The greatest source of controversy, for me, actually doesn’t come from science it comes from the Scriptural accounts of the Crucifixion.
As this image shows: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#/media/File%3AFull_length_negatives_of_the_shroud_of_Turin.jpg
The wounds are indeed in the wrists not (what we would call) the “hand”.
As another pointed out, Scripture describes the nails going through the “hands”. The question(s) to answer is:
1. Was there a word for “wrist” back then? That is, did the people of that time distinguish between the “hand” and the “wrist”?
2. Does such a word appear in Scripture?
3. Does such a word appear in the same book as the Crucifixion account?
If the answer to all 3 is yes then it’s extremely unlikely the Shroud is genuine. If any can be answered as no, then the seeming contradiction in Scripture and the Shroud may not be so, as it would be entirely possible that the word used for “hand” in the accounts actually described what we would call both the hand and wrist areas today.
Answering these 3 questions has been on my “to-do” list for a while now. Maybe if I find some time this weekend.
“The Hebrew words are used in a large variety of idiomatic expressions, part of which have passed into the Greek (through the Sepuagint) and into modern European languages (through the translations of the Bible; see Oxford Hebrew Lexicon, under the word “yadh”). We group what has to be said about the word under the following heads:
1. The Human Hand:
Various Uses:
The human hand (considered physically) and, anthropopathically, the hand of God (Genesis 3:22; Psalms 145:16):
The hand included the wrist, as Will be seen from all passages in which bracelets are mentioned as ornaments of the hand, e.g. Genesis 24:22,30,47; Ezekiel 16:11; 23:42, or where the Bible speaks of fetters on the hands (Judges 15:14, etc.).”
_____________________________________________
The point being raise in the article, and not clearly stated, is that if the two pieces of cloth covered the same person, the shroud is older than demonstrated by the carbon dating process, done not long ago on the shroud.
It is believed that the test was done on a patched area on the edge of the shroud. The person doing the patching inter-weaved new material into the burnt shroud, after it was damaged by fire.
The important point is that the chain of possession of the face cloth is much older, and can be dated long before the time noted through the shroud's recent carbon dating.
Back prior to 1974 I read accounts of the discovery of the remains of a crucified man that demonstrate that nails were driven through the wrists of the individual crucified. The shroud's occupant also had nails driven through his wrist.
This being said, I have always been skeptical of stigmata signs in the palms of the hands. Romans would not have changed their method of crucifixion over time. Ropes would have allowed the individual to pull upward and take part of the weight off the feet. The Romans wanted the cruelest method possible, and the most painful.
Yes and yes. The words is "καρπός" (heard of "carpal tunnel"?):
From Liddell Scott follow to the text from Euripides, where Creusa says "I wear them [golden chains] on my wrist".
Does such a word appear in Scripture?
Many times, but not as a reference to wrists. The same word also means "fruit":
As "fruit" it appears dozens of times; also there is one reference to Carpus to whom St. Paull trusted his coat (2 Timothy 4:13). As "wrist" it does not appear anywhere in the New Testament.
"χείρ" is the stem for "hand"; it is a very common Greek word:
As you can see, the Liddell Scott translate it as "hand and arm, arm". In fact, in some other languages I know the casual word for upper extremity means the whole thing: palm, forearm and arm.
"χείρ" is the word used in Luke 24:39-40 and John 20:25,27 referring to the wounds of Christ.
