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
To paraphrase Ann Coulter: This guy Nickell simply doesn't grasp the problem Lexis-Nexis poses to his incessant misrepresentations.
I didn't even spend really serious time blowing holes in his "argument".