[Swordmaker]

"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.

[BroJoeK]

Swordmaker: "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... Where are the articles on this earth shaking finding in Biblical Archaeology Review... They DON'T EXIST because it isn't science and the findings are TWADDLE. "

Here is what Biblical Archaeology Review reported in its January 2003 edition:

"Sandwiched between photos of dirtbikes and high-tech gadgets, “The Real Face of Jesus” peers out from the December 2002 issue of Popular Mechanics (yes, Popular Mechanics) magazine. The accompanying article describes how Richard Neave, a medical artist in Britain, has tried to create a historically accurate portrait of Jesus using the latest techniques in forensic anthropology, such as computer programs that determine the thickness of facial tissues. After studying the characteristics of well-preserved skulls from the Jerusalem of Jesus’ day, Neave was able to make a composite—the full-faced, broad-nosed bust pictured here.

"Just how accurate is the portrait? Without the remains of Jesus or any of his close relatives, we’ll never know. We can’t even say for sure that the portrait represents the “average” ancient Jerusalemite: Neave based his composite on only three skulls, and, in any case, forensics can’t identify features like hair color, eye color and skin tone.

"Nevertheless, Neave’s Jesus may serve as a useful corrective to overly Westernized images of Christ. Olive-skinned, curly-haired and stocky, the bust reminds us of Jesus’ Middle Eastern origins."

B.A.R.'s most recent article on the Shroud of Turin is dated November 2000: "Does Pollen Prove the Shroud Authentic?"

"But even if the evidence of these two plants can be linked to the shroud, the known geographical range of Gundelia tournefortii covers most of the Middle East and large regions of Iraq, Iran and Turkey."

Swordmaker: "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."

Certainly not just my theory. We're talking here about the efforts of generations of modern biblical scholars -- for whatever that might be worth...

The argument for a lower "average height" is based on the universal experience of "peasants" everywhere -- poorly nourished as children, they grow up shorter. When economic conditions improve, those same peasants' children begin to grow taller -- sometimes much taller.

So the question remains: which group did Jesus belong to? Was he a "common man" -- academically referred to as a "marginal Jew" -- or did he grow up in privileged circumstances which allowed him to grow taller?

If Jesus' family economic circumstances were in any way "privileged" then there's little historical or other data I know of hinting of it. Nearly everything we have suggests his life was as hard as they come.

I say "nearly" because of Luke 2:41. But how does that really prove anything so economically unusual for his time?

Anyway, the fact remains that the Shroud is revered by many (i.e., Wpin) as the image of Christ. For those who just can't see Christ in the Shroud, the question remains: then who is it?

Some have suggested a Knight Templar, no doubt as revenge on the Church which helped destroy them. But as you, Swordmaker, have pointed out, that can be disproved by earlier references to the Shroud, and by (eventually) more reliable carbon-14 or other dating.

But, pending better dating, one connection which immediately makes sense comes from post #235 just above: Roman Emperor Constantine.

"The Roman Emperor Constantine the Great converted to Christianity following his victory at the Battle of Milvian Bridge in 312. Under his rule, Christianity rose to become the dominant religion in the Roman Empire, and for his example of a "Christian monarch" Constantine is revered as a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodox Church."

[BroJoeK]

By the way, I've taken time to go back and read every article and most of the comments published by Biblical Archaeology Review on the Shroud of Turin, and on some related subjects. The most recent Shroud comment is dated June 2001.

BAR seems generally anti-Shroud -- meaning as of 2001, they suspected it a midieval forgery. This was based on carbon-14 dating plus analysis of various Shroud chemistries, pollen images and historical context. But there have not been any more-recent articles acknowledging manifest problems with the carbon-14 dating. So no way to tell what they might say differently today.

Nevertheless, BAR has also printed articles and comments by decidedly pro-Shroud authors.

Here are some interesting quotes:

• Kohlbeck & Nickowski, July 1986: "The parallels between the victims at Dachau and the heatstroke victims studied in Israel and the trauma Jesus endured before and during crucifixion are staggering. They may provide a solution for the onslaught of Jesus’ sudden death during crucifixion when added to Dr. Barbet’s conclusion that death in crucifixion results from asphyxiation. From the agony, beginning Thursday evening, to his death on the cross Friday afternoon, Jesus suffered severe dehydration from sweating, blood loss and lack of fluid intake, which was compounded by lack of sleep and extreme physical exertion. If these conditions overloaded his body’s ability to dissipate the high temperature thereby produced, and heatstroke was induced, a new list of agonies can be added to those already known."

