Breaking News

Comments

1. Oh, well, I should’ve looked up the coin in question before saying I didn’t know anything about it. I see that it’s the Justinian II gold solidus coin. Well, of course, there are some very interesting points in common between the face of Jesus on this coin and the Holy Face on the Shroud. I, however, do not consider this to be a foundational piece of evidence to prove the Shroud’s authenticity, but it’s “gild the lily” sort of evidence (in my opinion) that doesn’t do the truly “heavy lifting” for defending the Shroud’s authenticity, but it is, still, interesting evidence to consider and to add to the side of the scale that weighs in favor of the Shroud’s authenticity.

2. Hi, Hugh,

   The Greek word “cheir” can be more than just the hands. In Acts 12:7 (written in Greek), there is the mention of chains falling from Peter’s “cheir” would would have, quite obviously, been around his wrists–not hands. Forearms include wrists, so the Greek word “cheir”–which can mean “hand” can also include the wrists which are part of the forearm.

   I agree that the upper part of the palm (near the wrist) can certainly hold the weight of a body–and that was, of course, determined by chief medical examiner Frederick Zugibe who named this precise location the “Z-spot.” (“Z” for Zugibe–not Zorro!) And, I also agree that what we see (quite obviously) is an EXIT wound and the nail could have either gone through the wrist or the upper palm and still supported the weight of an entire body.

   As for the coin situation, I’m not sure what Franz is referring to, so I have no idea.

   Best regards,

   Teddi
   a) How you know that the Greek for “hand” includes the forearm.
   b) How you know a nail through the palm would not hold the weight.
   c). Why you think the 692AD coin was copied from the Shroud.

3. Hi Franz,

   You haven’t explained:
   a) How you know that the Greek for “hand” includes the forearm.
   b) How you know a nail through the palm would not hold the weight.
   c). Why you think the 692AD coin was copied from the Shroud.

   Simply repeating something doesn’t make it any truer than it was the first time.

   Best wishes,
   Hugh

4. I will raise two important points: Even Leonardo got it wrong: all his crucifixion paintings show nails through the palms whereas the shroud shows the nail CORRECTLY through the wrist: this misunderstanding is all due to ignorance of Greek where “hand” is all from elbow to fingertips and a nail through the palm would not hold the weight!
   Secondly, your explanation of the 692ad coin obviously copied from the shroud?

5. To resolve the dispute, I propose to give the floor to Chat gpt:

   1. The Problem of Selective Trust

   The person is not claiming to have independent expertise, but they are selectively trusting a subset of scientists who align with their belief.

   That’s fine in principle—we all have to rely on expert judgment.

   But it’s inconsistent to dismiss or ignore the larger body of scientific work and peer-reviewed consensus while claiming to be guided by “the science.”

   So even if they say, “scientists have proven the Shroud’s authenticity,” they’re still implicitly overriding the mainstream scientific consensus—which again requires justification they don’t seem equipped (by their own admission) to provide.

   2. Certainty Without Comprehension

   Even if the person is merely trusting certain scientists who support authenticity, they still claim:

   “It is absurd to think the images on the Shroud could have been produced naturally or artistically.”

   That’s a sweeping claim. To responsibly hold it, one would need to:

   Understand all competing scientific theories, at least in outline.

   Understand why each of them fails.

   Explain why only the authenticity hypothesis fits all the data.

   If someone admits that science is difficult for them, and that they rely on trust in experts, they cannot reasonably also declare one view as “absurd” without overstepping their own epistemic position.

   ✅ A Consistent Alternative

   If the person wants to avoid contradiction, a more consistent position would be:

   “I’ve read what I can and have found the arguments for authenticity—especially from some scientists—very compelling. I realize there’s disagreement and that many scientists date the Shroud to the Middle Ages, but I think the case for authenticity deserves more attention than it gets.”

   AI locuta, causa finita (hopefully)

6. Dear Andrea,

   You mention the following: “I hope you’re probably very careful in your work as a lawyer, but certainly in the case of the shroud and matters pertaining to religion, I’d say your conviction is so far off in a direction incomprehensible to me, that I have trouble even imagining you could hold these views.”

   I think that, perhaps, the reason why my views are so incomprehensible to you is that you likely have too much (if not all) of your scientific understanding about the Shroud from Hugh Farey (and not from a very deep, personal study of the primary sources. As a historian, I’m sure that you will agree that there is no substitute for consulting the primary sources—and this is, also, the case when learning about scientific matters. And, for people such as myself (and perhaps you, as well) who are not scientists or typically heavily attracted to scientific matters), it can be quite an arduous, daunting, and time-consuming effort to REALLY learn—AND UNDERSTAND–the details about the scientific data which points to the Shroud’s authenticity. The more one delves into the details concerning and revolving around the Shroud, the more one sees complexities which truly make it absurd to think that the body images on the Shroud could have been created through a normal and/or natural process—whether by through an actual human body (dead or alive, decomposing or not) or through some sort of clever artistic method.
   This is why the hearsay-upon-hearsay claims that (allegedly) Oresme wrote about are so meaningless.

   You mention that you performed “extensive investigation” concerning the Shroud’s authenticity, but you find that there is “no evidence” to support this. Such a statement proves that your “extensive investigation” was not nearly so extensive. And, there is a difference between investigating something and actually UNDERSTANDING the evidence—and what it means in a practical sense—concerning whether or not someone could have artistically created the Shroud or whether or not a body could have formed such an image in a natural way. In both situations, there is ZERO evidence to think that this is so—other than an invincible determination and desire that there MUST BE a natural explanation for this.

   For any legitimate Christian, the supernatural is understood to be real. You seem to be taking the position that you are a Christian based upon mere “faith” in God. So, it is illogical to me when Christians will proclaim a willingness to believe in something based upon “faith,” but when they are offered compelling scientific proof (that is brought together with historical information and Logic and Reason) they balk at this. This is quite a bizarre curiosity whose only explanation that I can think of is that some people think that they are, somehow, “holier” or “more blessed” when they believe merely upon faith—unlike “Doubting Thomas.” Yet, God freely gave us the evidence of the Shroud as proof of Jesus’ resurrection AND—more importantly—to show that Jesus was telling everyone the Truth during His ministry on earth. So, to accept God’s gift and It’s message is not to be a doubter or to disrespect God.

