Ihave read in autopsies, but I am concerned about the location of the radial and ulnar arteries and the palmar arches. It is my belief that a nail larger enough to support a body could not have passed through Destot's space without severing a major artery,causing the victim to exsanguinate within a very short period of time,far shorter than the 6 hour period in the gospels. It may be that a nail was inserted between the radial and ulnar bones of the forearm could have avoided the ulnar or radial arteries. I further suggest that Jesus was not nailed but simply tied to the patibulum.

Stephen E. Jones said...

Richard

>I am a lawyer and have no training in anatomy except what Ihave read in autopsies, but

So why would I, or anyone (including you), who has "no training in anatomy" think that you know more about this than "Pierre Barbet ... the chief surgeon at Saint Joseph's Hospital in Paris." ("Pierre Barbet (physician)," Wikipedia, 27 April 2015)?

>I am concerned about the location of the radial and ulnar arteries and the palmar arches. It is my belief that a nail larger enough to support a body

What do you base your "belief" on? If you "a lawyer" with "no training in anatomy" presumed to contradict an expert witness, based merely on your "belief," you would be laughed out of court!

I have in front of me a large nail, which is 150 mm (~5.9 in.) long by 5 mm (~0.2 or 1/5th in.). I am certain that THREE of them (bearing in mind Jesus weight was supported by three (if not four) nails, two in His hands and one (if not two) in His feet.

According to "PART XII: NAILS AND SPIKES - American Wood Council www.awc.org/pdf/.../Part12NailsandSpikespp140to149.pdf," the shear strength of nails is given by the formula:

Fyb = 130.4 -214D

where:

Fyb = bending yield strength of steel ...
D = nail diameter, in.

According to my calculations, for a 200 lb weight (assuming this to be the upper limit of Jesus' weight), the diameter of a steel (or carbon wrought iron) nail that could hold that weight without bending would be about a third of an inch (~8.4 mm):

200 = 130.4-214D
200-130.4 = -214D
69.6 = -214D
D = 69.6/214
D = ~0.33 inch

So three of those 5 mm (0.2 inch) nails of mine, would hold a weight of 262.8 lbs:

F/3 = 130.4-214(0.2)
F/3 = 130.4-42.8
F/3 = 87.6
F = 87.6 x 3
F = 262.8 lbs.

and there may have been FOUR nails holding Jesus.

>could not have passed through Destot's space without severing a major artery,

This is where you, who has "NO training in anatomy," presume to know more than Pierre Barbet, "chief surgeon at Saint Joseph's Hospital in Paris," and all the other medical experts who have agreed with him, including his own peers in the French Societe de Saint-Luc (Society of Saint Luke) of Catholic doctors:

"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, P., 1953, "A Doctor at Calvary," p.176).

[continued]

Stephen E. Jones said...

[continued]

Barbet found by repeated experiments on amputated arms, that a nail passing through Destot's space "MEETS WITH NO IMPORTANT ARTERY":

"The dissection of the hand confirmed my radiographic results. 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. ... 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 and in spite of my resistance. I have, in fact, repeated this experiment a dozen times since then on the hand of an arm which had just been amputated, moving the point of entry all round the middle of the bending fold. 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. ... an anatomical passage already formed, a natural road along which the nail passes along easily and where it is held solidly in position by the bones of the wrist, the latter being held firmly by their distended ligaments and by the transverse carpal ligament, on the upper edge of which it rests. The effusion of blood would be moderate and almost entirely venous; THE NAIL MEETS WITH NO IMPORTANT ARTERY, such as the palmar arches, which would have spread out a broad patch of blood on the whole back of the hand laid against the cross and might have brought on a serious haemorrhage." (Barbet, 1953, pp.117-118)

>causing the victim to exsanguinate within a very short period of time,far shorter than the 6 hour period in the gospels.

No. See above.

[continued]

Stephen E. Jones said...

[continued]


>It may be that a nail was inserted between the radial and ulnar bones of the forearm could have avoided the ulnar or radial arteries.

