Knights Templar hid the Shroud of Turin, says Vatican

Times Online ^ | 04/05/2009 | Richard Owen

[BuckeyeTexan]

Medieval knights hid and secretly venerated The Holy Shroud of Turin for more than 100 years after the Crusades, the Vatican said today in an announcement that appeared to solve the mystery of the relic’s missing years.

The Knights Templar, an order which was suppressed and disbanded for alleged heresy, took care of the linen cloth, which bears the image of a man with a beard, long hair and the wounds of crucifixion, according to Vatican researchers.

The Shroud, which is kept in the royal chapel of Turin Cathedral, has long been revered as the shroud in which Jesus was buried, although the image only appeared clearly in 1898 when a photographer developed a negative.

Barbara Frale, a researcher in the Vatican Secret Archives, said the Shroud had disappeared in the sack of Constantinople in 1204 during the Fourth Crusade, and did not surface again until the middle of the fourteenth century. Writing in L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, Dr Frale said its fate in those years had always puzzled historians.

However her study of the trial of the Knights Templar had brought to light a document in which Arnaut Sabbatier, a young Frenchman who entered the order in 1287, testified that as part of his initiation he was taken to “a secret place to which only the brothers of the Temple had access”. There he was shown “a long linen cloth on which was impressed the figure of a man” and instructed to venerate the image by kissing its feet three times.

[BroJoeK]

"It is an insult to read illogical and poorly thought out “reasoning” regarding something as holy as the Shroud of Turin. That is truly the insult on this thread. "

A fake Shroud is not in the least "holy." And there is no evidence -- none -- to "prove" it authentic. Nor could it ever be "proved," even if carbon-14 testing showed it from the 1st century.

Of course, if you WISH to believe it, that is totally, totally your choice. But you have no special right to run around claiming to be "insulted" every time someone tells the truth about the Shroud: that it is most unlikely to be authentic.

Finally, I refer you to annalex's post #205:

"The Church does not consider the shroud “proved”. One is not required to believe anything in particular about the shroud. There are signs pointing to that being authentic shroud of Christ, — its unexplained physical properties, consistence with what we do know of Christ and 1c Palestine, and the legent around it.

"For nearly sure it is a burial cloth of someone, so it deserves respect on that level. It does not deserve to be ripped to shreds out of some curiosity. "It surely reminds us powerfully of Christ. I am convinced that even if disproved by carbon dating or something else it will retain that power."

I disagree with none of that.

[Wpin]

You are simply ignorant of the facts. For instance, no where in the history of the world has such a image been created as in the Shroud. The forensics fit perfectly with a man who was scourged and crucified in the manner as Jesus was. The carbon dating was found to be invalid because the part they took the sample from was a patch from the medieval era so it dated that time frame.

Your ridiculous speculation that the image in the shroud would not fit the “average Jew” and “average height” whatever the hell that means...you don’t have a clue what those are, neither do the sources you got your information from. Indeed, you never did answer my question asking you if you knew that bronze age Greeks were taller than modern day? I didn’t bother to inform you that there was no real average height for knights in the medieval period. Much depended on food supply while being a child so heights varied quite a bit.

You also were never able to answer what Gene traits God has...he is Jesus’ father after all.

You even stooped to declaring that because Judas went with the Romans to identify Christ that that meant he could not have been tall...gee, we do the same thing today...ever hear of a police line up? There are legal reasons for positive identification of ‘perpetrators’.

The inane ignorance you show is so distasteful that I simply had to respond.

To so rudely and ignorantly disparage a holy relic to people of faith is cruel and you are an obvious ass, an ignorant ass, but an ass just the same. So, crawl back into your little hole and rot.

[annalex]

Justifications to add “long” to a dynamic translation exist. It does not mean “long” is in the original, so you cannot argue the length of Jesus’s hair from it.

This is one reason why someonw who makes it his occupation to argue from the Bible should gain a working knowledge of Greek and not rely on translations.