   Instead, it is to disrespect God and His Gift when people who know and understand the evidence persist in denying it. THIS is a disrespect to not only the glorious image of Jesus on the Shroud and the marks of His Atonement, but it is a denial of the Blood of Christ which is on that cloth. And, I would imagine that God takes what we call “a dim view” of people who knowingly do so.

   I won’t be one of those people who shy away from discussing these matters—out of a concern that I will look like a religious zealot. Why? Because I know the rules of logical thinking. One can be biased yet still speak the Truth! Additionally, I know that the Bible informs us and warns us that we are—with our words and deeds—to seek the approval of GOD—not of Men. And so, I speak with the conviction of someone who has deeply (and continues to deeply) study the scientific and historical aspects of the Shroud. And, I do no care if anyone thinks that my arguments seem less compelling when I reference religious issues that are obviously intertwined with studying and understanding the Shroud. For those who want to disregard what I say, they do so at their expense—not mine.

   Additionally, you posit that if the Shroud were not a religious issue “on trial” that it would have been “condemned to prison.” Once again, on the contrary. The fact that religion is intertwined with it causes it to be, repeatedly, “under indictment,” but never imprisoned. Why?
   I will tell you why. Because when one understands what the Shroud is and what Its message is, this can be (in the tradition of God and His paradoxes) both a very comforting thing (by way of knowing that the Christian God is real), but, it can also be a scary, frightening thing (for people who refuse to try hard to be obedient to God and His will. After all, the Christian God has created Hell, and nobody wants to go there (at least nobody sane does.) So, it is easier for people to ignore and pretend that Christianity is either a false religion or they just have pleasant ideas about it without understanding the real responsibilities that come with being a Christian that will, hopefully, merit being considered a “sheep” instead of a “goat.”

   These are frightening things, and they are easier to forget about if one just has a hazy concept of God and the reality of His existence. So, denying the Shroud allows atheists, agnostics and even many Christians to think in a way that does not fully comprehend the realities that we all need to comprehend before we die an earthly death. I would not be so concerned if earthly death were all there is, but, as it is said, there are some fates worse than death.

   For the Shroud to be a painting (or even a painting that has had all of its paint scrubbed off), this still will not match the chemical characterstics of what is seen on the Shroud—where the body images are devoid of paint, pigment, stain or dye or the remnants of such. Instead, it is strictly the classic straw-yellow colored yellowing of cellulose that comes about from its being dehydrated and oxidized (typically with normal aging or accelerated aging.)

   And, you advocate religion being tucked away in the “personal space of subjective beliefs.” Well, fortunately, this is at all the fundamental principle guiding the Founding Fathers of the United States of America. They knew that a democratic republic can only survive among God-fearing people whose laws embody beliefs that are often characterized as Judeo-Christian beliefs but are not necessarily exclusive to this belief system.

   I wonder what, as you mention, are the “most irrational beliefs” that Thurston, Chevalier, et al. were trying to purge from religion—perhaps, as I suspect, that which makes most religions a “religion”—a belief in one or more supernatural beings.

   You claim that there are religious people who forget all rationality when they think about religion. Well, I will agree with you here—those are the people who are religious strictly from a standpoint of “pure faith” and nothing more. They try to have more “faith” than the Twelve Apostles, themselves—who, themselves, needed quite a lot of evidence in order to believe in Jesus of Nazareth’s divinity. So, this is, in particular, why God left Jesus’ burial cloth for us—who did not have the benefit of interacting personally with Jesus. This way, as increasingly skeptical people, we have scientific evidence that points to the trustworthiness of Jesus of Nazareth’s various falsifiable claims.

   You keep repeating that the Shroud is simply false, but this is a baseless claim. The detailed scientific evidence concerning it testifies otherwise. We have an idiom in America that applies to what you and Oresme and the nebulous hearsay statements that Oresme refers to: “Saying something does not make it so.”

   Also, what I consider to be “proof” is shared by others who do not share my religion. How do I know this? Because, when they explore the various evidences for the Truth of Christianity, many of them have converted to Christianity.

   Also, I do not claim that something is miraculous SIMPLY because someone cannot reproduce it. Even the best forger cannot 100% reproduce the authentic Mona Lisa. But, an artist (even an amateur one) can reproduce an image that shares the chemical and physics-based characteristics of the Mona Lisa and other fundamental qualities that it possesses. However, this has yet to be done with the Shroud—including Hugh’s latest hypothesis. AND, again, CONTEXT is everything. The speech that I gave at the recent Shroud conference in St. Louis speaks to the importance of CONTEXT. It will be made available to the broader public on Shroud.com soon enough on Shroud.com (when the presentations will be posted there as well as corresponding papers.) People who know my work know that I do not traffic in the currency of baseless claims, and they know that I know that my work will be scrutinized with the “splitting of hairs.”

   Anyhow, I just wanted to share these thoughts with you and the others reading this. Likewise, it has been a pleasure meeting and discussing these issues with you, and I hope that you will join us in the future for more discussions.

   Best regards,

   Teddi

7. To say this is significant is akin to finding 2 medieval sources that independently claim that the earth is flat and asserting that this proves that the world is, indeed, flat. Opinions and lack of scientific knowledge does not equate to truth.

8. Hi Andrea,

   I was just seconds away from posting a comment here on Hugh’s blog admitting that Sarzeaud’s JMH article did not contain the claim that Oresme “likely” saw the Lirey Shroud when I noticed your own comment here stating that fact in some detail. Thank you for the correction, even if you scooped me by just an hour or so.

