Customer Reviews

Inquest on the Shroud of Turin: Latest Scientific Findings

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

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.

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.

Nickell does a clear, thorough job of debunking all the contradictions and self-delusions of those folks who insist on believing that this long-acknowledged fraud actually contained the body of Christ(even the Catholic Church denies its authenticity). A good review of the actual "shroud" tradition (contradicted by the bible itself BTW) and the mountain of scientific data disproving the shroud's miraculous nature. Highly recommended for clear thinkers who prefer fact and data to fanciful speculation and special pleading.

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.

Until photography was invented and a negative image of the shroud was first seen, (1898) nobody had any idea that such detail was present in the cloth. The positive image as had only been seen for so many centuries looked to be no more than a shadow of a man. So yes, the "medieval forger" was clever indeed. Apparently he didn't want his trick to be even played until 5 centuries after it was allegedly created. (He knew, no doubt that photography would inevitably be invented, clever fellow.) He was also very daring, putting the nail holes in the wrists, rather than the palm which had been the traditional location. And if it is, in fact, a fraud, then we should be able to crank out duplicates, hand over fist today, no? Then how come no one has remotely succeeded?

Joe Nickell does an outstanding job of research into the Shroud's providence and possible methods of creation. It is quite clearly the best book on the subject, as it dispences with gullible and wild speculation and sticks to the facts of its history and the science behind the image. The book was written orginally well before the carbon dating conclusively showed it to be exactly what had been predicted beforehand: a mid 14th century piece of linen. It is truly amazing that such books have to be written in the early 21st century to dispel what sensible adult minds should have done a long time ago. Highly recommended.

This is a 1987 updating of the 1983 effort by Joe Nickell, self-appointed investigator of 'pseudoscience', to debunk claims that the Shroud of Turin is the actual burial cloth of Jesus Christ.

The shroud is a mysterious object which since the Middle Ages has been kept in the Turin Cathedral. It surfaced in the 14th century and was claimed to be the burial cloth of Jesus, brought to Italy during the Crusades. A Papal investigator declared it to be a fraud, but its authenticity has had passionate defenders from that day to this.

In the 1970's a group of scientists examined the shroud and all but one declared it to be authentic! This astounding assertion drew heavy criticism from Athiests and eventually the Catholic church agreed to a carbon-14 dating examination. The examiners concluded that the cloth was no more than 700 years old - to the great relief of non-believers!

This book is a self-congratulatory attempt by the Athiest/Scientific Materialist community to say "I told you so." Joe Nickell, who unsuccessfully competed with James Randi for the mantle of grand inquisitor of the Athiest faith, provides a great deal of suggestive but ultimately insufficient evidence that the shroud could not be authentic.

Since the updating of this book a number of new pro-shroud books have appeared, but more importantly carbon-14 dating itself has been shown to be unreliable. The book is still valuable, however perhaps mostly for the psychology of a belief system.

In his Shroud book Joe Nickell, alias James Randy, has cleverly managed to mask his strong antireligious bias, in order to give his "inquest" an air of scientific detachment, while applying at the same time consequently the classical recipe of evidence picking.
From these tactics a book has resulted which, unfortunately, is bound to impress the uninformed and easily satisfied, who will not be aware of how selective Nr. Nickells evidence is.
Yet, a REALLY sceptical reader should be able to detect here and there some of the clues which indicate that there is something inherently wrong with Mr. Nickells way of arguing.
For instance, when the author puts forward the ridiculous claim that a technically and artistically very deficient pilgrims medallion PROVES "that the imagery (on the Shroud) was formerly much stronger than the faint sepia image of today". A simple glance at a picture of it would reveal to anybody how preposterous that claim is. Is it perhaps for just that reson we do not find any picture of the medallion in this book?
The whole of the historical argumentation of Mr. Nickell is based on one single piece of evidence, the famous letter of Bishop d'Arcis from 1389, which he flatly states to be beyond any doubt, although the evidence of that document is not corroborated by any other source of that time. Where has gone all the scepticism of Mr. Nickell who, normally, does not believe one word of what a bishop says??
Worse than Nickells feigned naivity is the obvious fact that he has systematically eliminated all the evidence present in his own sources (Ian Wilson, Thomas Humber) that went against the reliablity of the said document, evidence which has since been strengthened by additional discoveries, just as has been the disproval of Nickells claim of "thirteen centuries of silence" before the appearance of the Shroud in France in the mid 14th century. Quite a number of gaps of evidence have been filled, apparently unknown to Mr. Nickell. In his update chapter to the original book he has not seriously discussed any of the important new evidence, preferring instead to confine himself to topics for which he has an easy answer ready.
On the very same line is situated the "refutation" by both Nickell and his main contributor, John F. Fischer, of the evidence put forward by the STURP experts Heller and Adler: Quite a number of important observations made by these two are simply not addressed. Since they have published their main paper under the auspices of the Canadian Forensic Society, wouldn'it have been logical for the FORENSIC SPECIALIST Fischer to submit his alleged thorough refutation of their work to te same institution, where it could have peen presented in a proper scientific context? Has HIS OWN WORK perhaps not been that perfect und comprehensive, after all?
Needless to say that Nickells shroud imitations are as unconvincing as are those of all the other people, mostly situated in the same ideological corner as Mr. Nickell (and probably also Mr. Fischer), who have produced similar work, which they all claim to be entirely convincing. These alleged proofs of an artistic origin of the Turin Shroud are in reality miles away from the original and resemble far more the well known numerous bad Shroud copies made from the 16th century onwards which, sometimes, are still - quite dishonestly - presented as "competing medieval shrouds". At least from this particular fantasy argument Mr. Nickell seems have to refrained in the present book (though he has made use of it on other occasions). The said fake shrouds have also something else in common: for reasons which are quite easy to guess, their authors content themselves with showing only - if any at all - small sized pictures of them, never anything more detailed, let alone micro-photographs, such as STURP has made available in the context of their 1978 enquiry of the Turin Shroud, which alone would allow any proper insight. Nor have they allowed their imitation shrouds to be examined close at hands by their opponents.
In the case of Mr. Nickell who is always so prompt in accusing others of wanting to deceive, such an attitude is particularly unsatisfactory indeed.

