Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
9 of 11 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Sindonology meets critical review, October 22, 2003
Let me resurrect an old cliche & say that "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin" is good news and bad news. The good new is that several of the chapters are very strong, providing compelling reasons to discount the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin as the burial cloth of Jesus. I think the most enlightening chapter was at the beginning of the book & dealt with the provenance of the shroud. It was clear from its origin in 1355 that the cloth was a fraud. The early provenance shows that the only medieval contemporaries who did not discount the shroud as a fake were those who were profiting from displaying it to pilgrims in return for alms. Bishop Pierre D'Arcis wrote an investigation report stating that the shroud is a painting, & this fact was attested to by the artist who painted it. Even the pope discounted its authenticity when he issued a bull directing it could only be displayed as a "representation" and not as an authentic relic. It is amusing to think that the medieval mind had clearer insight into the shroud's bona fides than many modern minds.Another strong chapter is the one that deals with the research of Walter McCrone. (...) In any event, McCrone concludes the shroud bears traces of paint pigment (as predicted by the provenance) & that proteins on the shroud are not blood but rather the paint medium tempra. What do you call a piece of cloth with paint pigment & paint medium on it? McCrone and Nickell conclude that it is a painting (as one might expect). Now for the bad news: "Inquest" suffers from several weaknesses. Many of the chapters become lost in technical detail which I think detract from the strength of the overall argument. Why make a subtle argument when there is an obvious argument to be made that is more compelling? Also, I noted one occasion where Nickell placed emphasis where he should not & the result was misleading. Nickell states that according to the New Testament, the body of Jesus was buried according to Jewish custom, & therefore the body must have been washed. The truth is that the New Testament does NOT say the body was washed. This whole line of reasoning should have been left out in my opinion since it is misleading & detracts from the overall argument. Another weakness is that the book has not been updated since the Carbon 14 tests were published showing that the shroud is only 700 years old. This makes the cloth about the same age as the provenance indicating it is a fake. A new chapter would tie all this together quite nicely. Other reviewers have criticized Nickell for his lack of credentials as a scientist. If they had read the book more carefully (or at all), they would have noted that this book is clearly presented as a collaborative effort with technical specialists. Not only did Nickell consult on research, some whole chapters are ghost written by his collaborators. Another criticism is that the shroud could not be a painting since there is no brush strokes & no directionality. In spite of what other reviewers have said, these matters are addressed in the book. There are no brush strokes because the artist didn't use a brush. Furthermore, Nickell does discuss how paint could be applied without an indication of directionality. Read the book for more details. Finally, there is one interesting argument Nickell touches on but does not develop. The image of the face on the shroud shows evidence of fresh bleeding from scalp wounds. Nickell points out that there should be no blood because the body was washed. An alternative observation is that when a person dies, the heart stops, blood pressure drops to zero, & lividity begins to set in. A dead body simply does not bleed (at least not like the fresh stream of blood seen on the face of the shroud). Hypothetically, if the shroud were indeed the burial cloth of Jesus, it means that he did not die on the cross, but that he was taken down while still alive. No death on the cross means no resurrection, & this conclusion would turn Christian theology on its head. It appears that this one observation would give the faithful plenty of reason to reject the authenticity of the shroud, rather than defend it.
|
|
|
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Common sense and the Shroud, June 22, 2006
I expected Joe Nickell's case against the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin to be a snide and nasty affair. But it is surprisingly even-tempered, poking large holes in the cases of the defenders of Shroud authenticity. In this book, Nickell (and his panel of scientific experts) critically examine the claims of Shroud backers. Against those who feel the Shroud was formed in a burst of radiation (supposedly from the Resurrection) Nickell asserts the common sense conclusion that this radiation, if it was to make a clear image, would have to travel only in the direction of the cloth, and not out to the sides. Against those who claim that no medieval technique is known that could account for the image's formation, Nickell gives examples of rubbing techniques--during and prior to the medieval period--that were available to artists of the 14th century. Against those who claim that the image on the cloth is an anatomically perfect depiction of a crucified man, Nickell lays out the case for the image's imperfections: one arm is longer than the other, and the blood trickles are depicted as lying atop the hair, rather then seeping from it.