   The reporter, Ellie McDonald. or the press service she used is to be blamed for that major mistake. They should both also be told of the mistake, today if possible, and a retraction should be requested/demanded of them. I’ve just now looked up the The Times article again, and it still contains that sentence stating that “Sarzeaud argues” that Oresme “was likely to have examined the [Lirey Shroud].” No retraction is evident there. No correction. Have you, Andrea, or has Sarzeaud or anyone on his publishing team contacted those reporters yet? All of this news and misinformation is moving very fast, since only yesterday when the story broke. Yet you and Sarzeaud have known about it for much longer than the rest of us. I read Sarzeaud’s JMH article only two hours ago. (Excuse me for eating, sleeping, working, and shopping in the last 24 hours. It’s called life.) Sarzeaud certainly anticipated major news coverage, and eagerly, very eagerly, and he should have known that the danger existed for incorrect coverage and that he should catch such mistakes before they spread. Again, have you or he contacted the news agencies and demanded corrections yet?

   I might have been able to read Sarzeaud’s full article this morning, but was busy drafting a reply to your comment on Hugh’s blog, because your comment seemed so faulty to me. You basically seemed to be saying there that, “Oresme knew it was fake because he knew it was fake because he knew it was fake….” with no evidence for that, just trusting his general knowledge and authority. It was also my misfortune to read The Times article first of all, since it was the first one I came across. When did you read it, may I ask?

   Andrea, You defend Oresme’s greatness and wisdom as if he were a nearly perfect rationalist, but he was a man of the 14th century, certainly having his own superstitions and weird beliefs. (But yes, he does sound rather admirable, and I hope to read some of his works someday soon.)

   You say, “if he saw it [oddly now allowing for the possibility that he did actually see the Shroud, which we have just been discussing and, I thought, rejecting], he probably still saw the fresh colors on the cloth, those left by the artist….” Fresh colors? If so, Andrea, why didn’t he or any informant of his say so? That whole “artist” claim is very weak. As mentioned earlier, d’ Arcis’ 1389 Memorandum provides no details at all, and now this latest, and earlier, sentence once again provides no details at all.

   The Shroud is a weird object, truly bizarre. The three bishops you mention may well have been completely sincere in their belief that it was a fraud, and brave, too, in opposing clerical fraud and profiteering in general. I sympathize with them greatly. But that does not mean they were correct in this one case. The Shroud is mystifying with all its amazing features, unlike any art work of that time.

   Yes, you are right that, at the time of my two comments here, I did not know that Oresme had written his comments in a “book.” The 3-4 news articles I read about Sarzeaud’s claim did not mention any book, nor had Hugh in his blogpost about it. It was all very vague. And the Latin – yes, mea culpa in my haste, it is Latin (and I even know some Latin) – words were abbreviated, and not in any fine scribal handwriting style.

   Much more undoubtedly remains to be said about Oresme’s “surprising sentence.” I’ll be reading Sarzeaud’s article another time or two for insights pro and con.

   Grazie mille,

   John Loken

9. Dear Teddi,
   I hope you’re probably very careful in your work as a lawyer, but certainly in the case of the shroud and matters pertaining to religion, I’d say your conviction is so far off in a direction incomprehensible to me, that I have trouble even imagining you could hold these views. Yes, there are certainly historians who do poorly. Shroud historians (real historians, not amateurs) are practically few in number, but I try to do my job as you say, that is, as honestly as possible. I began working on the shroud fairly convinced it could be authentic, but after extensive investigation, I realized there’s no evidence to support this; in fact, all the evidence is against it. And unlike those who write books praising the shroud, I’ve taken all the positions into account and treated them fairly. I think that if it weren’t a religious issue, a 97% certainty level would have already condemned the Shroud to prison (I don’t even want to mention the death penalty, which strikes me as barbaric). As for religious affiliation, centuries of very useful and necessary engagement with critical thought, and with the Enlightenment, have made it very clear that religion must remain, in the public sphere and in the exercise of one’s work, including intellectual work, in its rightful place: that is, in the personal space of subjective beliefs. Thurston, Chevalier, and others, are not victim of Stockholm syndrome; they were simply trying to purify religion of the most irrational beliefs, and I consider belief in the Shroud to be quite, indeed very, irrational. There are religious people who forget all rationality when they think about religion, and others who do so much less so. This isn’t a conspiracy against Christianity; it’s simply an attempt to make religion more sensible. A religion that renounces rationality is, for me, a defeat. But I’m not used to talking about religion, because as far as I’m concerned, whether the shroud is true or false makes no difference: it’s simply false, and I accept that as a reasonable fact. I also think one can believe in Jesus without the Shroud and without saying things that are unacceptable, such as that the Gospels, archaeology (?), and the shroud demonstrate Christ’s divinity: sorry, but I feel this is bordering on ridiculous. I don’t know any educated people around here who would make such a statement. Naturally, what you consider proof isn’t proof for a large part of the world, that is, for those who don’t share your religion. But science, and even historical science, must be universal, with laws that apply equally to everyone. I conclude by saying that the challenge of reproducing the image of the shroud remains senseless. Something isn’t miraculous if someone can’t reproduce it; you simply have to wait for someone who will be able to do. And then you have to decide what reproduction means. And in order to reproduce something, you have to know it well, but the last thing the Church of Turin would do is allow scholars to know it well. I don’t want to dwell on this point; I believe Hugh has explained many times why this challenge makes no sense and why it’s not even feasible. Again, I find this reasoning completely illogical. However, I think we’ve made our positions clear enough; I still think we don’t have enough in common to conduct a discussion on the same “ground” (perhaps that’s the most appropriate word; I don’t know if “level” in English means the same thing as it does in Italian). I’m just here to clarify a few things about this text of oresme, about which, along with Sarzeaud, I’m certainly the person with the most information. It was a pleasure meeting you.

