What I am trying to say is that the wounds observed in the shroud match both the description given in Ps 22:16 and the anatomical fact that nails through the "hand" (i.e. metacarpals) would not be able to support the weigh of a person.
The Hebrew term for hand also doesn’t make a clear distinction of the forearm from the hand. The Greek may be more specific, but it typically is a translation of an Aramaic account which shares many of the broader meanings of terms that Hebrew does. This might or might not reflect a precise account of the crucifixion details. The cross isn’t even clearly documented to be the Roman cross we know of today. Perhaps this vagueness is purposeful, to head off an over-reverence of minor detail.
Good discussion, but Dr. Zugibe who has done the most crucifixion pathology of anyone, determined in the 90s that the palms will support the body in this instance because the feet are supported by a crossbar. Dr. Zugibe describes the nail going through the crease of the thumb (in the palm) and then downward to an exit through the top of the wrist. This actually did support the victim a little better, yet confirms the many early images, paintings, and stigmata showing the wrist wound. This nailing method also breaks no bones. Zugibe’s volunteers further reported they could breathe quite normally in a sagging position. Christ died from severe trauma, of many different kinds, and not from asphyxiation. The Two Criminals had their legs broken as a “coup de grace” inflicting unacceptable trauma, and not because they would have asphyxiated. It was also thought that, if the Romans somehow were wrong about the person being dead, that it would keep the victim from crawling away. Google “Zugibe” and “Shroud”.
Thank you for that reply. My puzzle is that the pictures I see of those with the stigmata show the wound in the center of the hand. I am wondering if the shroud is right then why not the same location for those with the stigmata.