I seriously doubt that it is.
..(whether he was divine or not is a separate debate)..
A point in any debate that is irrelevant to me.
..or a copy of an authentic shroud.
If the "Shroud" is a copy of a presumed, "authentic" Shroud, it is, well, only a copy. If its a copy, it's a "fake" by definition.
Could it have been any random crucifixion victim? No. It would have had to have been someone crucified in the same unusual manner in which Jesus was crucified in the Bible accounts.
This implies that you believe that Christ was the only person crucified by the Romans in this manner. Given the Romans brutality, I doubt that Jesus of Nazareth was the only person so crucified in the same manner during the over 1000 years of Roman history. As well, you note that there are some added; " anatomical details not found in the Biblical narrative (e.g., the nails through the wrists instead of the palms)". This would hint at Medieval embellishment indicating forgery rather than some esoteric detail incidental only to Christ's crucifixion. On one hand it is, on the other hand it's not and on both hands it could or couldn't be so.
Also bear in mind that the historical record is hardly continuous as one goes back in time. There are plenty of things missing from records that we know about because they are mentioned in other surviving works. There are also plenty of things missing that we'll probably never know anything about.
Yes, I know (sigh). These same reasons are used by both sides when arguing the merits of "Evolution" vs "Creationism".
That just happened to have wounds consistent with the Biblical account?
More than likely, especially for a fake. If I were to counterfeit $20 dollar bills, I would not put the Queen of England's portrait on them.
Read more philosophy if you don't believe that.
I beg your pardon?
If that's the best argument against the shroud being authentic, then I'm not impressed.
If that's your best argument in favor of the shroud being authentic, then I am not impressed.
Fair enough. But a replica is a very different kind of fake than a total fabrication from nothing.
This implies that you believe that Christ was the only person crucified by the Romans in this manner. Given the Romans brutality, I doubt that Jesus of Nazareth was the only person so crucified in the same manner during the over 1000 years of Roman history.
Do you understand what "this manner" means? Yes, the Romans crucified plenty of people. No, they didn't jab them all with a spear and put a crown of thorns on their head. And as the Bible account itself points out, if they wanted someone to die more quickly, they didn't jab their side with a spear. They broke their legs, which they didn't do in the case of the image on the Shroud.
As well, you note that there are some added; " anatomical details not found in the Biblical narrative (e.g., the nails through the wrists instead of the palms)". This would hint at Medieval embellishment indicating forgery rather than some esoteric detail incidental only to Christ's crucifixion. On one hand it is, on the other hand it's not and on both hands it could or couldn't be so.
Not true at all. The assumptions about the Biblical account are minor differences that could easily be caused by the language used and the translation of that language, especially given that the Gospel accounts were transmitted orally before being written down. And studies, because of the Shroud, suggest that the wrists are the logical place to nail someone to a cross.
Given the nails in the wrists and the folded hands, it makes sense to assume that the Shroud depicts an actual crucifiction victim. What makes me think it isn't a Medieval forgery is that it would require a great deal of knowledge about actual crucificiations, which weren't very common in the Middle Ages, to my knowledge. So the question becomes, "How did a Medieval forger get so familiar with crucifiction to get the details right?" As I said earlier, if this is a forgery, then someone died in order to make it.
As for "Medieval embellishments", do you have any evidence that the images of the wounds and the blood were added as an artistic addition?
Yes, I know (sigh). These same reasons are used by both sides when arguing the merits of "Evolution" vs "Creationism".
Which is why it's absurd to ask for 100% certainty. There is a reason why we don't ask for that in courts. Very little in life is 100% certain. So we deal with the proponderence of evidence. From all of the Medieval history that I've read (and I took college classes dealing specifically with Byzantine history and the Crusades), the Shroud simply does not strike me as the sort of artifact that would be produced if a Medieval forger sat down and said, "I want to create the burrial shroud of Jesus". They just were not that good. See the Spear of Longenus if you want to see a real Medieval forgery. Or see this painting of Veronica's Veil if you want to see what Medieval people had in mind for this sort of relic. The wouldn't have sat down and created an image that was barely visible to the naked eye yet produces a perfect photographic negative image of a body using a technology that was not yet created.
More than likely, especially for a fake. If I were to counterfeit $20 dollar bills, I would not put the Queen of England's portrait on them.
But that still points to the fact that either (A) it's a fake or (B) if it's the authentic imprint of a crucified man from the first century AD, it's likely to be Jesus. And that leads us back to looking at how old the cloth is, how the image got on the cloth, and why it's depicted in the way it is.
Remember, the point I was specifically addressing was the idea that this was simply the burrial shroud of J. Random Victim who was crucified and through some natural process left his image on a burrial shroud. My argument is that the wounds don't suggest J. Random Victim but a very specific victim -- Jesus.
If that's your best argument in favor of the shroud being authentic, then I am not impressed.
Fair enough. But it's a judgement call either way.