10. Dear John,
    1) Sarzeaud never said that Oresme went to Lirey. What you’re quoting is a sentence from a newspaper article written by Ellie McDonald, summarizing a press agency, that summarizes an article in a scientific journal. It seems to me that this shouldn’t even be considered for an in-depth discussion. You should read the original article written by Sarzeaud, which is freely available.
    2) Oresme was a very high-ranking figure at the court of the King of France, certainly. But I’m not saying this because I’m interested in his position: currently, for example, in the US, Kennedy Jr., holds a high position at the court of King Trump, but that doesn’t make him intelligent. But in his case, he achieved that position as advisor to the king, but also as bishop and university professor, because he was an extremely educated and wise person. A great theologian and a scientist. Certainly, he had a scientific mindset and wasn’t inclined to believe anything that didn’t make sense. Of course, I don’t think this means he was always right; that’s obvious. In this case, he was right, especially since the shroud is clearly fake, and if he saw it, he probably still saw the fresh colors on the cloth, those left by the artist who knew Henry de Poitiers. And it’s practically unique that three bishops had the courage to say so.
    3) From your questions, I understand that you still don’t fully understand the fundamentals of the issue. Oresme certainly wrote about the Shroud in “a book” called “Problemata,” a book that historians of medieval philosophy and theology know about, but which hasn’t been published in its entirety until now, but only read in its manuscripts. The newspaper articles you’ve read are probably the English ones, which don’t explain this point well; in Italy and France, it’s been explained better.
    4) I’m quite surprised that you can’t distinguish Old French from Latin. The book is in Latin, not in French. The abbreviations aren’t there because it’s a draft, but because at the time everyone wrote with abbreviations to save time, ink, and paper.
    5) Your reasoning about the Latin phrase—which, according to you, since it’s a well-known expression, should therefore perhaps be incorrect—doesn’t seem logical to me.
    6) As far as we know, the shroud was never in the Eastern Byzantine world. At the beginning of the 13th century, the linen used to make it hadn’t even been cut yet, and the fabric didn’t even exist. I don’t even want to get into the fanciful discussion about the shroud being kept secret, or about the shroud being called something else and hidden until sindonologists realized it in the mid-20th century, and other conspiracy or absurd theories like this, about which I’ve already written hundreds of pages.
    7) Sarzeaud is quite young. I met him the day I was one of the supervisors of his PhD. His doctoral thesis on the shroud, in four volumes, is simply a very, very valid work. He wears glasses because he is short-sighted, not to appear intelligent, and I think he will wear them even when he will became old. Maybe he will change his mind about something, like all of us, but I don’t think so about the shroud.

11. Hello, Andrea Nicolotti,

    You seem to think that we are speaking on “completely different levels.” Levels are either the same or one is higher and the other is lower. Generally speaking, the lower level of proof is offered by historians—not lawyers (of which I am one)—as what historians often peddle to the public as “historical fact” can often be deemed as nothing more than worthless, unsubstantiated rumor that is barred as junk from a courtroom for its unreliability in serious situations where real lives with real liberty hang in the balance—not just mere words in a book that are often nothing more than curious pieces of information to delight readers.

    Yes, of course, knowing what is presented as history by the people who write history has its usefulness—and this is why I had my undergraduate minor in History to my major in Government/Political Science. But, what “history” you believe in often depends upon what book one is reading by the historian that wrote it and the biases that the historian puts in what he or she reports (and does not report.) So, History—while important and useful—has to be recognized as sometimes being a baseless rumor that might get repeated by people with a PhD after their name—which has the often-intended effect of elevated the mere rumor to something more than what it really is. Additionally, the most reliable history is that which comes from people who admit information that is against their own interest. This, by the way, in a courtroom, is often some of the most credible and powerful evidence (so long as the person testifying to the evidence is not obviously insane.)

    In sharp contrast, historians often write about topics that interest them, and often (but not always) the historian shapes the outcome that his readers come away with by way of the choices that the historian makes when researching a topic and the choices that the historian makes with what information to include and exclude. And, for the more rigorous historians, they might include certain information (that goes against their own biases) in their more serious works (so as to not be accused of academic sloppiness), but they tend to hide this very relevant information in the footnotes of their work—to where the important evidence only gets discovered if a curious reader/researcher takes the initiative to go and examine the primary source. Yet, of course, there are a few historians who do their best to present information as honestly as they can, but even for very scrupulous historians, bias often (but not always) has a way of influencing how hard one researches one side of a story versus the other side of a story. This is why an adversarial system is best—to have two or more competing sides to try and figure out what is True.
    Because of what I just described, I never speak of “historical facts.” As a rule, I don’t speak of anything as a “fact” other than one can be confident of the fact of one’s own existence if one can think. Everything else falls into the realm of claims that are provable to a certain degree of reliability. The “gold standard” is that which is used to put people in prison or death in the American legal system: “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” which is commonly thought to be around a certainty level of, perhaps, 97%–enough to where reasonable and rational minds can rest easy about a conclusion based upon the evidence that has been presented to them.

    You say that I feel like a victim of a conspiracy against Christianity. Well, there has been an almost 2,000-year-old “conspiracy against Christianity.” Hugh has, in the past, lumped you into the group of “medievalists” that are both a Catholic AND someone who thinks that the Shroud of Turin is not the authentic burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth (e.g. Thurston, Chevalier, Hugh.) So, if you really are a Catholic, then you, too, are a victim of this conspiracy against Christianity—unless you are suffering from Stockholm syndrome.

    There is, also, the issue that is prevalent particularly among scientists and historians who are (or claim to be) religious: Which “god” do they primarily seek to serve? The “god” of their profession and professional reputation, or the god of their religion of choice? Most of the time, one tends to see the religious god taking a “backseat” to the professional one.

    As aforementioned, I do not claim that Jesus’ resurrection is a “historically verifiable fact,” since, in principle, I do not believe that History can verify anything as a “fact”—which I define as evidence proven to a 100% certainty. So, I, again, like to qualify information as being proven to varying standards of proof (e.g. evidence “beyond a reasonable doubt,” “clear and convincing proof,” a “preponderance of evidence of the evidence,” “probable cause,” “reasonable and articulable suspicion,” or a mere “scintilla of evidence.”

    But, historical evidence (of which the Gospels and other books in the Bible count as) + archeological evidence + scientific evidence derived from the Shroud of Turin (which quite reasonably and rationally point to its, thus far, being incapable of being reproduced with all of its features) can, indeed, prove to a very high degree of reliability not only the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, but His Divinity.