“Passed through the crowd” may equally well suggest stealth, physical power, psychological power, or a miracle. Remember that Moses passed through the Red Sea, a likely allusion here.

I am not arguing for the authenticity of the Shroud based on any of that. I am arguing against fanciful readings of the scripture to prove points the scripture cannot prove.

[BroJoeK]

Wpin: "You are simply ignorant of the facts. "

Of course I'm ignorant, but not quite as ignorant as you claim.
Overall, I'm a bit better informed than your "average Joe." ;-)

I have tried, for sake of brevity, to restrict my comments to the more cogent issues.

Wpin: "no where in the history of the world has such a image been created as in the Shroud."

That being the case, how do we even know for certain it IS a burial shroud?
What known and genuine shrouds can we compare it to?

"The forensics fit perfectly with a man who was scourged and crucified in the manner as Jesus was."

The Romans crucified many thousands in 1st century Judea alone.
Over many centuries the numbers crucified were in the tens and hundreds of thousands.

"The carbon dating was found to be invalid because the part they took the sample from was a patch from the medieval era so it dated that time frame."

I understand that.
I also understand the Church refuses to allow more reliable carbon-14 testing.
As Annalex points out, the Church has good reasons for that, and I agree.
But Annalex also says the Church has not tried to block scientific inquiry if it's reasonable conditions can be met.

Here's what's important: reliable carbon-14 testing could only DIS-prove the Shroud, but never prove it.
If reliable testing showed the Shroud coming from some other time than first-half of the 1st century, that disproves it.
But if testing showed it from the right time period, that would only narrow down the possibilities to thousands of people.

Wpin: "Your ridiculous speculation that the image in the shroud would not fit the “average Jew” and “average height” whatever the hell that means...you don’t have a clue what those are, neither do the sources you got your information from."

It's more than "ridiculous speculation."
Any number of skeletons have been found from 1st century Judea.
These have been studied, measured and averaged.
So it is entirely possible, forensically, to reconstruct the face and height of an "average Jew" from that time:

Yes, it's debatable: what does "average" mean?
If you take skeletons from the most ornate ossuaries of the wealthiest tombs, then you'll get one "average."
But if you stick to obviously common skeletons from less expensived burials, a very different "average."

As Swordmaker points out, some studies show the Shroud image is within the range of "normal," but for the more expensive ossuary burials -- let's call that 5 ft 10 inches to 6 ft.
Other studies show the average "marginal Jew" to have been more like 5 ft 1 inch.
So which group did Jesus belong to?

I think Jesus was more likely to have been a poor "marginal Jew" than a wealthy aristocrat.

Wpin: "you never did answer my question asking you if you knew that bronze age Greeks were taller than modern day?"

Not sure how that could be relevant.
We're talking about forensic analysis of skeletons here, not trying to compare modern populations to the ancients.

" I didn’t bother to inform you that there was no real average height for knights in the medieval period. Much depended on food supply while being a child so heights varied quite a bit."

Obviously, and my point exactly regarding: which group did Jesus belong to?
Did he come from a wealthy and powerful family, or a poor marginal family?
Seems to me that both the Bible and our modern scholars suggest the latter.

Wpin: "You also were never able to answer what Gene traits God has...he is Jesus’ father after all."

And how is this relevant to a discussion of the Shroud?
To my knowledge, no DNA analysis has been attempted or is even possible on the Shroud image.
If it were, we would expect ordinary human DNA, since both the Bible and Christian theology insist that Jesus was fully human.

Wpin: "You even stooped to declaring that because Judas went with the Romans to identify Christ that that meant he could not have been tall...gee, we do the same thing today...ever hear of a police line up?"

I didn't invent this particular argument, but it does make sense to me.
If Jesus were immediately recognizable -- for example, if he were unusually tall -- it would not be so necessary to make the unique identification of Judas' kiss.