On the negative side, Nickell's book is the "he said" against the "she said" of other book on the Shroud. Is Walter McCrone biased toward finding paint (as STURP - the Shroud Research group claims) or (as Nickell claims) are his findings of paint pigments and tempera binder the key to solving the Shroud mystery? Did McCrone return the sticky tape samples (Nickell) or did he violate scientific protocol by hogging them (STURP's Heller)? Going back in history, does a letter from the Bishop of Troyes (claiming he had obtained the confession of the Shroud's painter) support Nickell's case, or is it the carping of a man who is losing tourism dollars to a neat relic in a neighboring diocese?
In any event, "Inquest" is a relatively easy read, and should be studied by Shroud advocates, if only to ensure that they are not seduced by the sillier arguments made in support of the Shroud. Any book that brings the conversation to a higher level should be welcomed.
|
|
|
5 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
"As the (red ochre) dust settles over Sindondom", December 6, 2004
Inquest on the Shroud of Turin by Joe Nickell is a clear, concise, 155-page work explaining the evidence that refutes the authenticity of the 3 1/2' x 14' cloth that allegedly covered the body of Christ after crucifixion and bears his image. Nickell's work is one-sided. He believes the shroud was created by an artist near the time it was first publicly introduced around 1353. He picks apart (sometimes in a mocking manner) the evidence shroud believers use to prove authenticity. As Nickell states at the beginning of the book, his collaboration with a panel of scientific and technical experts accomplishes equal time for the skeptics. According to Nickell, many reports on the shroud are done by pro-authenticity investigators who lack objectivity (p. 8). Mentions made in this book about Roman anatomist Dr. Luigi Gedda who, detecting a slump in the right shoulder of the image, deduced that the image was of a right-handed carpenter (p. 109) and the story of how renown microanalyst Walter McCrone was "drummed out" of the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) for publicizing his findings of iron earth pigment on the blood stains and body image (p. 125) seem to back up his claims of bias accounts of the shroud's authenticity. I do not recommend reading only this one book on the shroud because it is too one-sided (any of the books by Ian Wilson would make a good companion) but I also do not think that, because Nickell has an agenda, this book should be discounted. Whether you believe, are skeptical, or are just curious, Nickell makes excellent cases for his side of the issue.
Nickell includes chapters that cover a variety of topics: the history of the shroud, ways the shroud does not follow traditional Jewish burials at the time of Christ, the shroud versus Biblical accounts of Jesus' death and resurrection, ways that the image could be left on the cloth, and scientific consideration of the type of linen, blood stains, and the image itself. The chapters on blood and the yellow fibers on the image are a little dry and scientific (14 pages worth), but the rest of the work makes for fascinating reading. Nickell drives home his points with clarity and precision. He describes the shroud's past as one cloaked in controversy, politics, and profits which left more of an impression on me than the scientific evidence. The shroud was only first introduced to the public in 1353 and was denounced as a forgery almost immediately. Documents even show that the artist confessed.
The book ends with a summary of the areas considered in the work and the evidence the shroud is a forgery as well as information of members leaving (or being "drummed out") of STURP. The additional chapter includes an update to 1987 (four years after this book was first released) about books published during this time and about the formation of the Association of Scientists and Scholars International for the Shroud of Turin (ASSIST). Obviously much has happened since then. I saw a television documentary showing a man who claims the image is an x-ray of Jesus. An expert on ancient cloth also claimed that the type of weave used in the shroud is inconsistent with Medieval times but is found much earlier (something Nickell refutes).
The occasional tone of the book may turn off staunch believers. Nickell uses past mistakes of scientists to help discredit what they say about the shroud (p. 72). He refers to the idea that the image could be formed through resurrection as "nonsense" (p. 86). His arguments that, if the image was created supernaturally, why is it "not of better quality than it is" (p. 92) is a bit weak. Despite the author's arrogance, an objective reader will find that he makes many important points. Before the skeptics claim this book to be a slam dunk for their side, however, they should definitely check out John Heller's Report on the Shroud of Turin. Heller has a completely different take on the work of Walter McCrone. All these accounts show what an intriguing mystery the Shroud of Turin was, is, and probably will always be.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Walter C. McCrone
DVD ~ Artist Not Provided
by Daniel H. Pink