    Also, I don’t use religious beliefs for my reasoning. I use my reasoning + evidence from multiple disciplines to give me a rational basis to believe that the mere faith that I had in God as a child is, in actuality, provably True beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Regarding the Testimonium Flavianum, among those of us (myself included) who advocated for its full authenticity even prior to T.C. Schmidt’s recent book (“Josephus on Jesus” that is available for free online) based on a number of very good arguments, Schmidt now brings the arguments for the Testimonium Flavinum’s full authenticity to a whole new level! This magnificent piece of scholarship is so impressive that an anonymous donor paid the publisher a lot of money in order to make this important work available online, for free, before it can even be purchased in the United States. Anyhow, this is just one example (the situation with the Dionysian Corpus is another one—if interested, see the work of Evangelos Nikitopoulos.)

    Lastly, the challenge for skeptics to try and reproduce an image with the specific qualities that the Shroud of Turin exhibits is a very legitimate one. Instead of being “logically meaningless” as you claim, it is, quite to the contrary, logically MEANINGFUL. Because if nobody can reproduce an image with its qualities—even with the ability to use the information that we have about it in order to try and reverse-engineer it (as Hugh Farey has attempted to do but has not succeeded in accomplishing), then that’s an unmet challenge that remains as a black eye on the face of those who recoil from the evidence which reasonably and logically compels a finding of its authenticity.

    Best regards,

    Teddi

12. Dear Andrea,

    Thank you for your response. Unfortunately it seemed rather vague and general.

    You wrote, “There is no point in getting into a long argument about the kilometers….” But Andrea, it was Dr. Sarzeaud himself, the author of the new study on Oresme and the Lirey Shroud, who was quoted in The Times article yesterday by Ellie McDonald as follows:

    “Sarzeaud argues that Oresme was likely to have examined the relic and learnt of the fraud while serving as a scholar and royal counsellor in the 1350s, later writing about it between 1355 and 1382.”

    The word “likely” means, as you know, “probably.” So my point (and Gerardo’s here before me) was a perfectly valid one: That the great distance from Oresme’s location (Rouen, Lisieux, Paris, etc.) down southward and over eastward to Lirey would have been a serious obstacle to his ever seeing it. He could not have flown or trained the distance in a quick hour or two. So you might like to take your complaint to Sarzeaud instead of to me.

    You also wrote that Oresme was “a very high ranking figure at the court of the King of France.” Andrea, you are appealing to mere authority here, not always the wisest thing to do. Authority, pompous authority, has often been proven wrong in matters of truth and reality. Moreover, Oresme’s high rank, among other things, proves that he was a very busy man, even an extremely busy man. He was also a serious scholar in multiple fields. Everyone reading this exchange of ours should take at least a few minutes to read the Wikipedia article on Nicole Oresme. He was constantly writing books on science, economics, and other subjects, and must have had very little time to investigate such distractions as yet another alleged “shroud of Christ.”

    You also wrote, “He simply knows what happened….” Again, Andrea, you appeal to authority. Do you also claim that everything Oresme wrote was correct? And that everything done by the King of France in the 1350s was correct, right, and just? Maybe not.

    Again, you wrote, “The information is so well known….” Andrea, the information we have today about the 1350s showings of the Shroud of Lirey is absolutely minimal, just a few sentences written in 1389, until this latest discovery of, again, a sentence.

    Then you say of Oresme, “… that he can cite it in a book….” And so it must be true, beyond all doubt, because it appears in a book – yes, a real book? I don’t think so. Besides, where did his two sentences actually appear? In one of his private letters or in one of his books or in some other writing? It’s not yet clear to me. The 3-4 news articles I’ve so far read online are vague on that point. They say only a “document” or a “text” or a “writing.” Hugh here helpfully adds “manuscript,” and the original Old French text which he even shows us is full of abbreviations, so was perhaps not a published book but only a draft or some private correspondence. It really doesn’t matter much to me, but you, Andrea, called it a “book.”

    “He doesn’t need to analyze the ‘object shroud’ because he already knows….” You seem to be talking in circles here, Andrea, like many supporters of the Shroud’s authenticity do – your opponents.

    “Patet hoc ad sensum” – you wrote that Oresme used it “many times in his writings.” And therefore it must be true? If he did use it often, it sounds to me like a favorite turn of phrase, a stock phrase with him, overused and not always correct, much like our words “obviously,” “certainly,” and “surely,” which often turn out to be just plain wrong.

    It’s very important to put this passage by Oresme into its historical context. In the late Middle Ages there was an increasing amount of corruption in the Catholic Church. It would eventually play a huge role in Luther’s break in 1517, protesting (i.e., Protestantism) against the Church’s sale of indulgences (buying off one’s sins) among other things. So the whole fake and lucrative relic business was thriving in the 14th century. That is very possibly why Oresme dismissed the Shroud of Lirey (I assume he meant the Lirey Shroud, though he mentions no image on it). The Shroud had not appeared earlier in France because, if the abundant historical evidence is correct, it was still back in the Eastern Christian Byzantine world until the early 13th century when it was, again if the abundant evidence is correct, finally taken westward and was then, for various good and sensible reasons, kept secret there for another hundred years.

    By the way, I’ve just seen a recent photograph of Dr. Sarzeaud. He looks very scholarly with his glasses and serious expression. He also looks to be about 30 years old, and when I was 30 I held at least a few beliefs and assumptions which I soon or eventually dropped as invalid. I did not know everything, though I may have thought I did.

    John Loken

13. Dear John,
    I’ll just respond to a few points.
    1) There’s no point in getting into a long argument about the kilometers separating Oresme from Lirey. Oresme lives between Normandy and Paris. He’s a very high-ranking figure at the court of the King of France. He can get all the information he wants without having to resort to a donkey. He simply knows what happened in Lirey (and we’ll never know how he learned it, and if he went in Lirey or not), and the information is so well known that he can cite it in a book confident that everyone who reads it will understand what he’s talking about. He doesn’t need to analyze the “object shroud” because he already knows it’s not authentic, as I do today.
    2) I completely disagree that Sarzeaud made an error in his interpretation of the passage, and I don’t think he ever intended to assert that Oresme was in Lirey. “It is clearly the case” is a free, interpretive translation of the Latin expression “patet hoc ad sensum,” which the author uses many times in his books—he and other medieval authors, too—to indicate something that is clear based on experience. So it could also be translated as “we know it clearly, based on our experience,” or “it is something for which we have clear proof.” So the word “clearly” (from “patet”) is perfectly fine.

