20 Dec '05 03:25>
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesA) I think there are very few people who maintain that the wounds
A) The physics of crucifixation pertaining to the placement of the nails.
B) The account of Thomas observing holes in Jesus' hands.
C) The location of stigamata bleeding.
D) The blood stains on the Turin shroud.
inflicted in the crucifixion actually were placed on the palms, as is
often depicted. There has been sufficient study of the physiology of
the human body to indicate that palm-wounds will not support the
weight of the crucified. Archeologically, they have found parts of
crucified remains which have the nail driven just above the wrist
between the ulna and radius (as I recall).
B) Let's set aside, for a moment, that the St John account is decidedly
different than the other post-Resurrection accounts and, from a
historical standpoint, is probably spurious (although, it makes for a
wonderful commentary on faith). Wulebgr touched briefly on the issue
of 'hand' as a translation issue. I've heard the same myself, though
I haven't looked into it. My understanding is that the word that is
rendered 'hand' doesn't precisely mean that, but I am not sure.
C) The Church does not take a stance on where the wounds should
occur; for example, Padre Pio's 'side wound' occurred on the left side,
whereas the most famous stigmatic, St Francis of Assisi, had the same
wound, but on the right side. The Church has acknowledge those
with wounds both in palms and wrists.
D) The Shroud of Turin has wounds through the wrists and on the
left side, if I recall correctly.
Nemesio