Replies

"I suggest you go to Israel today and TRY to find a genotypical average Jew of the area that looks like that caricature that Popular Mechanics skeptics created... with its dull deer in the headlights visage... That was done by the artists deliberately."

OK, let's start here, since you seem to misunderstand factually what is going on.

I have no reason to suspect the 2002 Popular Mechanics article was factually in error, but what exactly did they actually say?

"Using methods similar to those police have developed to solve crimes, British scientists, assisted by Israeli archeologists, have re-created what they believe is the most accurate image (above) of the most famous face in human history.
"...Neave emphasizes that his re-creation is simply that of an adult man who lived in the same place and at the same time as Jesus."

They said they took measurements of 1st century Jerusalem skeletons and, based on those, they reconstructed a typical "average" face of Jesus' contemporaries. That is what we see here:

The question then is: how closely did Jesus resemble his contemporaries? Many modern biblical scholars would say: he looked pretty much like that. Take away the "deer in the headlights" look, add a more noble expression, and sure, that's likely just what he looked like.

Does it look anything like the Shroud image? I don't think so, but if anyone could seriously explain how my "lying eyes" are not telling the truth -- for examples, maybe the Shroud face is not as narrow as it seems, maybe the hair was not really considered unusually long -- then that would make a difference.

As to the "average height" of 1st century Judeans, here's what the Popular Mechanics article says:

"The historic record also resolved the issue of Jesus's height. From an analysis of skeletal remains, archeologists had firmly established that the average build of a Semite male at the time of Jesus was 5 ft. 1 in., with an average weight of about 110 pounds."

Is this in error? My theory is that it's not, but the word "average" depends on which samples you select. If you select bones from expensive ossuaries, then you'll get a higher "average." If you select more common skeletons, the "average" will be much lower.

Again, the question becomes: which group did Jesus belong to? I think both the Bible and modern scholarship suggests Jesus was much more of a "common man," and therefore shorter in stature.

The Shroud image is obviously not short.

Now, before we go further, can I get you to acknowledge that you at least understand the facts and argument being presented here?

"The historic record also resolved the issue of Jesus's height. From an analysis of skeletal remains, archeologists had firmly established that the average build of a Semite male at the time of Jesus was 5 ft. 1 in., with an average weight of about 110 pounds."

Find me a source other than Popular Mechanics that cites that figure. I can't find it. Believe me. I've looked... so have others. Neave and the "scientist" cited in the PM article did not submit their work to peer-review. They published it in popular journals. Where are the articles on this earth shaking finding in Biblical Archaeology Review, or Anthropology Letters, Mediterranean Archaeology & Archaeometry, Journal of Field Archaeology, Ethnohistory, Papers from the Institute of Archaeology,or Near Eastern Archaeology? They DON'T EXIST because it isn't science and the findings are TWADDLE.

Just because a popular press magazine article written by skeptics cites it as fact does not make it so. On the other hand I have present several article in which authorities have cited facts that deny that article... from peer reviewed archaeological journals and books written by qualified archaeologists.

Now, before we go further, can I get you to acknowledge that you at least understand the facts and argument being presented here?

I completely understand your argument... it is your "facts" I am challenging as being wrong... and based not on science... or based on science that has been falsified.

You go and find those studies of 1st century jewish skeletons of MATURE MALE skeletons showing a 5 foot 1 inch (155 cm) average height and bring citations from peer reviewed journals... MATURE MALE SKELETONS... not mere census data of all skeletons excavated, which include female, male, all ages, but those identified as belonging only to mature males, then you can argue the point. But you cannot because all you have is an unattributed claim in a popular press article. . . based on "common sense," and your theory about what class Jesus must have been a member of.