14. Hello,
    I think it’s difficult, if not impossible, to have a conversation with you on the same level. When we’re speaking on completely different levels, the discussion is pointless. If you believe that Jesus’ resurrection (i.e. a miracle written on a book) is a sure and historically verifiable fact, and that the evidence is very strong, I’d say we have no common ground for discussion because, as a historian, I know this way of reasoning has long since fallen out of my field. Even believing theologians have long distinguished beliefs from facts (which doesn’t mean the two things can’t coincide, but they are certainly two different things). From the tone of your comments, I understand that religion is so important to you that you think it can be used in reasoning based on objective facts. Indeed, you feel like the victim of a conspiracy against Christianity, and there’s no chance we’ll reach an agreement on this. It’s a very American way of reasoning, far removed from what I’m used to. In any case, I’ll keep a few things to say, but then I’ll abandon the discussion. Virtually no one believes that the testimonium Flavianum is completely authentic. If you think Dionysius wrote the books attributed to him, it’s the first time I’ve heard such an absurd thing. I explained that Duke Theodore’s letter is a forgery. I don’t know which translations of the Memorial you’ve read; you should have read mine. Finally, the usual challenge of reproducing the shroud, so logically meaningless, perhaps will be done when the object, until now kept well hidden, will be available to scholars.

15. Hi, Andrea,

    You mention that “for over a hundred years, believers in the Shroud have attempted to undermine the very clear historical evidence and the highly informed opinion of the two bishops who denounced the forgery they discovered in the Middle Ages.” Well, to that I say that for nearly 2,000 years, people have been attempting to undermine far clearer, far more specific, and far more reliable historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was resurrected from the dead.

    With this third bishop, there is not even clarity as to whether his shaky hearsay upon hearsay evidence is even referring to the same cloth that was displayed in Lirey. How about ascertaining that first–since medievalists love to talk about how many fake relics were floating around during this time. The Devil is the details–but, so is God.

    You say: “Some will try to claim that the text is not by Oresme (maybe forged by the Devil?)” To that, I say: Many, many atheists AND theologians and real Christian theologians (who are gullible and are sheep and follow whatever certain perceived intellectual leaders tell them) have been claiming that the Testimonium Flavianum is fake, and that Theodore Doukas Komnenos’ letter to Pope Innocent III is fake, or that the letters and books of Dionysius the Areopagite are fake–and I’ll bet that you (as I’m betting that you are Andrea Nicolotti) are among the historians who have probably asserted this (or at least believed this) in the past and/or present. Well, while there have been strong arguments for quite some time that the Testimonium Flavianum is FULLY authentic to Josephus, Thomas C. Schmidt’s book, “Josephus and Jesus” has just given a true “knock-out punch” to those who have been clamoring that the Testimonium Flavianum is a fake–in whole or in part. Same thing with many of St. Dionysius’ extant manuscripts. And, for these works, there was far more detail than this very weak, nebulous and quite unreliable evidence that Hugh has informed many of us about here on his website.

    So, it is quite fair to apply the same standards to, supposedly, Oresme’s manuscript (and, there’s no mention as to whether it is an autograph–presumably, if it were, this would have been stated–so, perhaps some scribe made some “interpolations” in Oresme’s supposed work. It is not at all outside of the realm of possibilities that someone would do this–especially since he was well-known.

    And, why would it be surprising that there are wolves in bishops’ clothing when this problem persists today? Churches are full of them. Oftentimes, the best way to subvert a Cause is to be an infiltrator who undermines the Cause from within. The medievalists’ approach is that of using deceptive and illogical arguments to deny the Truth about a cloth with the image of Jesus of Nazareth–God Incarnate–and which is a vessel for His blood from The Atonement.

    Ultimately, historical information (especially when it lacks tight corroboration–which this third bishop’s alleged statement about others’ alleged statements is not precise enough to be considered a tight corroboration of anything that D’Arcis or Poitiers may have written about someone who might have been just even making a copy of the genuine Shroud of Christ.)

    Moreover, as I have examined the common translations for key passages in the D’Arcis Memo–many of the critical words are given more nefarious translations as opposed to more benign ones. So, this, also, is problematic.

    Ultimately, as I said before, until someone can replicate an image (especially the size of the two body images on the Shroud of Turin) with all of its characteristics, then you can have a whole parade of people making (dubious) claims that it is a fake, but these are the odious claims of those who seek to deny that which is Holy. You, and the other Shroud Deniers, are, ultimately, Science Deniers and Evidence Deniers who use “smoke and mirrors” to deny what should be quite obvious by now about the Shroud of Turin.

    Regards,

    Teddi

16. Hi Hugh,

    Many thanks for your new “Breaking News” blogpost. This latest info is fascinating, especially for us Shroud history buffs.

    Some comments now:

    1) You write, “the Shroud was well known to be a fake even then.” But Hugh, a better wording here would probably be “was rumored to be a fake even then.” There is no actual evidence in your post nor in the eventual article which appeared a day later that the Lirey Shroud was a fake. Only someone’s belief that it was a fake.

    2) The short 14th century sentence you quote leaves quite open the real nature of the suspicion by Dean Oresme of Rouen. Was it about the Shroud itself, or only about some alleged miracles performed in the Champagne region church in question, that is, in Lirey village, which provoked his strong skepticism? Few people today know that the d’ Arcis Memorandum of 1389-90 strongly criticized certain bogus miracles, healing miracles, that were performed at that time in the same Lirey church during the Shroud showings. That could well have been the case already with the earlier exhibition of the Shroud there in or about 1355, which this newly discovered text passage by Oresme, circa 1370, must refer to. I have no doubt that any such “miracles” in the church were indeed bogus, but that would still leave the Shroud authenticity question wide open.

    3) I even seem to recall that you, Hugh, have on occasion in the past stated that there was no solid evidence even for the existence of the Shroud until 1389-90. If so, well, here you finally have it, already in or about 1370. Which also seems to confirm, by implication, the original 1355/56 date for an initial showing of it in Lirey. But please correct me if I’m mistaken.

    4) This new textual discovery is very encouraging in that it may suggest that other such textual discoveries mentioning the Shroud in earlier times still exist, whether pro or con, and will eventually be found.