Indeed, if we imagine a 6 ft tall Jesus and a 5 ft 1 inch Judas, we have to wonder how such a kiss might even be accomplished.
My point again is: here is another opportunity for the Bible to point out Jesus' unusual height, if it existed. But it doesn't.

Wpin: "To so rudely and ignorantly disparage a holy relic to people of faith is cruel and you are an obvious ass, an ignorant ass, but an ass just the same. So, crawl back into your little hole and rot."

The relic is not holy if it's not authentic, and its authenticity cannot be proved.
Of course, if you wish to treat it as if it were authentic, then that is your choice.

But I don't see how that provides you with a special priveledge to go around insulting anyone who disagrees with you.

If the Shroud reminds you of Jesus, then I say that's fine.
It reminds me of the Knights Templar.

[BroJoeK]

annalex: "Justifications to add “long” to a dynamic translation exist. It does not mean “long” is in the original, so you cannot argue the length of Jesus’s hair from it."

Say what?

annalex: "I am arguing against fanciful readings of the scripture to prove points the scripture cannot prove."

I'd call your argument on the length of Jesus' hair "fanciful."

[annalex]

Church refuses to allow more reliable carbon-14 testing

The Church refuses destructive testing done by kangaroo scientists. The Church has nothing against accuracy. Don't put words in my mouth.

[Kozak]

There’s a question with the carbon dating on the shroud due to the fire it was in and the location of sample that was used. Not saying it’s authentic, but would not hang my hat on the carbon 14 dating alone.

[BroJoeK]

BroJoeK from post #224: "I also understand the Church refuses to allow more reliable carbon-14 testing.
As Annalex points out, the Church has good reasons for that, and I agree.
But Annalex also says the Church has not tried to block scientific inquiry if it's reasonable conditions can be met."

annalex from #226: "The Church refuses destructive testing done by kangaroo scientists. The Church has nothing against accuracy. Don't put words in my mouth."

Come on, pal. I was entirely fair to your views.

[Swordmaker]

The New Testament cites at least two occasions of proof-positive that Jesus was not some unusual looking outsider amongst the Jews. The most famous, of course, was the kiss of Judas necessary to identify which of the group was Jesus. This tells us that Jesus could not be easily distinguished from other Jews by his physical appearance.

If 30-40% of the population were of the same genotype as what is now referred to as noble arabs or Sephardic jews, then yes, a kiss might very well be necessary to distinguish him from a fairly large group of similar people.

And on Swordmaker's issue of whether Jesus' ancestry might include some none Semitic progenators, others have made an extraordinarily good point on this:

You claim that sephardic jews are non-semitic? Where did I claim that? Noble arabs are a semitic genotype...

[Swordmaker]

Yes, Swordmaker argues the image is not as tall as most scholars who studied it report -- 5'8" or 5'9" not six feet, says Swordmaker -- which according to Swordmaker WAS near the "average height" of 1st century Jews.

But other studies -- and just plain common sense, imho -- tell us the "average height" of 1st century "marginal Jews," must have been much closer to 5'1".

WHAT STUDIES???? The studies that have been replaced by the science that falsified them? The studies that were based on erroneous measurements of photographs and not of the actual shroud? The studies done by non-scientists? The studies done by Charlatans trying to prove the Shroud was made by an artist who was born 102 years after the Shroud was first displayed in modern history?

BAH! I am done with you. I present work from several peer reviewed scientific journals and YOU present an article from Popular Mechanics Magazine as an authority. TWADDLE.

Your arguments are shot down factually, with evidence, repeatedly and you still repeat them in thread after thread. Now you've shrunk 1st Century jews to five foot ONE inch on average... against the evidence found in Jewish cemeteries because of "common sense." There is nothing common or sensical about such a claim. That's saying "Well, I don't want to believe the evidence, so I won't!"

