It may tell you that, but it doesn't tell me that. 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.
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".
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?
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."
But only one attracted over 10,000 views -- this one. The current count is almost 13,000 and that is nearly 1,000 more than when wpin recently "reactivated" it. Indeed, it's almost double the number of the second most viewed Shroud thread. And two more threads on this same article attracted another 4,000 veiws.
Amazing...