FEATURE EXHIBIT: Miraculous Self-Portraits of Jesus?

See CSICOP Fellow Joe Nickell's review of the PBS Secrets of the Dead: Shroud of Christ? documentary, which aired on Wednesday, April 7th, 2004

As early as the sixth century there have appeared certain images of Jesus that were said to be acheiropoietoi--Greek for "not made with hands." There were different versions of these and as many legends to explain their allegedly miraculous origin. Some modern writers have placed the Shroud of Turin in this genre.

Perhaps the earliest "not made with hands" legend concerns the "Image of Edessa." A mid-fourth-century Syriac manuscript known as The Doctrine of Addai, tells how King of Abgar of Edessa (now Urja, in southcentral Turkey) wrote a letter to Jesus asking him to come and cure him of leprosy. Jesus was unable to visit Abgar, but sent a miraculous self-portrait as a "consolation" for his disease. A tenth-century version of the tale has the magical cloth imbued with curative power.

From the Middle Ages were supposedly miraculous portraits of Jesus that came to be known as "Veronicas." Supposedly, Veronica was a woman from Jerusalem who was so moved by pity at witnessing Jesus struggling with his cross toward Golgotha that she wiped his face with her veil (or kercheif). In some versions of the tale she offered the cloth to Jesus for him to wipe his face. In return, he caused his visage to be miraculously imprinted thereon.

Scholars believe that "veronica" is a corruption of vera iconica, medieval Latin for "true image." It seems likely that the name Veronica then prompted the pious legend to explain how Jesus's face appeared on the cloth.

Although the "veronicas" were supposedly miraculous, they were in fact painted. To explain how there could be so many of the "original," another legend was created to explain that the image could duplicate itself miraculously. (See Joe Nickell, Looking for a Miracle, Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1998, pp. 19-22.)

Some equate the Shroud of Turin with the earlier Edessan Image, even though the "shroud" bears not just a facial image but the entire front and back impressions of an apparently crucified man. In his the Shroud of Turin (Garden City, N.Y.: Image Books, 1979, pp. 97-124.) Ian Wilson suggests that the shroud could have been folded so that only the face showed, thus disguising the shroud as a portrait for centuries.

This notion lacks supporting evidence, and in any case the Shroud of Turin has been shown to be the work of a fourteenth-century artist. According to a later bishop's report to Pope Clement VII, the artist confessed it was his handiwork. Moreover, modern scientific tests revealed the image was rendered in tempera paint, and radiocarbon dating showed that the cloth was from the time of the forger's confession. (See Joe Nickell, Inquest on the Shroud of Turin, Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1998.)

A supposedly related "relic" is the Cloth of Oviedo. Located in the Cathedral of Oviedo in northern Spain, this is purported to be the sudarium--or "napkin"--that covered Jesus's face in the tomb. But just as there were numerous "true" shrouds (at least forty-three in Europe alone), there were many reputedly genuine sudaria. Despite pseudoscientific attempts to link the Oviedo Clothwith the Shroud of Turin, the alleged sudarium lacks any facial image. Had this cloth indeed covered the face of Jesus, it would have blocked the facial image from imprinting on the "shroud." Like many of the claims regarding the Turin cloth, those concerning the Oviedo cloth are characterized by pseudoscience and possibly worse. (For a discussion see Joe Nickell, "The Sacred Cloth of Oviedo," Skeptical Briefs, September 2001, pp. 10-11.)

In addition to the "not made with hands" images of Jesus, there is also a famous, allegedly miraculous self-portrait of the Virgin Mary. Known as the Image of Guadalupe, it is a sixteenth-century depiction of Jesus's mother that she reputedly caused to be imprinted on the Aztec convert's cloak. Enshrined in church in Mexico City, the cloth has been shown to be a native artist's paintin, the tale apocryphal, and the convert probably fictitious. Nevertheless, "Juan Diego" was canonized a saint of the Catholic Church.

(See Joe Nickell, "'Miraculous' Image of Guadalupe, Skeptical Inquirer, September/October 2002, p 13.)



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 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 of the two virtues so often commended by our holy books, justice and truth." []

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).