1 The Shroud of Turin and Its Critics: A Rebuttal to the Skeptic Society’s Case by Tom Dallis, Th.D Abstract. In March 2025, Skeptic magazine published Andrea Nicolotti’s article “Unraveling the Myths Surrounding the Shroud of Turin”, asserting that the Shroud is a fourteenth-century forgery. This essay critically examines Nicolotti’s core claims: (1) that the 1988 radiocarbon tests are decisive, (2) that the Shroud has no historical attestation before the fourteenth century, and (3) that the image is the product of medieval artistry. By drawing on scientific analysis, archaeological parallels, Jewish burial law, textile studies, and Bayesian reasoning, this essay demonstrates that the cumulative evidence points toward authenticity rather than forgery. Introduction Andrea Nicolotti’s recent essay in Skeptic magazine, “Unraveling the Myths Surrounding the Shroud of Turin,” repeats what has become the standard skeptical narrative: that the cloth is a medieval forgery, dated decisively by radiocarbon tests and unconnected to the first-century context of Jesus. Nicolotti, Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Turin, is 1 among the best-known critics of the Shroud, and his publications over the past decade argue consistently against its authenticity. 2 But his framing of the debate reveals serious methodological flaws. Nicolotti characterizes newer scientific approaches to dating (such as tensile testing, FTIR, Raman, and WAXS) as “not scientific.” Yet this is itself unscientific reasoning: to dismiss new methods without engaging their results is to presuppose one’s conclusion before examining the evidence. The very definition of science is the testing of new hypotheses. Similarly, Nicolotti calls attention to Giulio Fanti’s Catholic commitments as though they invalidate his work. But personal beliefs, whether skeptical or religious, are irrelevant to the scientific method. Data and methodology must be judged on their own merits. To critique a man’s faith instead of his published results is ad hominem, not science. My own work—including the paper Sacred Threads: The Shroud of Turin in Scriptural and Jewish Context (2025) and a series of blogs on the Shroud at Tom’s Theology Blog —has argued 3 that the Shroud cannot be dismissed so easily. While I acknowledge open questions remain, I Andrea Nicolotti, “Unraveling the Myths Surrounding the Shroud of Turin,” Skeptic 30, no. 2 (2025), 1 https://www.skeptic.com/article/shroud-of-turin-authenticity-examined/. Andrea Nicolotti, From the Mandylion of Edessa to the Shroud of Turin: The Metamorphosis and 2 Manipulation of a Legend (Leiden: Brill, 2014). Tom Dallis, Sacred Threads: The Shroud of Turin in Scriptural and Jewish Context (2025); see also Tom 3 Dallis, “The Man in the Shroud: Ten Lines of Evidence That He Was Jewish,” Tom’s Theology Blog, July 29, 2025, https://tomstheology.blog/2025/07/29/the-man-in-the-shroud-ten-lines-of-evidence-that-he-was- jewish/.