    5) It’s interesting that no details about the alleged fake Shroud are mentioned in Oresme’s passage. No place of fabrication, no names of any painters or artists, no quotations of any confessions (as were alleged in the later d’Arcis Memorandum of 1389), no reference to the de Charny family in Lirey, no nothing. So the passage seems insufficient to me as a basis for any forgery claim.

    6) It will be interesting to see how the Journal of Medieval History will present this skimpy yet intriguing passage to the public. I notice already in one article, “Is the Turin Shroud a Fake?” in “The Times” (“BST,” whatever that means, of 8/28/25), which does seem based on the Journal’s initial publication, that a French medieval scholar, Dr. Nicolas Sarzeaud, makes a serious mistake in his interpretation of the Oresme passage. He suggests in a flimsy way that Oresme probably saw the Shroud of Lirey itself. But that scenario is belied by Oresme’s own 14th century words that it “is clearly the case….” Those words are essentially a “probably” which has been optimistically or wishfully upgraded by him to a “clearly.” If Oresme had actually seen the Shroud, he would instead have written, “I have seen it and examined it,” or, “it is definitely not authentic.” But he did not write such words. I’m sorry to have to correct Dr. Sarzeaud, mais, “c’est la vie,” tu sais. The article’s author, Ellie McDonald, also wrote only that Sarzeaud “dismissed” the Shroud’s authenticity, not that he had refuted it. “Dismissed” rings of a mere denial, not so very credible. There is also no mention of an “image” on the shroud in question. Besides, both Sarzeaud and Oresme must have been enormously busy with other matters.

    7) Gerardo made an excellent point about the great distance from Lirey to Rouen where Oresme lived and worked. He said it was around 250 kilometers. That was quite far in medieval times, when travel was done on foot or on donkey or horseback. And according to my own quick google search, the distance looks to be more like 300 km. (185 miles) one way as the crow flies, and naturally even longer when riding over the actual winding roads and hills and dales. It would have taken a couple of weeks to get from Rouen to Lirey, and additional weeks to get back again. Did Oresme really travel that distance just to view the shroud, as Sarzeaud suggests? Even only from Paris to Lirey the distance is some 200 km., one-way. This seems yet another strong argument against Sarzeaud’s scenario. But please correct me if I’m wrong.

    John Loken

17. For over a hundred years, believers in the Shroud have attempted to undermine the very clear historical evidence and the highly informed opinion of the two bishops who denounced the forgery they discovered in the Middle Ages. Now the bishops are *three*. Some will try to claim that the text is not by Oresme (maybe forged by the Devil?) or that Champagne is not Champagne or that the Champagne was full of Shrouds, when it’s clear that Oresme is telling the same story as Pierre d’Arcis’s memoir regarding the only XIV century Shroud in Champagne. Or perhaps they want us to believe that three medieval bishops did not believe in relics and invented lies to discredit them, truly a unique case in history. The approach is always the same: discredit, telling lies, using the illogical argument of its impossibility to replicate the cloth, and discussing supposed characteristics of the Shroud that almost no one knows, and no one can know, because the object is kept well hidden. Keeping the object hidden and beyond any analysis is the only way left to continue this circus, which should have been over many decades ago. Like a flat-earther taken into space to see that the Earth isn’t flat, they will say that the glass of the spaceship is warped.

18. Sturp proved that the image was not produced by an artist. Also Sturp, a modern team of investigative scientists, are not sure the image could be recreated even in our time. Its 3D aspects, among others. To praise up a medieval nationalist thinker, disregard the findings of a neutral team of contemporary scientists is assumes hidden biases, and is more characteristic of scientism than science. While I don’t think one’s faith should rest primarily on the Shroud of Turin such articles overplay their hand.

19. Hi, Tim and Joseph,
    I don’t pretend to know much about France’s various regions/provinces/departments. While I know of the Champagne region (well-known for making champagne), I assumed that there was, also, a city–like with Venice–where it is both a city in Italy and a region. And, while I have, in the past, performed some quick research on the city of Lirey (to find out its population size), I probably came across what region it’s in, but I didn’t remember that. So, big deal–so what–that an American’s not up on her French provinces. I bet that the two of y’all aren’t up on the various counties in Texas, but does that really matter?
    But, since we’re discussing that sort of thing, my overall point is still well-taken. When it’s mentioned that there is a “church in Champagne”–that gives the impression of a city–after all, think of just how many churches there must be in the entire region of Champagne? And, think of how many churches some towns/cities even have. So, it was a fair assumption that what was being referred to was a different town/city than Lirey. And, since Champagne is made up of 4 different “departments”–see, now I’m doing my “homework” 😉, my point is still valid that there could be multiple fake burial cloths of Christ floating around even in one town or “department” much less a whole REGION. And, the claim that there have been lots of fake relics floating around during the medieval period is not one that I’ve made but one that the medievalists make–so, I’m just using your own arguments against you.
    And, Joseph, you mention two fake Shrouds being displayed simultaneously. But, that’s not really what Hugh and Andrea Nicolotti are reporting. Hugh wrote: “A manuscript from 1370, twenty years before the Shroud resurfaced after being hidden for ‘about 34 years,’ or any of the episcopal or papal correspondence regarding the second series of expositions, has been discovered, which confirms the information that the Shroud was well known as a fake even then.” I don’t see in this statement that a claim is even being made of two purported Shrouds of Christ being displayed SIMULTANEOUSLY, do you?
    And, Tim, perhaps you need to learn to read more carefully what is said (and the tone of what is said) by others. Neither I, nor Gerardo, are feeling “panicky” or “desperate” or “frantic” about this big old “nothing-burger” of a find (and that’s assuming that it was even legitimately written by Oresme. Just like people like to constantly claim (rightly or wrongly) that other manuscripts were written by “Pseudo-(fill in any important author’s name), well, the same questions should be asked of this document. But, even if true, it’s still meaningless
    But, my point is, even if this document is legit, so what. It’s so nebulous and it is, additionally, hearsay based upon hearsay. And, even if it were not hearsay, what is the basis for someone’s conclusion that a purported burial shroud that they saw was a fake?
    But, Tim and Joseph, there’s no need for anyone to panic or feel frantic or desperate when it comes to the Shroud’s authenticity. All they. need to do is read AND UNDERSTAND the science–I mean, go back to STURP’s published papers and trudge through them, and then see all of the failed experiments that STILL CANNOT REPLICATE AN IMAGE ON LINEN that matches the Shroud’s characteristics.
    Sorry, but the authenticists are the one holding the ACES, and it’s the medievalists who are desperate to debunk a miraculous image that continues to defy replication and that is still with us.
    Best,
    Teddi

