Inquest on the Shroud of Turin: Latest Scientific Findings

by Joe Nickell

Nickell, Joe

Genres: Religion, Science, History

184 pages

First published January 1, 1983

About the author

Joe Nickell was an American skeptic and investigator of the paranormal.
Nickell was a senior research fellow for the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and wrote regularly for their journal, Skeptical Inquirer. He was also an associate dean of the Center for Inquiry Institute. He was the author or editor of over 30 books.
Among his career highlights, Nickell helped expose the James Maybrick "Jack the Ripper Diary" as a hoax. In 2002, Nickell was one of a number of experts asked by scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. to evaluate the authenticity of the manuscript of Hannah Crafts' The Bondwoman's Narrative (1853–1860), possibly the first novel by an African-American woman. At the request of document dealer and historian Seth Keller, Nickell analyzed documentation in the dispute over the authorship of "The Night Before Christmas", ultimately supporting the Clement Clarke Moore claim.

Reviews

[Novall · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent survey on the scientific nature of research into as well as the origins of the Shroud of Turin.

The author successfully concludes that the elongated figure reproduced therein corresponds to the then contemporary style of Gothic art.

The author, however, overlooks the New Testament context in which the male figure in the Shroud is based.

There is the simple fact that only in the four Gospels is there any mention of a burial shroud. In the first (oldest) New Testament reference to the resurrection, I Cor. 15, of the Pauline letters, there is no mention of a shroud in the earliest Christian communities.

The Letters of Paul were completed and read prior to the completion of the Gospels - there is no reference to the Shroud in any of the Pauline epistles.

Also, the Pauline letters, the oldest portion of the New Testament, make no reference to any Virgin birth, no mention of any miracles. There is no citation of an empty tomb and no physical resurrection.

In addition, the book of Acts, written AFTER the Gospels, has no reference to the Shroud present in the earliest Christian communities.

The book also fails to draw a comparison to the influential presence of the 10th century Romanesque art of the St. Gero Crucifix, today found in the Cologne Cathedral, on which the figure in the Shroud was based.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gero_Cross

The Shroud is to the 14th century Gothic secular art movement what the St. Gero Cross is to the 10th century Romanesque ecclesiastical art.

Contrary to controversies in popular culture, the Shroud is NOT a forgery, nor is it the 1st century burial shroud of Christ, but rather an exemplary piece of 14th century Gothic art.

The value of the Shroud is found in seven centuries of Christian tradition, not in the escalation of religious fervor.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

AN UPDATE OF THE MOST EXTENSIVE "SKEPTICAL" CRITIQUE OF THE SHROUD

Joe Nickell (born 1944) is a prominent American skeptical investigator of the paranormal, as well as Senior Research Fellow for the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) and writes regularly for their journal, the Skeptical Inquirer. He is also an associate dean of the Center for Inquiry Institute. He is the author or editor of numerous books such as 'Lake Monster Mysteries: Investigating the World's Most Elusive Creatures,' 'Tracking the Man-beasts: Sasquatch, Vampires, Zombies, and More,' etc.

His original (1983) version of this book was 'Inquest on the Shroud of Turin.' He states in the Preface to this revised 1998 edition, "In the decade and a half since Inquest was first published, the shroud controversy has continued. In a new chapter I have chronicled the major developments during this period, including the Vatican's inheriting of the shroud, the radiocarbon dating of the cloth, and revelations about a Swiss criminologist's disputed pollen studies." (Pg. 8)

He notes, "this complete lack of provenance for the purported relic---was one of several reasons the shroud's authenticity was questioned at the time it was first exhibited. Another was the fact that the New Testament writers failed to mention the imprint of Jesus' body on the shroud." (Pg. 12) He quotes Josh McDowell and Don Stewart ['Answers to Tough Questions Skeptics Ask About the Christian Faith'] as stating that John 20:5-7 indicates that there was "a separate piece wrapped about Christ's head... However, the cloth of Turin depicts a face on the sheet as well as the rest of the body..." (Pg. 33) Against the suggestion that 'sudarium' meant a jaw-band, he says, "sudarium never meant anything of the sort... it has always indicated a handkerchief or napkin, facecloth or veil---never a jaw-band." (Pg. 34)

He comments on the fact that the shroud has no imprint at the top of the head, "This 'blank space' between the otherwise head-to-head imprints argues for forgery..." (Pg. 60) He points out that the right foot is shown FLAT against the shroud, although the imprint of the entire leg is shown, which is seemingly anatomically impossible [the knee would have to be raised for the foot to be flat].(Pg. 65)

