Shroud of Turin
May. 7th, 2010 08:29 amThere is an interesting analysis here.
The upshot is, if the shroud were real and not a 12th century work of art, the figure depicted would have been
1) freakishly tall for someone living in Jesus's time and place
2) with arms like an orangutan, even given how tall it is,
3) with one forearm about 4 inches longer than the other
4) with an extraordinarily short head for someone of that size,
5) with most of the shortness of the head resulting from a shortness of the forehead that would put the brain case down in australopithicene sizes.
1, 4, and 5 are consistent with art styles in the 12th century. 2 is consistent with an artist who felt a need to cover the genitals with *something* on a naked figure.
Supposing this were an image of Jesus, the whole "betray me with a kiss" thing would have been completely redundant; the most sketchy physical description would have served to uniquely identify Jesus among his disciples, and probably among the entire population of Jerusalem.
The upshot is, if the shroud were real and not a 12th century work of art, the figure depicted would have been
1) freakishly tall for someone living in Jesus's time and place
2) with arms like an orangutan, even given how tall it is,
3) with one forearm about 4 inches longer than the other
4) with an extraordinarily short head for someone of that size,
5) with most of the shortness of the head resulting from a shortness of the forehead that would put the brain case down in australopithicene sizes.
1, 4, and 5 are consistent with art styles in the 12th century. 2 is consistent with an artist who felt a need to cover the genitals with *something* on a naked figure.
Supposing this were an image of Jesus, the whole "betray me with a kiss" thing would have been completely redundant; the most sketchy physical description would have served to uniquely identify Jesus among his disciples, and probably among the entire population of Jerusalem.