  "In any event, a great deal of body heat is produced by crucifixion. This body heat in combination with the mildly alkaline content of the Jerusalem limestone environment of the shroud might well have resulted in a mercerization process that attacked the outer skin of the fibers of the shroud, leaving the yellowish-tone color of the image—the same color found when the Jerusalem limestone paste was applied to new linen fibers."

• Wendy Miller, July 1986: "Faint images appear on the cloth—images of the front and back of an unclothed man, about 5 feet 7 inches tall, with long hair and a beard.

  "In a statement on the 1357 display, a local bishop denounced the shroud as a fraud. The bishop said that the shroud was 'cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it.' "

• Editor comment from July 1999: "When the shroud went on display in spring 1998 for the first time in 20 years, BAR weighed in on the centuries-old controversy over its authenticity. We reported that although radiocarbon tests have dated the cloth to 1260–1390 A.D., the depiction of what appears to be a crucified man seemed too accurate to have been the handiwork of a medieval artist (“Remains to Be Seen,” Strata, BAR 24:04).

  "However, Gary Vikan, director of the Walters Art Gallery, in Baltimore, and adjunct professor of art at Johns Hopkins University, and Walter C. McCrone, director emeritus of the McCrone Research Institute in Chicago, disagreed. In our November/December 1998 issue (see “Made By Human Hands: Debunking The Shroud,” BAR 24:06), McCrone concluded that the shroud’s shadowy image was produced not by Jesus’ blood and sweat but by a 14th-century artist using paint.

  "Noting the ubiquity of relic forgery in western Europe, Vikan found no reason to object to the scientific—and historical—evidence that points to the shroud’s medieval provenance."

• Walter McCrone, March 2001: "Vaughn M. Bryant, Jr., quotes Uri Baruch to the effect that 37 pollen on the Frei tapes came from Israel or Turkey. I have reason to doubt this conclusion because I doubt the shroud was ever in Israel or Turkey.

  "At the microscopic level, the shroud image is observed to be entirely paint (red ochre and vermilion in a gelatin binder).

  "I believe the bishop in Lirey, France, who was quoted in about 1355 as saying that he knew the artist who painted it. The carbon date for the linen canvas was reported in 1988 to be 1325, in good agreement with the bishop’s date of 1355."

• W.H. MacFarlane, May 2001: "The figure on the Shroud of Turin is about 5 feet 11 inches tall. Typical adult men during the time of Jesus were slightly over 5 feet. If Jesus had been 5 feet 11 inches, his stature would surely have been noted somewhere."

The old carbon-14 dating has since been discredited, but new dating not yet attempted.
In the mean time, B.A.R. has published no new articles or comments on the Shroud in over eight years. Curious.

There are no B.A.R. articles on studies of "average heights" of any ancient peoples, Jewish or otherwise.

[BroJoeK]

Swordmaker from #236: "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."

I have continued to search for data regarding expected heights of ancient peoples, with some interesting results from several perspectives:

1. From the Iliad: "Then tall Hektor of the shining helm answered her: 'All these things are in my mind also, lady; yet I would feel deep shame before the Trojans, and the Trojan women with trailing garments, if like a coward I were to shrink aside from fighting…' "

   Heros are tall.

2. From Archaological Odyssey, March 2005: "Salt miners in the central Iranian province of Zanjan recently discovered the well-preserved remains of a 35- to 40-year-old man who died over 1,700 years ago. A giant of a man among the ancients, he stood nearly 6 feet tall, and pieces of wool and a woven straw mat were apparently in his possession at his death."

   Six feet tall is considered "a giant of a man among the ancients."

3. Selecting Saul King of Israel: "1 Samuel 10:22-24 (New International Version)
   "So they inquired further of the LORD, "Has the man come here yet?"
   "And the LORD said, "Yes, he has hidden himself among the baggage."
   "They ran and brought him out, and as he stood among the people he was a head taller than any of the others. Samuel said to all the people, "Do you see the man the LORD has chosen? There is no one like him among all the people."
   "Then the people shouted, "Long live the king!" "

   Saul was selected because "he was a head taller than any of the others."

