Another useful thing to keep in mind----
I once looked up the word “wrist” in my Cassell’s. It says “prima palmae pars (Cels.)”.
I’ve read that during the time the Gospels were composed (1st c., around 70-80-90) that they didn’t actually have a word for “wrist” in Latin/Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic. The word “hand” (“manus”) covered pretty much everything that a cubit measured-- from the forefinger to the elbow. (They did have a distinction between fingers and thumbs, though.)
The Latin “carpus” comes from the Greek “karpos”, which seems to usually mean “fruit” during our period, but may possibly have come from the Indo-European base “kwerp-” which means “to turn”. But according to the etymology I’m reading, you don’t get “carpus” as “wrist” until the 17th century. So it took about 1500 years between Celsus identifying the wrist as “prima palmae pars” and modern anatomists to say, “Hey, let’s call this a carpus.”
But, to recap, “manus” covers “elbow-to-fingertip” and there are specific words for palm, finger, and thumb, but I’m not seeing any evidence of a word to designate the wrist joint specifically.
That’s not to say that there was no anatomical reality, even if they didn’t have the words to accurately describe it! Jesus was crucified somewhere, and his wounds are memorialized in the stigmata, as various mystics unite their suffering to his. And that’s the important part, the spiritual aspect, rather than the physical reality. But it never occurred to me that first-century authors didn’t really have the same nuance of anatomical vocabulary that you and I have with 21st-c. English, because we do have a fondness for accuracy!