Replies

Because you guys have re-activated this thread, I am pinging the Shroud of Turin Ping list group to it for discussion if they choose to participate...

Well, I'd say that Swordmaker has selected his data rather carefully, since the usual numbers for the Shroud range up to 6 ft 2 inches.

The only "researchers" who claim a 6 ft 2in height for the image on the Shroud are skeptics who have exaggerated the measurements and who haven't bothered to investigate the actual science that has been done and instead prefer to just toss pot shots at the Shroud.

Several peer reviewed examinations done by forensic pathologists have placed the height of the man on the Shroud as just slightly above the 176±2 cm (or 5 foot 9 3/10±1 inch) average height that a recent survey of male skeletons found to be the case in data from the excavations collected from all 1st Century Palestinian Jewish cemetery Ossuaries, That's science, not speculation; not cherry picking. Cherry picking is what the skeptics used. The ROMANs were 5' 6±1 inch average height according to data from their cemetaries... not the people of the Palestine province.

B) the average Semitic male in 1st century Israel was about 5 ft 10 inches tall.

I did not "argue" that the average Semitic Male of 1st Century Israel was 5' 10" tall. That is a strawman you just tossed in, hinting it is not a fact. I provided the accurate data from archaeological scientific journals that FOUND that to be the case from examining actual skeletons in (I think it was six) 1st Century Jerusalem cemetaries. Meacham's data I quoted in 133 was accurate for the (6) cemeteries in Jerusalem that had been surveyed, but later data from cemeteries from throughout the Holy Land area have reduced that finding from 178±2 cm or approximately 70±1 inch average height to 176±2 cm or 69 3/10±1 inch, including the data from the Jerusalem cemeteries. Most current anthropology charts put the height of the average 1st Century Jewish men at only 1/4" to 1/2" shorter than the height of the average American man.

In post 133, I quoted the literature as follows:

"The height of the Man of the Shroud turned out to be 174±2 cm (Emphasis mine—Swordmaker), the rotation angle of the knee (β+γ) equal to 24±2° and the rotation angle of the foot δ equal to 25±2°. "

That's the science. That's what was actually measured from the shroud. No speculation, no guessing. No arguments. No strawmen. Measurements. FACTS. DATA. No opinion. Do you understand the difference?

That would put the calculated height (based on the measured tibio-femoral index, a standard measurement used by anthropologists around the world) of the man on the Shroud at 174±2 cm or approximately 5 ft. 7.25 inches to 5 ft. 9.25 inches tall well within the normal range for men of 1st Century Israel.

You use a toss off one line from Wikipedia, which can be edited by any schmoe who chooses to change it, as your evidence of 6' 2", while I provided a complete quotation from TWO peer-reviewed scientific papers to establish my facts which complete refute that claim, and do so with evidence.

I also point out that your cartoonish Barney Rubble, deer-in-the-hearlights, picture above, also prepared by skeptics, would be argued against be experts, and was, vehemently so, when first published by Popular Mechanics, which is hardly a scientific journal, and certainly is not peer-reviewed. In post 133, I pointed out that again experts have identified the man on the shroud as an archetypical ethnic. As I quoted to you, even in modern times, you will find many similar body types in Israel and the middle east, again from a scholarly report:

Anthropologists will disagree with you. "Carleton Coon (quoted in Wilcox 1977:133) describes the man as "of a physical type found in modern times among Sephardic Jews and noble Arabs." Curto (quoted in Sox 1981:70, 131), however, describes the physiognomy as more Iranian than Semitic." ibid Meacham."

Again, that is peer-reviewed Anthropological science (although, I have to admit that I would have to call that informed opinion), not just the uninformed opinion of some one who looks at it and says "Gee, that doesn't look like a semitic person to me," based on your prejudices.

In addition, you have to account for the background noise of the matrix on which the image is imprinted. When you removed that background noise, you find a somewhat different image. The Shroud was hank bleached, meaning the spun flax was draped as hanked yarn over bushes in the sun, a common practice in the 1st Century, instead of being bleached as a finished cloth, which was the practice in medieval times. As a result of that bleaching technique, the warp threads are variegated due to different exposure times and some groups are darker than those groups next to them. The groups on either side of the face on the Shroud are much darker than those on the face or toward the shoulders. When one adjusts the tones of the background with a computer to compensate for that difference, one can see the hidden portion of the image that was not visible before. The results are a bit startling because the image is not the same:

. . . . .

L: Normal negative image of face on the Shroud
R: Image adjusted to remove variation of background threads.

Not quite so "North European" now looking is it?

You can choose to ignore the science in favor of the non-science, but you do so without support or evidence to back up your position. . . and you can only do it by mis-representing my arguments and my evidence.

Swordmaker: "Because you guys have re-activated this thread,"

Sorry pal, I didn't intend to "re-activate" anything. Merely responded to some inaccurate insults from Wpin. Wpin, in turn noted that this thread was listed in the "Popular Articles" block (not there this morning), and I further noted nearly 12,000 views. Why Wpin felt compelled after nine months to insult me... well we can only guess.

