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. 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.
But a replica is a very different kind of fake than a total fabrication from nothing.Uh Huh. So a fabrication, from "nothing" as it were, is a different kind of fake (good fake, bad fake, real fake, fake fake?), than a replica. Interesting. Especially the fabricating something from nothing. However this could apply to the Shroud, as a phrase for a manufactured falsehood is often referred to as "something made from whole cloth". The only difference between a fake and a replica is the veracity of the fabricator.
My argument is that the wounds don't suggest J. Random Victim but a very specific victim -- Jesus.
Which is exactly what a forger would want to accomplish, a creditable fake, with as much detail as possible, not a reasonable facsimile.
Though the Middle Ages are considered to be an age of ignorance, it was not a time totally absent intelligent, cunning and greedy persons. To assume that persons of high office, both religious and political, as well as craftsmen with the necessary talents were intellectually and materially incapable of fabricating the Shroud and its myth is hubris. The Dean of the church at Lirey simply predated Jim and Tammy Faye Baker by a good 600 years. Today we build amusement parks to accomplish what the Shroud was manufactured for.
Your referencing Veronica's Veil caused me to do some internet searching... and found the following information and images:
Here is a photograph of the newly re-discovered Veronica image from the Monastery in Manoppello, Italy, about 60 miles North of Rome. This is apparently the original Veronica that was stolen from St. Peter's Basilica in the early 1600s. Tradition has it that "angels brought it to the monestary" but it is suspected that a few demons (theives) were mixed into the pot.
This image is pictured THROUGH the veil from the back.
This image also appears (according to several articles) to not have any pigments. It is impressed on a diaphonous material called byssus:
(Called) the gold of the seas . . . (Raw byssus) shine like bronze in the sun. The material is produced from threads a certain kind of sea mussels (“pinna nobilis”) generate to cling to the (sea bed). (divers dive) five meters deep in the sea to collect and harvest them – (then) the (threads) are combed, then spun and woven into a most precious fabric. Byssus was the most costly fabric in the ancient world. It has been found in the tombs of Egyptian Pharaohs, and it is mentioned often in the Bible, where it is said to be obligatory for the carpets of the Holy of Holies and for the "Ephod", the vestment of the high priest. Steeped in lemon, it becomes golden. In former times, soaked in cow's urine, it became paler and brighter.
The image itself is said to be visible from both sides of the nearly transparent cloth, but only appears when the light falls on the cloth correctly, fading to invisiblity at some angles of light. It almost reacts like a hologram. The facial measurements exactly match those of the face on the Shroud of Turin.
The following image is from Barrie Schworz's Shroud.com website and is the regular "negative" image of the Shroud of Turin face:
The final image is the Veronica image superimposed atop the Shroud image . . . note the faint blood "3" on the forehead...
I think Veronica's veil, however it was created was an early copy of the Shroud image... but what happened to the moustache?