[sauron]

Interestingly, the puncture wounds on his arms go through his wrists and not hands which is contrary to long held assumptions but was consistent with forgotten historical facts on Roman Crucifixion.

With regard to puncture wounds in wrists, rather than palms:

(1) The hand couldn't support the weight of the body via a single nail, and

(2) as it turns out, IIRC in Koine Greek, the definition of "hand" included the immediate wrist area with it, rather than associating the wrist with the arm (like we do in our culture).

Thus, the Shroud appears to be logically consistent with what would be expected.

Sauron

[rdcbn]

This is consistent with the original Greek, but pretty much all artists and sculpture over hundreds of years depicted punctures in the palms of the hands which we now know would have torn through in practice.

In fact, the reason it is now universally accepted that Jesus would have been nailed to a cross comes from forensic analysis of the Shroud in the last 30 years, which corrected the historical record.

It was not really until an examination of the shroud showed the punctures through the wrists that historians investigated this.

They found that first off, nailing people to the cross was very rare, They usually were tied to the cross because this method prolonged the length of the suffering, often for several days, which the Romans felt was more effective form of punishment and more effective lesson and deterrent to the people who witnessed the Cruicfiction .

They also found that piercing the wrists was the procedure actually used, not through the hands as has been universally depicted in paintings and sculpture.

The significance of this is that if some medieval forger were to have faked the shroud, the person almost certainly would have painted the piercings as being located in the palms of the hands as was pretty much universally assumed for hundreds of years.