The Turin Shroud

Sep 2013
411
France
#91
Not a medieval but it seems they changed the standard


I shot the image in Reims, France
Yes I know that nowaday it's known that men were crucified with nails in the winkels, but it was totally unknown in the medieval era. So the shroud of Turin seems to be the only medieval artifact with such a representation.
 
Sep 2013
411
France
#93
In the wrists yes, sorry.
Recent studies have shown that men were crucified with nails in the wrists, but it was totally forgotten in medieval times, and until recently. We know it from tests made on dead bodies. Corpses can't get fix with nails in palms. And we have recently found skeleton of a crucified men with nails in the wrists. That's why all the past representations of Christ show him with nails in his hands. All... Except the Turin shroud apparently...
 

Maribat

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
5,048
#94
And we have recently found skeleton of a crucified men with nails in the wrists. That's why all the past representations of Christ show him with nails in his hands. All... Except the Turin shroud apparently...
I know about two skeletons with nails (one nail and one hole in the bone) in the ankle bones. I don't know nothing about skeletons with nails in the wrists. Give me a link to that news s.v.p.
 
Sep 2013
411
France
#95
Found this with a Quick search on Google. Guess you can find other links on that matter.

Redirect Notice

Anyway, the representation on the shroud is unique for the medieval era, no other picture or sculpture show a crucified man with nails on the wrists. If you are aware of such a representation, please show us some evidence.
 

Maribat

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
5,048
#96
Found this with a Quick search on Google. Guess you can find other links on that matter.

Redirect Notice

Anyway, the representation on the shroud is unique for the medieval era, no other picture or sculpture show a crucified man with nails on the wrists. If you are aware of such a representation, please show us some evidence.
The link you gave me stated that the only evidence for the crucifiction in the ancient world we have so far is the nail in the foot bone. It says nothing about nails in the wrists.
 
Sep 2013
411
France
#97
"When nails were involved, they were long and square (about 15cm long and 1cm thick) and were driven into the victim’s wrists or forearms to fix him to the crossbar."

"they were unconvinced that the scratch on the wrist bone was related to traumatic injury."


I Guess a simple search request would give other informations.

Please provide me some Links if you find any other medieval representation of a Man crucified like the one on the Turin shroud.
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
26,232
Italy, Lago Maggiore
#98
About where were the nails ... the Shroud actually seems not to be in agreement with the Gospels ... so we could wonder if the authors of the Gospels knew how Roman crucifixed or if they followed more than one method ...

John 20:24-29
24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”
But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
This passage is the main reference for the Medieval depictions of Jesus on the Cross [and for the stigmatas of the Catholic Saints].

Once I read that probably it's a problem of translation from the original language of Jews of that time [the Gospels we've got had written in Greek]. Anyway I'm not in condition to check this.
 
Aug 2010
16,179
Welsh Marches
#99
About where were the nails ... the Shroud actually seems not to be in agreement with the Gospels ... so we could wonder if the authors of the Gospels knew how Roman crucifixed or if they followed more than one method ...

John 20:24-29


This passage is the main reference for the Medieval depictions of Jesus on the Cross [and for the stigmatas of the Catholic Saints].

Once I read that probably it's a problem of translation from the original language of Jews of that time [the Gospels we've got had written in Greek]. Anyway I'm not in condition to check this.
χείρ naturally translated as hand, thus manus in the vulgate in the relevant passages; in ancient Greek not as definite, can include the arm; I'm not sure that the wrist would be excluded in NT Greek, when the chains fall of Peter's 'hands' in Acts 12, it is plainly from his wrists. There is no early iconography for the crucifixion prior to the 5th or 6th Century as far as I know, and the artists were thus presumably following their interpretation of the relevant biblical passages rather than any oral tradition about the nature of the crucifixion.

Good point about stigmata, they appear on the hand, where the person in question would expect the nails to have gone in accordance with tradition; I think that the phenomenon is ultimately psychosomatic (which doesn't actually make it much less extraordinary).
 
Last edited:
Sep 2014
1,194
Queens, NYC
I must retract the following statements I made in post 75 on page 8:

The head was always visible, it was the attraction in the Medieval and post-Medieval time.
But-the body was not. It was first shown in 1898. No reference to the body before then.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-line research has found some references to the body being discerned on the shroud in the medieval period.
 

Similar History Discussions