He observes that the deceased criminologist Max Frei's pollen studies were, in the words of a STURP researcher, "not statistically significant... the pollens might have been carried by the wind or deposited by the shroud's visitors; its presence does not prove that the shroud was ever in the Holy Land." (Pg. 113) Another researcher notes that "Most STURP scientists doubt Frei's work and discount his results." (Pg. 113) Of Frei's more recent claims to have found "traces" of burial ointments on the shroud, Nickell points out, "not 'traces' but much greater amounts should be present if such an ointment had been used..." (Pg. 114) He suggests that "there is clear evidence that some---possibly all---of the 'blood' is due to painting." (Pg. 132)

In an "Update" chapter, he notes of the 1998 carbon-14 dating which placed the shroud in about the 14th century, "sindonologists... began a campaign to discredit the scientific findings. Someone put out a false story that the tests were done on one of the patches from the 1532 fire and thus yielded a late date. Others suggested that the fire ... had altered the carbon ratio. Some even accused the scientists of deliberate fraud, and a few included the Archbishop of Turin and the Vatican in the imagined deception... More recently the radiocarbon testing ... [was claimed to have been done on a] swatch of shroud cloth that bore a microbial 'varnish,' contamination that could have altered the radiocarbon date... [but] for the shroud date to have been altered by thirteen centuries... there would have to be twice as much contamination, by weight, as the cloth itself." (Pg. 150-151)

As with the earlier edition, this revised edition is "MUST READING" for anyone seriously studying the Shroud.

[MKF]

DNF.
Bored.
The whole book is being told over and over again that the shroud is a medieval art piece and not a religious relic. I found it boring since every detail, idea, or theory is discussed then Nickell explaining why they are flawed and then evidence on it being artwork.

[Mark Isaak · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nickell ("in collaboration with a panel of scientific and technical experts") gives a wide range of information relevant to the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. The book's 15 chapters may be roughly grouped into five parts: The history of the shroud before the late 20th century, consistency of the shroud with 1st and 13th-century historical details, proposed natural means of its formation, failed and successful ways a person might create such an image, and modern analyses of what is on the shroud. Virtually all of the evidence points to the shroud being inauthentic: The Church investigated and declared it a fake in 1390; the image is consistent with 14th-century iconography and inconsistent with 1st-century Jewish burial practices; aspects of the image are incompatible with its conforming to being draped on a body; the "blood" does not show patterns that real blood would; and artists' pigments are found in the image areas. (The edition I read was published before C-14 dating of the shroud added yet more evidence of its origin being in the 14th century.)

Yet many people discount all this evidence and find other evidence to support their belief that the Shroud is a genuine relic. Nickell also considers their claims and the evidence they are based on, which turns out to be discredited, subjective, or sometimes imaginary. No doubt, given the number of pro-shroud books, there are other similar claims he could have included, but he seems to have covered the most serious ones.

One aspect Nickell barely touches is theology. When the shroud first showed up at Lirey, the bishop had reason to suspect fraud, seeing that the shroud was inconsistent with Church tradition. But the issue of faith is utmost for many people. I think the book could have benefited from a short paragraph pointing out that an inauthentic shroud does nothing to threaten faith, and an authentic shroud does very little to support it. Nickell quotes (p. 88) one shroud researcher saying of the shroud, "What better way . . . of regenerating faith in a skeptical age . . .". I can think of innumerable miracles more worthy of a deity than handing out a questionable self-portrait.

[Glenn Gordon · Rating 1 out of 5]

It reveals the extreme absence of integrity from Joe Nickell since he has completely failed any acknowledgement of the developments and progress on the Turin Shroud since he first published this book in 1983. Much work has been done and written about by highly respected authors, researchers/investigators and scientists since then. Yet again in his usual form, Joe Nickell contradicts himself. Nickell's books sell pretty well, although those who foolishly buy them and believe Nickell, have missed one crucial aspect of research and investigation. It is `objectivity'. This is entirely absent from Joe Nickell, which in itself ought to alert any honest truth seeker. As author of the Apathy Kills blog, I have to challenge my own approach before publishing my articles, hence the reason for not writing a book, since my research is ongoing in the efforts to debunk or challenge myself. Otherwise, I would end up publishing several new editions to every book I wrote. It's a shame that Nickell, who's only motivation is the financial profit in his subjective consistency, cannot distinguish between earthly deception and something that is beyond human perception. However, that would only lead Nickell to another contradiction, space and the universe and the possibility that man was created by aliens or something else equally as unknown. At least Nickell has one thing in common with those he challenges most, Christians. Neither has truly grasped the concept of what "Faith" actually means, since it too is unearthly and therefore unknown and beyond human understanding.