Joe Nickell has done an outstanding job of research into the origins of the Shroud of Turin and has conclusively shown it to be a 14th century artistic rendering. And this book was originally written well before the carbon dating conducted by three reputable laboratories proved that the Shroud can be dated to approximately the mid 14th century. Gee, what coincidence that these figures all match the initial providence of this bogus relic. As for some of the other criticisms of this excellent book - ignore them, as they clearly have not read the book which is why the reviews never address the specific findings presented in the book.

I do not know whether the Shroud of Turin is a fake or not, but the issue, contrary to the claims of this book, has not been solved. Before you decide that I am just another gullible, credulous "believer", let me show you otherwise. I am actually a skeptic myself. I am a former member of the South Shore Skeptics in Cleveland, Ohio, a supporter of CSICOP, and I have even attented several lectures given by Mr. Nickell. First of all Mr. Nickell is no James Randi! Mr. Nickell's "explanations" for the unexplained always are strained and require so many leaps of faith, that one might just as well believe in the original claim. Mr. Nickell has almost zero credibility as a debunker of the strange and unexplained. Skeptics and debunkers are certainly needed, but people like Mr. Nickell give the rest a bad name, which is why some are skeptical of the skeptics! The most blatant example of this is Mr. Nickell's explanation of the Mystery of Oak Island. Oak Island is beyond the scope of this review, but it is a real legitimate mystery. Anyone who wants to learn how pathetic Mr. Nickell is can read about Oak Island on the Internet, and then read Mr. Nickell's explanation of it and the issue of Mr. Nickell's credibilty will be settled. Now on to the Shroud. Mr. Nickell has an axe to grind. He decided before even writing the book that the Shroud had to be a fake, because of his strong atheistic beliefs and decided that since he could "duplicate" the Shroud himself, it had to be a fake. The truth, however, is that he could not, and did not duplcate the Shroud image. Mr. Nickell's method of brushing the image leaves behind directional brush markings. There are none on the Shroud. The image on the Shroud is 3 dimensional, Mr. Nickell's image is not. Mr. Nickell's whole book is a red herring for those that are uncomfortable at the thought that maybe, just maybe, the Shroud is authentic. The Shroud is a real mystery and should be treated as such. This artifact has been seriously studied more so than any other ancient artifact in history. It is not something that can be dismissed in one book, especially by the likes of Mr. Nickell who by trade is only a mere magician with no scientific training at all. The other glaring problem with this book is that Mr. Nickell relies so heavily on the "research " of Dr. McCrone, who stated that before even examining the Shroud, that "he knew it was a fake" and was gonna prove it! What objectivity! Dr. McCrone's work has been proven to be corrupt and his conclusions wrong. He claimed that the Shroud does not contain any blood and that the image is made from paint. He has been shown to be wrong on both accounts, and Mr. Nickell is still standing by his corrupt research afraid to admit that he made a mistake. I do not know whether the Shroud is authentic or not, but I do know the following: The conclusions in this book are wrong. If the Shroud is fake, it was not faked by anything remotely similiar to the methods suggested by this book. Finally, the Shroud is a real mystery and should not be treated in the same contemptuous manner as non-mysteries such as the Bermuda Triangle. The Shroud is an item of genuine research and to this date, the creation of its image remains a mystery. Believers and non-believers alike should treat the Shroud with respect until a legitimate verdict is in, and not dismiss it with the likes of other bunk, such as the most recent bigfoot sighting or UFO abduction. The Shroud is in a whole different class.