Replies

"Even if Jesus did look different than the rest of the "group," I'm not sure why that would be an indicator to the apprehenders."

The New Testament provides us with no direct information on Jesus' physical appearance. But in three places that I could find it suggests he was not markedly different from his contemporaries:

1 Corinthians 11:14 (NIV):

"Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him..."

Luke 4: 28-30 (NIV):

"All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him down the cliff. But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way."

Mark 14: 43-44 (NIV):

"Just as he was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared. With him was a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders.
"Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: "The one I kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard.""

The suggestion in these verses -- and certainly only a suggestion -- is that Jesus was not markedly different in appearance from his contemporaries. Else, how could Paul condemn his long hair, or Jesus disappear in a crowd, or need to be specially identified amongst his disciples?

So the Bible's suggestion is that Jesus was entirely ordinary looking -- ordinary for a 1st century Jew. Did the "average" 1st century Jew look like the Shroud image?

Highly doubtful. The Shroud image seems too tall, it's face is too narrow and hair too long.

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".

That's it. That's the whole argument in a nutshell. It tells me the Shroud image is unlikely to be that of Jesus, even if carbon-14 dating showed its age as approximately correct.

What new information might change this opinion?

Reliable scientific dating, demonstrating an appropriate age.
A strong explanation of how "long hair" being disgraceful should not apply to the Shroud image.
A more thorough review of the Shroud image height compared to "average" heights at the time.
A comparison of the Shroud's facial dimensions to those of other 1st century Jews. Are Shoud image dimensions "average" or outliers?

For whatever it's worth: such new data could at least allow the possibility of an authentic Shroud image, imho. Until then, we have to say, "most unlikely."

The New Testament quotes don't do all that much. The Nazarites did not cut their hair, nor is it easy to imagine St. John the Baptist giving himself a crew cut. In 1 Corinthians 11 there is actually no "long", literally, St. Paul says that hair in itself is a disgrace to a man, "κομα ατιμια αυτω εστιν" (St. Paul himself, according to iconography, was bald). The literal reading is thereby excluded, and idiomatic readings are many: then men, unlike women, naturally grow bald, or that men are not preoccupied with their hair (That was the favorite of Jerome's, who translated "si comam nutriat, ignominia est illi"). There certainly is no sign of hair grooming in the Man on the Shroud. Or, perhaps, that men cannot cover their face with their hair and women can, -- but the Man on the Shroud, uncombed and with prominent sidecurls (here's that mandatory hair again), couldn't do that as well, he'd need hair down half his back to do so.

The miraculous escape episode in Luke 4 could mean many things, but that Jesus was able to sneak by unnoticed is not one of them, since the crowd had no difficulty not only locating Him, but dragging Him to the cliff. I could just as plausibly argue that Jesus physically intimidated his assailants BY his large stature, although most likely natural explanation is His commanding psychological presence, many times attested to in the Gospels.

The kiss of Judas is a necessity for two reasons, none having to do with Jesus's not physically standing out. First, let us recall that Judas most likely held no personal enmity to Jesus, -- he was, after all a longtime apostle, and later repented. The kiss was therefore, a sign that he, Judas wanted to give, to signal the complexity of his feelings to Jesus and to others.

Secondly, put yourself in the position of the military officer. You are going to pick and arrest just one man out of twelve or more, at night. Would you be satisfied with the instruction "pick the tall one"? For all you know they may be all lying down asleep, when it is difficult to observe height, it will be dark, and there may be (indeed there was) a scuffle. I think, the officer asked Judas to identify Christ on the spot rather than by description.

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!"