4. Referring to a Mayan tomb: "In 1962 archaeologists discovered this tomb and its burial goods, including shells, pottery and jade carvings—and the skeleton of the 6-foot-tall king."

   The Mayan king was six feet tall.

5. A.O., referring to Egyptian Ramses II: " The pharaoh had a long, narrow face with a strong jaw; he stood almost 6 feet tall, a giant among ancient Egyptians; and he had reddish-brown hair. His mummy showed the wear and tear that 92 years extract from a life:"

   The six foot pharaoh was "a giant among ancient Egyptians."

6. B.A.R. discussing a Bulgarian dig site: "The “ruler,” a 45-year-old, tall, athletic man, holds a scepter in his right hand."

   A tall man is assumed to be "the ruler."

7. The Roman Emperor Hadrian, according to ancient sources: "The portrayal of Hadrian in the Historia Augusta, a fourth-century C.E. compilation of imperial biographies, could be a description of this very statue: “He was tall of stature and elegant in appearance; his hair was curled on a comb, and he wore a full beard to cover up the natural blemishes on his face.” "

   The Roman Emperor was "tall of stature."

8. From A.O., Oct 2000: "In the fall of 1999, we were ready. We opened four squares, revealing a total of four tombs. The first mummy we found (in Tomb 54) was that of a woman about 5 feet tall. This mummy has a gold mask; the gilding also extends over the neck and down the chest.."

   An Egyptian woman of five feet tall.

9. From B.A.R. July 1996: "Textiles covered the floors and walls, and the 6-foot-tall man buried on the couch, dubbed “the prince of Hochdorf,” wore a golden neckring, belt, armring, brooches and shoes. The abundance of weapons in the tomb and the battle scenes embossed on the bed suggest that this “prince” may actually have belonged to the warrior aristocracy that emerged in Iron Age Europe."

   Again, six foot tall considered aristocracy.

So, how tall is the Shroud image? The answers from supposed "experts" range all over the board. To understand just why, we're probably not going to find better explanations than those of Giulio Fanti°, Emanuela Marinelli & Alessandro Cagnazzo from 1999:

"Till now, the studies carried out have been based on more or less subjective hypotheses admitted also in consequence of the thesis that the various authors tried to show: some researchers favourable to the authenticity of the Shroud are inclined to provide the lowest values for the height, while those who are anti-authenticity are inclined to provide the highest values.

"The authors who believe the Shroud is false claim that the Man of the Shroud, about 1.80 m height [that's 5 ft 11 inches], was a giant compared to his contemporaries and therefore it wouldn’t have been necessary for Judas to give him the famous kiss to point him out in the group.

"However from recent excavations made in Rishòn Letziòn [2] it is evident that many Canaanitic men were very tall: many of them reach 1.75 m." [that's 5 ft 9 inches]

Fanti et al arrive at a Shroud image height of about 5 ft 9 inches. That's at the lower end of most "experts'" results, but still 4 inches taller than Fanti's reported "average" for all middle-easterners (5 ft 5 inches).

And careful reading of the Fanti report shows they "assumed away" at least six inches of the Shroud image's height. Naturally they say these are 100% reasonable, even testable assumptions. But they are assumptions none-the-less. Reasonable people could easily "assume away" less of the Shroud image's apparent height. That would leave us with an figure closer to the 6 feet that most other "experts" concluded.

Like other studies mentioned in other publications, the one at Rishòn Letziòn claiming "many Canaanitic men were very tall: many of them reach 1.75 m [5 ft 9 inches]," is not readily available for review & confirmation.

In summary:

Unusual height was recognized in the ancient world as an attribute of royalty. Six feet tall was considered a "kingly" height. And to reduce the Shroud image height below six feet requires certain assumptions which are not accepted by all "experts" on the subject.

So where does the New Testament tell us that Jesus was considered "kingly"? Only two places: All four gospels report Pilot's question and Jesus' answer, with two gospels mentioning Pilot's cross-sign saying, "This is the King of the Jews."

The only other place follows the feeding of the 5,000 in John 6:15: "Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself."

Remember, this is a crowd of ordinary people, whom we might reasonably assume would not even consider "mak[ing] him king by force," if Jesus did not, like Saul before him, in some sense "look the part."

In short: rather than being an argument against the Shroud's authenticity, a six foot tall image may suggest to us why the ancient authorities considered Jesus such a threat to them. It also suggests, of course, that some of our modern biblical scholars might be a bit off target.