[Swordmaker]

I think these scholars are sincere and very serious minded, but their image of Jesus far far more closely resembles the one on the right than the left:

I suggest you go to Israel today and TRY to find a genotypical average Jew of the area that looks like that caricature that Popular Mechanics skeptics created... with its dull deer in the headlights visage... That was done by the artists deliberately.

[Swordmaker]

Your ridiculous speculation that the image in the shroud would not fit the “average Jew” and “average height” whatever the hell that means...you don’t have a clue what those are, neither do the sources you got your information from. Indeed, you never did answer my question asking you if you knew that bronze age Greeks were taller than modern day? I didn’t bother to inform you that there was no real average height for knights in the medieval period. Much depended on food supply while being a child so heights varied quite a bit.

Interesting fact... the heights of medieval knights was thought to be fairly short because of measurements of surviving suits of armor. That has since been found to be erroneous. Excavations of burials of knights have found that they were actually fairly robust and tall men. In most cases indistinguishable from the heights of modern men. The food the knights received as children was usually excellent, being of the nobility, and therefore they were not deprived of anything in their childhood.

The error occurred because, just like today, CHILDREN tend to outgrow clothing before the wear it out. And young knights OUT GREW their original armor... before it wore out. The armor that was placed on display was often the adolescent suits that had been out grown by the families cadets as they grew and were trained. The adult armor was used, remade, and scrapped. The complete sets that were made for teenage boys that were outgrown were the ones placed on display. Those were the one that got measured.

[Swordmaker]

As Swordmaker points out, some studies show the Shroud image is within the range of "normal," but for the more expensive ossuary burials -- let's call that 5 ft 10 inches to 6 ft. Other studies show the average "marginal Jew" to have been more like 5 ft 1 inch. So which group did Jesus belong to?

PLEASE PROVIDE these other studies that have an average height of 5'1," I cannot find them... and Popular Mechanics is NOT A PEER REVIEWED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL! Nor did that study you want to call "5 ft 10 inches to 6 ft.", It came to specific conclusions... and that was NOT IT. Nor, did those studies state "ossuary burials"... In fact, studies done of 1st C. burials around Israel did not find what you are claiming.

I accused you of misrepresentations. And you are doing it again.

[BroJoeK]

"I suggest you go to Israel today and TRY to find a genotypical average Jew of the area that looks like that caricature that Popular Mechanics skeptics created... with its dull deer in the headlights visage... That was done by the artists deliberately."

OK, let's start here, since you seem to misunderstand factually what is going on.

I have no reason to suspect the 2002 Popular Mechanics article was factually in error, but what exactly did they actually say?

"Using methods similar to those police have developed to solve crimes, British scientists, assisted by Israeli archeologists, have re-created what they believe is the most accurate image (above) of the most famous face in human history.

"...Neave emphasizes that his re-creation is simply that of an adult man who lived in the same place and at the same time as Jesus."

They said they took measurements of 1st century Jerusalem skeletons and, based on those, they reconstructed a typical "average" face of Jesus' contemporaries. That is what we see here:

The question then is: how closely did Jesus resemble his contemporaries? Many modern biblical scholars would say: he looked pretty much like that. Take away the "deer in the headlights" look, add a more noble expression, and sure, that's likely just what he looked like.

Does it look anything like the Shroud image? I don't think so, but if anyone could seriously explain how my "lying eyes" are not telling the truth -- for examples, maybe the Shroud face is not as narrow as it seems, maybe the hair was not really considered unusually long -- then that would make a difference.

As to the "average height" of 1st century Judeans, here's what the Popular Mechanics article says:

"The historic record also resolved the issue of Jesus's height. From an analysis of skeletal remains, archeologists had firmly established that the average build of a Semite male at the time of Jesus was 5 ft. 1 in., with an average weight of about 110 pounds."

Is this in error? My theory is that it's not, but the word "average" depends on which samples you select. If you select bones from expensive ossuaries, then you'll get a higher "average." If you select more common skeletons, the "average" will be much lower.

Again, the question becomes: which group did Jesus belong to? I think both the Bible and modern scholarship suggests Jesus was much more of a "common man," and therefore shorter in stature.

The Shroud image is obviously not short.

Now, before we go further, can I get you to acknowledge that you at least understand the facts and argument being presented here?

[urtax$@work]

Missing years of shroud just after the crXfXn was possibly located at Odessa, .

from Goddard Flight Ctr: The Shroud, Lynn noted, has had along and fascinating, if often unsubstantiated, history. British historian Ian Wilson traced the shroud to Odessa, a city in Asia-minor, during the time of Constantine in the early 300’s A.D. The shroud was,at that time, called the Cloth of Odessa.

It is conjected that Constantine took the cloth, which was supposed to have the image of Christ’s face upon it, to Con-stantinople. It is also interesting to note,according to Wilson, the likeness between the face on the shroud and the many Byzantine paintings of the face of Christ.References to the shroud stopped inof Turinthe early 1300’s, about the time when Constantinople was sacked by the Crusaders. Evidently, according to Wilson, it is possible that the Crusaders brought theshroud back to France. It was first traced to Paris and later Lirey in 1355.

[Swordmaker]

"The historic record also resolved the issue of Jesus's height. From an analysis of skeletal remains, archeologists had firmly established that the average build of a Semite male at the time of Jesus was 5 ft. 1 in., with an average weight of about 110 pounds."

Find me a source other than Popular Mechanics that cites that figure. I can't find it. Believe me. I've looked... so have others. Neave and the "scientist" cited in the PM article did not submit their work to peer-review. They published it in popular journals. Where are the articles on this earth shaking finding in Biblical Archaeology Review, or Anthropology Letters, Mediterranean Archaeology & Archaeometry, Journal of Field Archaeology, Ethnohistory, Papers from the Institute of Archaeology,or Near Eastern Archaeology? They DON'T EXIST because it isn't science and the findings are TWADDLE.

Just because a popular press magazine article written by skeptics cites it as fact does not make it so. On the other hand I have present several article in which authorities have cited facts that deny that article... from peer reviewed archaeological journals and books written by qualified archaeologists.

Now, before we go further, can I get you to acknowledge that you at least understand the facts and argument being presented here?

I completely understand your argument... it is your "facts" I am challenging as being wrong... and based not on science... or based on science that has been falsified.

You go and find those studies of 1st century jewish skeletons of MATURE MALE skeletons showing a 5 foot 1 inch (155 cm) average height and bring citations from peer reviewed journals... MATURE MALE SKELETONS... not mere census data of all skeletons excavated, which include female, male, all ages, but those identified as belonging only to mature males, then you can argue the point. But you cannot because all you have is an unattributed claim in a popular press article. . . based on "common sense," and your theory about what class Jesus must have been a member of.

[annalex]

The juxtaposition of “the Church refuses” and “more reliable” could be inadvertent on your part, but because of it I needed to clarify the reason for refusing further carbon testing at this point.

[BroJoeK]

Swordmaker: "Find me a source other than Popular Mechanics that cites that figure. I can't find it. Believe me. I've looked... so have others... Where are the articles on this earth shaking finding in Biblical Archaeology Review... They DON'T EXIST because it isn't science and the findings are TWADDLE. "

Here is what Biblical Archaeology Review reported in its January 2003 edition:

"Sandwiched between photos of dirtbikes and high-tech gadgets, “The Real Face of Jesus” peers out from the December 2002 issue of Popular Mechanics (yes, Popular Mechanics) magazine. The accompanying article describes how Richard Neave, a medical artist in Britain, has tried to create a historically accurate portrait of Jesus using the latest techniques in forensic anthropology, such as computer programs that determine the thickness of facial tissues. After studying the characteristics of well-preserved skulls from the Jerusalem of Jesus’ day, Neave was able to make a composite—the full-faced, broad-nosed bust pictured here.