Swordmaker: "The only "researchers" who claim a 6 ft 2in height for the image on the Shroud are skeptics who have exaggerated the measurements and who haven't bothered to investigate the actual science that has been done and instead prefer to just toss pot shots at the Shroud."

[snip]

Swordmaker: "You use a toss off one line from Wikipedia, which can be edited by any schmoe who chooses to change it, as your evidence of 6' 2", while I provided a complete quotation from TWO peer-reviewed scientific papers to establish my facts which complete refute that claim, and do so with evidence. "

I note your criticism of Wikipedia, and report to you that in this particular case, it is unwarranted.

The article references as it's source for the Shoud image's height this site: How Tall is the Man on the Shroud?
That site references FOUR different studies which range as follows:
1. Isabel Piczek, artist specializing in human anatomy. 5'11½" - 6'1"
2. Fanti, Marinelli, Cagnazzo (tibio-femoral indices calculations) 5'8" - 5'9"
3. Luigi Gedda (sagittal plane of face applied to anthropometric ratio) 6'0"
4. * Picknett and Prince (simple assumed face ratio) 6'8" - 6'10"
5. Picknett and Prince (corrected for logical fallacy) 5'9" - 6'1"
The very top figure of 6'2" comes from Isabel Piczek:

"I have approached the question of height from the design point of view - an image which describes a 3D object and vice-versa, including the problem of foreshortening. I have also analyzed body type, muscle structure and proportion.
"I determined the height to be 5'11½" to 6'1", give or take 1" for linen stretch and shrinking, both of which are possible. Because of the body type, even with shrinkage, the man cannot be under 5'11½". I lean more towards 6'0".
"Whether Jews in Jesus's time were smaller or larger is not relevant here. Jews were not small to start with, judging by the finds in the 1st century cemetery excavated near the wall of the Temple in the sixties."

In summary: Wikipedia's source here is entirely friendly to your side of the debate. It reported the facts as they are.

Swordmaker: "I did not "argue" that the average Semitic Male of 1st Century Israel was 5' 10" tall. That is a strawman you just tossed in, hinting it is not a fact."

In truth, it is NOT a "fact," but rather an argument -- a sound argument, but only up to a point. The logic of your argument is the following:

Since the average height of 1st century male skeletons analyzed in Jerusalem was 5' 10", therefore the average height of ALL Jewish males of that period was 5' 10".

I would simply point out that those Jews wealthy enough to receive an expensive burial were very likely healthier and therefore taller than your average man on the Jerusalem street. So which category did Jesus belong to -- wealthy, healthy and tall, or poor and significantly shorter?

swordmaker: "That's the science. That's what was actually measured from the shroud. No speculation, no guessing. No arguments. No strawmen. Measurements. FACTS. DATA. No opinion. Do you understand the difference?"

Indeed.

swordmaker: "Anthropologists will disagree with you. "Carleton Coon (quoted in Wilcox 1977:133) describes the man as "of a physical type found in modern times among Sephardic Jews and noble Arabs." Curto (quoted in Sox 1981:70, 131), however, describes the physiognomy as more Iranian than Semitic." ibid Meacham." ."

Pal, I noted this very carefully the first time you posted it. And it seemed to me the conclusion here was so obvious it did not need further amplification from me. Indeed, your willingness to post this particular data convinced me that you (unlike some others) are an honest person.

But apparently I was wrong about the need for amplification: "Curto... however, describes the physiognomy as more Iranian than Semitic." You know, of course, that Iranians / Persians are not Semitic, they are Indo-Europeans, aka Aryans.

And what historical or biblical evidence do we have that suggests Jesus may have come from Aryan ancestry? None that I know of.

swordmaker: "Not quite so "North European" now looking is it?"

Indeed, it's amazing what computer enhancement can do for photographs these days. So I guess the question is: who am I going to believe -- your computer or my own lying eyes? ;-)

swordmaker: "You can choose to ignore the science in favor of the non-science, but you do so without support or evidence to back up your position. . . and you can only do it by mis-representing my arguments and my evidence."

That's odd, because I remember our previous exchanges as being both polite and informative -- decidedly lacking in the all-too-frequent insults or disparagements from other posters. And I don't remember writing anything to bring on the current blasts you guys are throwing around.

Thanks for the ping.

Why is the height of the man on the Shroud a valid argument against authenticity even if it is taller than most contemporary Jews?

There are reasons to discard the argument from Popular Mechanics face even if the face on it is taken for granted.

Individual faces inside an ethnic group vary; it is simply an arghument of the kind “Jesus was not average”.

The bias against traditional Jesus imagery is evident in the artistic rendition, that has nothing to do with ethnic traits. Average 1c Jew has eyes of different sizes? Had constantly frightened (deer in headlights, as you put it) facial expression, with the brows raised? Never groomed his facial hair, but had the habit of cropping it? These are all arbitrary effects that the artist created, in order to cast a psychological impression of a confused and slightly funny, inattractive man, — in other words, to point away from the traditional perceptions of the character of Jesus. Anyone who did portrait art would know how subtle variations is the curve of the lip or eye lid or shape of strands of hair alter the psychology of the image, while referring faithfully to the same anatomy. That is not simply an Iranian, but a caricature Iranian.