[LS]

I don’t follow this much and certainly don’t want to argue but have heard that one of the main “dis proofs” is that the wounds on the shroud are in the hands while crucifixion occurred through the wrist bones?

[sphinx]

Someone reversed the story on you. The shroud shows the nail wounds in the wrists, in opposition to the medieval artistic convention of nails though the palm of the hand.

[papertyger]

The Shroud does actually show wounds at the wrist.

The palm of the hand wounds are actually a notion I suspect arises from some unfortunate misunderstandings of how “hand” is defined in the source language.

[Alberta's Child]

The wounds in the Shroud are in the wrists, not the hands.

This is actually a compelling piece of evidence in support of the Shroud's authenticity. The Shroud was allegedly dated back to the 1100-1200 period by carbon dating, but works of art throughout history that depict the crucifixion show the nails in the hands, not the wrist. If someone from that period wanted to make a credible fake shroud, then surely he would have created it in a way that would replicate the images that people would have been familiar with at the time.

It wasn't until centuries later that it was determined that it wasn't physically/anatomically possible to crucify someone with nails through the hands.

[wbarmy]

the wounds on the shroud are in the hands while crucifixion occurred through the wrist bones?

That theory comes from some writings and a video done more than 30 years ago. The idea was that a nail through the hand would not support the full weight of the body and tear through the flesh, while a nail in-between the joints of the wrist would.

However, the whole body's weight never rested totally on the hands. Weight was on the feet, through a nail in the ankles, and in many cases, rope was tied around the arms to help hold the person on the cross.

The Bible states again and again that the holes are in the hands.

[FourtySeven]

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.

[Not gonna take it anymore]

The wounds on the shroud are on the wrists.

An analysis of the Shroud of Turin, which many believe to be the actual burial shroud of Jesus Christ, shows a blood print in the location of the bones of the wrist (see the shroud.com web site: http://www.shroud.com/meacham2.htm).

This analysis is in agreement with those medical experts who conclude that the nails of crucifixion would have to be placed between the wrist bones in order to support the weight of a man. Furthermore, a nail placed through the space of Destot (between the wrist bones) would injure the Median nerve and likely cause the thumb to turn inward.

On the Shroud of Turin, Christ’s thumbs are not visible, perhaps for this very reason.

http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article16.htm

[Boogieman]

The “Abba” cave discovered in Jerusalem held the remains of a crucified man. He was crucified through the hands, not the wrist:

https://jamestabor.com/the-abba-cave-crucifixion-nails-and-the-last-hasmonean-king/

[Arthur McGowan]

The wounds on the Shroud are in the wrists.

[Swordmaker]

I don’t follow this much and certainly don’t want to argue but have heard that one of the main “dis proofs” is that the wounds on the shroud are in the hands while crucifixion occurred through the wrist bones?

Nope, LS, it is actually that's just the opposite. The image on the Shroud shows exit wounds coming out the back of the wrist of one crossed over arm, but there is a place on the base of the palm, where a natural pathway opens between the bones of the hand that Roman soldiers skilled in the art of crucifixion would know that exits exactly at the point seen on the Shroud.

If the nail were driven in the center of the palm, as artists depicted it for centuries, the weight of the body would tear through with the motion of a man in agony during crucifixion. Even the dead weight of a deceased body would do so, and multiple accounts of historians tell of bodies remaining on crosses for weeks show this did not happen.

The one extant example of a 1st Century crucifixion victim we have, Jehohannan, has a nails still in his arm, shows that the nail was driven through even farther up, through the forearm.

So the image on the Shroud is right, the images drawn by artists wrong.