Not necessary. See above. And it contradicts the Gospels' testimony that the nails were in Jesus' HANDS (which includes the base of the hand, the wrist):

Luke 24:38-40. 38 And he said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 See my HANDS and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." 40 And when he had said this, he showed them his HANDS and his feet.

John 20:19-20; 24-27. 19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you." 20 When he had said this, he showed them his HANDS and his side. ... 24 Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord." But he said to them, "Unless I see in his HANDS the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe." 26 Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you." 27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my HANDS; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe."

>I further suggest that Jesus was not nailed but simply tied to the patibulum.

That contradicts the testimony of the Apostles John and Paul that Jesus was crucified by "NAILS":

John 20:25: "So the other disciples told him [Thomas], "We have seen the Lord." But he said to them, "Unless I see in his hands the mark of the NAILS, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe."

Colossians 2:14. by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, NAILING it to the cross.

Stephen E. Jones
----------------------------------
MY POLICIES Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Except that comments under my latest post can be on any Shroud-related topic without being off-topic. I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts.

Stephen E. Jones said...

>I have in front of me a large nail, which is 150 mm (~5.9 in.) long by 5 mm (~0.2 or 1/5th in.). I am certain that THREE of them (bearing in mind Jesus weight was supported by three (if not four) nails, two in His hands and one (if not two) in His feet.

That should have been, "I am certain that THREE of them (bearing in mind Jesus' weight was supported by three (if not four) nails, two in His hands and one (if not two) in His feet" would support my weight, which at an unfit and overweight ~89 kg (~196 lbs), would presumably be heavier than Jesus' weight.

Stephen E. Jones
---------------------------------
Reader, if you like this my The Shroud of Turin blog, and you have a website, could you please consider adding a hyperlink to my blog on it? This would help increase its Google PageRank number and so enable those who are Google searching on "the Shroud of Turin" to more readily discover my blog. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Everyone is so focused on what the Shroud shows, but as a Bible- believing Christian, the authenticity of the Shroud must, also, agree with Scripture, as well as anatomy. If Zugibe's exit point and Barbet's exit point are merely centimeters apart, and both hypothesize a method that supports a grown man's weight, then, Biblically speaking, Zugibe's ENTRANCE point is in keeping with Scripture. This, to me, is more important than the niceties of anatomy.

Stephen E. Jones said...

Anonymous

>Everyone is so focused on what the Shroud shows,

If it is Jesus' burial shroud, as the evidence OVERWHELMINGLY points to, then I assume that must be what Jesus wants, since He imprinted His image on the Shroud and has preserved it down through the millennia, against all the odds.

>but as a Bible- believing Christian, the authenticity of the Shroud must, also, agree with Scripture,

It DOES. See my "The Bible and the Shroud" series.

>as well as anatomy.

It does that too.

>If Zugibe's exit point and Barbet's exit point are merely centimeters apart, and both hypothesize a method that supports a grown man's weight, then, Biblically speaking, Zugibe's ENTRANCE point is in keeping with Scripture.

Agreed. Scripture is not precise on this matter. All it says is that Jesus was nailed through His "hands":

John 20:24-29. "24 Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, `We have seen the Lord.' But he said to them, `Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.' 26 Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, `Peace be with you.' 27 Then he said to Thomas, `Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.' 28 Thomas answered him, `My Lord and my God!'"

And "feet":

Lk 24:36-40. "36 As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, `Peace to you!' 37 But they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit. 38 And he said to them, `Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.' 40 And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet."

>This, to me, is more important than the niceties of anatomy.

Evidently you don't think that TRUTH is important and dismiss it as mere "niceties". Well I DO think that truth is important, especially when it is about JESUS, and to Barbet and Zugibe's credit, so did they.

It was ZUGIBE who made a big deal about Barbet's Destot's space entrance point, which is hidden on the Shroud, being wrong. I merely pointed out that it was Zugibe who was wrong, and Barbet who was right on that point (pun unintended!), and that it led on to Zugibe being wrong on other important things, since error begets error.

Stephen E. Jones
----------------------------------
MY POLICIES Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Except that comments under my latest post can be on any Shroud-related topic without being off-topic. I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts.