Replies

PBS "Secrets of the Dead" Buries the Truth About Turin Shroud

Friday, April 9, 2004

Joe Nickell, Senior Research Fellow, Committee for the Scientific
Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal

Although science and scholarship have demonstrated that the Shroud of Turin
is a medieval fake, die-hard shroud enthusiasts continue to claim otherwise.
Just in time for Easter 2004 viewing, a PBS television documentary that
aired Wednesday, April 7, gave them a forum to state their conviction that
the image on the cloth is a first-century picture--miraculous or
otherwise--of Jesus' crucified body.

As part of the Secrets of the Dead series, the "Shroud of Christ?"
presentation was a study in pseudoscience, faulty logic, and the suppression
of historical facts. Omitted were mention of the contrary gospel evidence,
the reported forger's confession, and the microanalytical analyses that
showed the "blood" and "body" images were rendered in tempera paint.
Unsubstantiated claims were presented as fact, and the radiocarbon
results--which dated the cloth to the time of the forger's confession--were
treated in straw-man fashion: presented as virtually the sole impediment to
authenticity.

Knowledgeable skeptics were avoided. Instead, viewers were subjected to the
astonishingly absurd notion of an art historian named Nicholas Allen that
the image was "the world's first photograph." (The technique was supposedly
invented to make a fake shroud and then conveniently lost for subsequent
centuries!)

The intellectual incompetence or outright dishonesty of the show's producers
is matched only by that of the PBS executives who foisted it on a credulous
Easter-season audience.

The following facts are an antidote to that scientific and historical
revisionism:

- The shroud contradicts the Gospel of John, which describes multiple cloths
(including a separate "napkin" over the face), as well as "an hundred pound
weight" of burial spices--not a trace of which appears on the cloth.

- No examples of the shroud linen's complex herringbone twill weave date
from the first century, when burial cloths tended to be of plain weave in
any case.

- The shroud has no known history prior to the mid-fourteenth century, when
it turned up in the possession of a man who never explained how he had
obtained the most holy relic in Christendom.

- The earliest written record of the shroud is a bishop's report to Pope
Clement VII, dated 1389, stating that it originated as part of a
faith-healing scheme, with "pretended miracles" being staged to defraud
credulous pilgrims.

- The bishop's report also stated that a predecessor had "discovered the
fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being
attested by the artist who had painted it" (emphasis added).

- Although, as St.Augustine lamented in the fourth century, Jesus'
appearance was completely unknown, the shroud image follows the conventional
artistic likeness.

- The physique is unnaturally elongated (like figures in Gothic art), and
there is a lack of wrap-around distortions that would be expected if the
cloth had enclosed an actual three-dimensional object like a human body. The
hair hangs as for a standing, rather than reclining figure, and the imprint
of a bloody foot is incompatible with the outstretched leg to which it
belongs.

- The alleged blood stains are unnaturally picture-like. Instead of matting
the hair, for instance, they run in rivulets on the outside of the locks.
Also, dried "blood" (as on the arms) has been implausibly transferred to the
cloth. The blood remains bright red, unlike genuine blood that blackens with
age.

- In 1973, internationally known forensic serologists subjected the "blood"
to a battery of tests-for chemical properties, species, blood grouping, etc.
The substance lacked the properties of blood, instead containing suspicious,
reddish granules.

- Subsequently, the distinguished microanalyst Walter McCrone identified the
"blood" as red ocher and vermilion tempera paint and concluded that the
entire image had been painted.

- In 1988, the shroud cloth was radiocarbon dated by three different
laboratories (at Zurich, Oxford, and the University of Arizona). The results
were in close agreement and yield a date range of A.D.1260-1390, about the
time of the reported forger's confession.

Defenders of the shroud's authenticity have rationalizations for each
damning piece of evidence. For example, they assert that microbial
contamination might have altered the radiocarbon date, although for an error
of thirteen centuries, there would have to be twice as much contamination by
weight as the cloth itself! Beginning with the desired answer, they work
backward to the evidence, picking and choosing and-all too often-engaging in
pseudoscience.

In contrast, the scientific approach allows the preponderance of evidence to
lead to a conclusion: the shroud is the work of a medieval artisan. The
various pieces of the puzzle effectively interlock and corroborate each
other. In the words of Catholic historian, Ulysse Chevalier, who brought to
light the documentary evidence of the Shroud's medieval origin, "The history
of the shroud constitutes a protracted violation so often condemned by our
holy books: justice and truth." []

For more information on the Shroud of Turin and other allegedly miraculous
images of Jesus of Nazareth, visit the new "Miraculous Self-Portraits of
Jesus?" Feature Exhibit on the Skeptiseum (www.skeptiseum.org).

Joe Nickell, Ph.D. is CSICOP's Senior Research Fellow and an expert on the
Shroud of Turin. He is author of Inquest on the Shroud of Turin (Prometheus
1983, 1998) and numerous articles, including "Blooming 'Shroud' Claims"
(Skeptical Inquirer, Nov./Dec. 1999) and "Pollens on the 'Shroud': A Study
in Deception" (Skeptical Inquirer Summer 1994).

How do we possibly respond to Joe Nickell, Senior Research Fellow, Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal and professional magician. Is it possible that PBS and everyone else ignores him for a reason, except his organization which is committed to also debunking the resurrection and anything else not 100% secular. BTW Carl Sagan was a founder of this organization. The man is out of touch with the science and the history. And he has a tendency to be highly selective with evidence.

The following facts are an antidote to that scientific and historical revisionism:

Actually we are not talking about revisionism. He sides generally with the revisionists such as John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg who even deny that Jesus was buried. Then he uses scripture to support his positions. Good grief.

- The shroud contradicts the Gospel of John, which describes multiple cloths (including a separate "napkin" over the face), as well as "an hundred pound weight" of burial spices--not a trace of which appears on the cloth.

Yes. The Gospel of John describes multiple cloths and indeed there is very likely a napkin involved. It may be the Sudarium of Oviedo. Not one Shroud researcher feels that there were not other cloths involved including binding strips of linen “as was the custom of the Jews.” This is how ultra-liberal skeptics will argue by misrepresenting facts. As for the burial spices there is some debate in the science community as to whether they are detected on the Shroud. They are probably not found on the Shroud and there is nothing in scripture that says that they were used. They were purchased and we know that the women intended to use them when they found the tomb empty.

- No examples of the shroud linen's complex herringbone twill weave date from the first century, when burial cloths tended to be of plain weave in any case.

Actually, just the opposite is so. Metchild Flurry-Lemberg has found sample of similar cloth and unique stitching in the Masada fortress that fell in 73 AD. No samples of 3 over 1 Herringbone have been found among European cloths.

- The shroud has no known history prior to the mid-fourteenth century, when it turned up in the possession of a man who never explained how he had obtained the most holy relic in Christendom.

See Mozarabic Rite and History

- The earliest written record of the shroud is a bishop's report to Pope Clement VII, dated 1389, stating that it originated as part of a faith-healing scheme, with "pretended miracles" being staged to defraud credulous pilgrims.

- The bishop's report also stated that a predecessor had "discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it" (emphasis added).

We are talking about the d’Arcis Memorandum claiming that an artist painted it. Knowing that this was a time notorious for its unscrupulous market in fake relics, the bishop’s memorandum seems to have a whiff of truthfulness to it. But the relic marketplace may also be the basis for doubting the veracity of the memorandum. Pilgrims were a source of revenue and people were flocking to Lirey to see the Shroud rather than nearby Troyes and its collection of relics. Pierre, interestingly, states that his intent was not competitive. Why? Did he realize that others were voicing suspicions about his motives? Pierre claimed that his predecessor, Bishop Henri de Poitiers of Troyes conducted an inquest in which a painter had confessed to painting the Shroud. Pierre did not have first hand knowledge of this artist; the artist is unnamed. There is no evidence of such an inquest in contemporaneous documents. Pierre stated that Henri had the Shroud removed from the church because it was a fake, yet other documents dispute this. According to other documents, it was removed from the church for safekeeping because of the war raging about the area. The memorandum must be understood and assessed in the light of several documents of the same period and in the context of the political situation in the region. At least eight documents challenge the veracity of the d’Arcis Memorandum. There are other problems as well. All existing copies of the memorandum are unsigned and undated drafts. The copy at the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris includes a heading stating that it is a letter that Pierre intends to write. It is definitely a draft with Latin annotations in the margins. It is unlikely that it was ever sent to Clement as no properly signed or sealed copies of the document can be found in the Vatican or Avignon archives. No document of Clement refers to it, suggesting it was never received. Numerous classicist and historians find the document questionable.

See Bishop Henri letter to Geoffroy I de Charny, dated 28 May 1356; Letter from King of France Charles VI to the Bailly of Troyes, dated 4 August 1389; Report of the Bailly of Troyes, dated 15 August 1389; Letter from the First Sergeant of the King to the Bailly of Troyes, dated 5 September 1389; Clement's letter to Bishop d'Arcis, dated 6 January 1390; Papal Bull of Clement VII, dated 6 January 1390; Papal Bull also dated 1 June 1390. See Scavone, Dietz, Markwardt, Latendresse, Dreisbach, Guscin, Marino, Marinelli, Zaninotto, “Deconstructing the ‘Debunking’ of the Shroud,” 1999. Also Anti-Pope Clement VII's Brief to Geoffroy II, dated 28 July 1389

- Although, as St.Augustine lamented in the fourth century, Jesus' appearance was completely unknown, the shroud image follows the conventional artistic likeness.

True. See history at History at

- The physique is unnaturally elongated (like figures in Gothic art), and there is a lack of wrap-around distortions that would be expected if the cloth had enclosed an actual three-dimensional object like a human body. The hair hangs as for a standing, rather than reclining figure, and the imprint of a bloody foot is incompatible with the outstretched leg to which it belongs.

See forensics at Forensics at

- The alleged blood stains are unnaturally picture-like. Instead of matting the hair, for instance, they run in rivulets on the outside of the locks. Also, dried "blood" (as on the arms) has been implausibly transferred to the cloth. The blood remains bright red, unlike genuine blood that blackens with age.

Not true. See above.

- In 1973, internationally known forensic serologists subjected the "blood" to a battery of tests-for chemical properties, species, blood grouping, etc. The substance lacked the properties of blood, instead containing suspicious, reddish granules.

That was 1973. See above.

- Subsequently, the distinguished microanalyst Walter McCrone identified the "blood" as red ocher and vermilion tempera paint and concluded that the entire image had been painted.

Ridiculous. See above

- In 1988, the shroud cloth was radiocarbon dated by three different laboratories (at Zurich, Oxford, and the University of Arizona). The results were in close agreement and yield a date range of A.D.1260-1390, about the time of the reported forger's confession.

See Carbon 14 Tests

Enough said. Nickell will never rests until he debunks everything there is to debunk in Christianity. The Shroud has nothing to do with his attitudes.

Shroudie