"Just how accurate is the portrait? Without the remains of Jesus or any of his close relatives, we’ll never know. We can’t even say for sure that the portrait represents the “average” ancient Jerusalemite: Neave based his composite on only three skulls, and, in any case, forensics can’t identify features like hair color, eye color and skin tone.

"Nevertheless, Neave’s Jesus may serve as a useful corrective to overly Westernized images of Christ. Olive-skinned, curly-haired and stocky, the bust reminds us of Jesus’ Middle Eastern origins."

B.A.R.'s most recent article on the Shroud of Turin is dated November 2000: "Does Pollen Prove the Shroud Authentic?"

"But even if the evidence of these two plants can be linked to the shroud, the known geographical range of Gundelia tournefortii covers most of the Middle East and large regions of Iraq, Iran and Turkey."

Swordmaker: "all you have is an unattributed claim in a popular press article. . . based on "common sense," and your theory about what class Jesus must have been a member of."

Certainly not just my theory. We're talking here about the efforts of generations of modern biblical scholars -- for whatever that might be worth...

The argument for a lower "average height" is based on the universal experience of "peasants" everywhere -- poorly nourished as children, they grow up shorter. When economic conditions improve, those same peasants' children begin to grow taller -- sometimes much taller.

So the question remains: which group did Jesus belong to? Was he a "common man" -- academically referred to as a "marginal Jew" -- or did he grow up in privileged circumstances which allowed him to grow taller?

If Jesus' family economic circumstances were in any way "privileged" then there's little historical or other data I know of hinting of it. Nearly everything we have suggests his life was as hard as they come.

I say "nearly" because of Luke 2:41. But how does that really prove anything so economically unusual for his time?

Anyway, the fact remains that the Shroud is revered by many (i.e., Wpin) as the image of Christ. For those who just can't see Christ in the Shroud, the question remains: then who is it?

Some have suggested a Knight Templar, no doubt as revenge on the Church which helped destroy them. But as you, Swordmaker, have pointed out, that can be disproved by earlier references to the Shroud, and by (eventually) more reliable carbon-14 or other dating.

But, pending better dating, one connection which immediately makes sense comes from post #235 just above: Roman Emperor Constantine.

"The Roman Emperor Constantine the Great converted to Christianity following his victory at the Battle of Milvian Bridge in 312. Under his rule, Christianity rose to become the dominant religion in the Roman Empire, and for his example of a "Christian monarch" Constantine is revered as a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodox Church."

[BroJoeK]

By the way, I've taken time to go back and read every article and most of the comments published by Biblical Archaeology Review on the Shroud of Turin, and on some related subjects. The most recent Shroud comment is dated June 2001.

BAR seems generally anti-Shroud -- meaning as of 2001, they suspected it a midieval forgery. This was based on carbon-14 dating plus analysis of various Shroud chemistries, pollen images and historical context. But there have not been any more-recent articles acknowledging manifest problems with the carbon-14 dating. So no way to tell what they might say differently today.

Nevertheless, BAR has also printed articles and comments by decidedly pro-Shroud authors.

Here are some interesting quotes:

• Kohlbeck & Nickowski, July 1986: "The parallels between the victims at Dachau and the heatstroke victims studied in Israel and the trauma Jesus endured before and during crucifixion are staggering. They may provide a solution for the onslaught of Jesus’ sudden death during crucifixion when added to Dr. Barbet’s conclusion that death in crucifixion results from asphyxiation. From the agony, beginning Thursday evening, to his death on the cross Friday afternoon, Jesus suffered severe dehydration from sweating, blood loss and lack of fluid intake, which was compounded by lack of sleep and extreme physical exertion. If these conditions overloaded his body’s ability to dissipate the high temperature thereby produced, and heatstroke was induced, a new list of agonies can be added to those already known."

  "In any event, a great deal of body heat is produced by crucifixion. This body heat in combination with the mildly alkaline content of the Jerusalem limestone environment of the shroud might well have resulted in a mercerization process that attacked the outer skin of the fibers of the shroud, leaving the yellowish-tone color of the image—the same color found when the Jerusalem limestone paste was applied to new linen fibers."

• Wendy Miller, July 1986: "Faint images appear on the cloth—images of the front and back of an unclothed man, about 5 feet 7 inches tall, with long hair and a beard.

  "In a statement on the 1357 display, a local bishop denounced the shroud as a fraud. The bishop said that the shroud was 'cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it.' "

• Editor comment from July 1999: "When the shroud went on display in spring 1998 for the first time in 20 years, BAR weighed in on the centuries-old controversy over its authenticity. We reported that although radiocarbon tests have dated the cloth to 1260–1390 A.D., the depiction of what appears to be a crucified man seemed too accurate to have been the handiwork of a medieval artist (“Remains to Be Seen,” Strata, BAR 24:04).

  "However, Gary Vikan, director of the Walters Art Gallery, in Baltimore, and adjunct professor of art at Johns Hopkins University, and Walter C. McCrone, director emeritus of the McCrone Research Institute in Chicago, disagreed. In our November/December 1998 issue (see “Made By Human Hands: Debunking The Shroud,” BAR 24:06), McCrone concluded that the shroud’s shadowy image was produced not by Jesus’ blood and sweat but by a 14th-century artist using paint.

  "Noting the ubiquity of relic forgery in western Europe, Vikan found no reason to object to the scientific—and historical—evidence that points to the shroud’s medieval provenance."

• Walter McCrone, March 2001: "Vaughn M. Bryant, Jr., quotes Uri Baruch to the effect that 37 pollen on the Frei tapes came from Israel or Turkey. I have reason to doubt this conclusion because I doubt the shroud was ever in Israel or Turkey.

  "At the microscopic level, the shroud image is observed to be entirely paint (red ochre and vermilion in a gelatin binder).

  "I believe the bishop in Lirey, France, who was quoted in about 1355 as saying that he knew the artist who painted it. The carbon date for the linen canvas was reported in 1988 to be 1325, in good agreement with the bishop’s date of 1355."

• W.H. MacFarlane, May 2001: "The figure on the Shroud of Turin is about 5 feet 11 inches tall. Typical adult men during the time of Jesus were slightly over 5 feet. If Jesus had been 5 feet 11 inches, his stature would surely have been noted somewhere."

The old carbon-14 dating has since been discredited, but new dating not yet attempted.
In the mean time, B.A.R. has published no new articles or comments on the Shroud in over eight years. Curious.

There are no B.A.R. articles on studies of "average heights" of any ancient peoples, Jewish or otherwise.

[Wpin]

“Interesting fact... the heights of medieval knights was thought to be fairly short because of measurements of surviving suits of armor. That has since been found to be erroneous. Excavations of burials of knights have found that they were actually fairly robust and tall men. In most cases indistinguishable from the heights of modern men. The food the knights received as children was usually excellent, being of the nobility, and therefore they were not deprived of anything in their childhood.”

I cannot help but wonder where in the heck you get your information. Knights ate better than peasants, but to say they ate “excellent” is ignorant of history. Indeed, we see knights from one region taller than knights from another depending on how well one region is doing compared to the other during specific time frames. The diet in Europe varied in terms of adequacy much more than today and even much more than in some areas during the Bronze age. Body heights fluctuated accordingly. But, the nut of our topic would relate it to the shroud, you believe that your hypothesis (which is wrong) that knights were taller on average...than jews were on average...a millenium plus before constitutes evidence that the Shroud has to be a fake...and your evidence that Jesus is not tall is that because Judas pointed him out to the Romans that came to arrest him...that is ridiculous and any reasonable individual understands that. Again, I ask you...what genetic traits does God have? God is the father of Jesus Christ after all...or are you saying that you have proof that God is not the father of Jesus? If so, let’s hear it...