20. The frantic and desperate reactions of the Shroud believers here to this new evidence is pretty hilarious. Pappas gets confused about geography and then declares about the famed *theologian* Oresme “there’s no telling to what lengths he’ll go to convince people that the supernatural realm does not exist”. Ummm, what? And Ballabio thinks the fact Oresme refers to this fake shroud as though it was a well-known fake somehow means it … *wasn’t * a well-known fake.

    Their panic is palpable.

    Sarzeaud’s excellent paper is now available and places the fake Turin Shroud firmly in a medieval context of multiple fake shrouds and a culture of well-informed learned scepticism about fake relics. If only modern supposed “scientists” could be as sensible as these sceptical medieval clergy. We live in an age of credulity and stupidity, unfortunately.

21. Hi, Gerardo,

    Thanks for the information on Lirey being in Champagne. Well, David Hume was a very important person (like Oresme), but he (like Oresme) tried his best to undermine the belief in miracles–which is, ultimately, undermining a rational belief in the supernatural. Oddly, enough, Hume’s standard for establishing a miracle is a favorite of mine in that the evidence for the Holy Shroud’s authenticity creates that very “testimony”–through the results of scientific tests and microscopic observations–that does, indeed, establish a miracle–the miraculous body images on the Holy Shroud–by showing that a non-miraculous explanation is rather absurd (when examining all of the evidence AND the CONTEXT that surrounds the evidence.

    My speech/presentation at the St. Louis Shroud conference addresses the evidence and CONTEXT which surrounds the Holy Shroud and Its body images on It.

    Hume’s famous quote is as follows: “. . . no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish.”

    The idea of a “Hypothetical Artist”–which Giulio Fanti cleverly refers to as “H.A.” (ha, ha, ha!)–creating two full-sized body images on a linen cloth–that matches the chemical and microscopic characteristics of the Shroud of Turin is, indeed, a “ha, ha, ha” idea. The idea that a body can form such an image on cloth–when countless Jews have been buried in such burial cloths only to have the bones removed from the cloth after about a year, yet NO STRANGE BODY IMAGES have ever been reported on any other cloths–except for the Shroud of Turin’s–speaks, again, to who there is NO EVIDENCE that a “H.A.” or a natural process could form images like what are seen on the Holy Shroud.

    Instead, as is laid out in my conference speech, EVIDENCE, LOGIC and REASON point to the body images on the Shroud of Turin (really the Shroud of Christ!) as having been SUPERNATURALLY made. What I really focused in on was the CONTEXT from which the body images on the Shroud need to be examined from. Context is a vital component to the correct understanding of evidence.

    All the best,

    Teddi

22. This is a great article and it is published now on the journal website.

    Teddi seems to be fundamentally confused about geogrpahy when she says:

    “{T}here is absolutely no nexus between the supposed Shroud (fake or not) in Champagne and what was in Lirey.”

    Champagne is the region. Lirey is the commune. There is absolutely a nexus between them, as there is between any town and the region it inhabits.

    There were many fake shrouds indeed. Are we to believe there were TWO being displayed simultaneously in the same part of France? That dog won’t hunt.

23. Teddi: in fact, Lirey *is* in Champagne.
    I don’t know whether Oresme was “another Thurston or Chevalier”. I know he is a very important figure in medieval mathematics and science.
    That said, it is very likely that he knew the “Shroud in Champagne” only by hearsay, and his belief that it was fake isn’t evidence that it actually was, or even that it was commonly recognized as such. It was just his uninformed opinion.
    The main significance of this discovery is that it confirms that the Shroud had been exhibited before 1370 and news of the exhibition had reached at least Rouen, where Oresme lived, that is about 250 km from Lirey.
    In fact, I’d say it’s unlikely that it would have received so much attention if everybody believed it was fake.

24. Additionally, you mention the following, Hugh, about Chevalier, oh, sorry, Oresme—that he was writing a treatise where he was discussing rational explanations for miracles. (!) I think we can figure out where his bias is and that it is against supernatural occurrences. Therefore, there’s no telling to what lengths he’ll go to convince people that the supernatural realm does not exist.

25. Hi, again,

    There’s not even evidence that the alleged fake in Champagne is connected to the Shroud exhibited in Lirey. So, this is even less relevant since you, and others, like to claim that during medieval times forgeries were commonplace, yes? (I’m not sure how true that is, but it’s irrelevant as there is absolutely no nexus between the supposed Shroud (fake or not) in Champagne and what was in Lirey.

    Also, just out of curiosity (not that I think that this letter is even remotely a threat to the Shroud of Turin’s authenticity), but “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” How do we even know if this manuscript is really that of Nicole Oresme? Maybe it’s by Pseudo Nicole Oresme? Is it signed? Is it dated? Has there been handwriting analysis done on it? Is it an autograph or a copy of a copy? And, how trustworthy is this Nicole Oresme and what’s his back-story–is he just another Thurston and Chevalier and others–who, perhaps, have motives (the way that some Christians nowadays do) to want to denounce the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin so that they can look pious and be the antithesis of a Doubting Thomas by just relying on pure faith in what the Gospels recount in order to believe in Jesus’ resurrection?

    Best regards,

    Teddi

    Cheers,

    Teddi

26. Hi, Hugh,

    What’s the big deal about this? This is just more useless hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay, etc. If I had a nickel for every time that someone tried to make baseless claims that the Shroud of Turin is a fake, well, I’d have a lot of nickels. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting, and, with the Shroud of Turin, what we have is a situation of “res ipsa loquitur”–the thing speaks for itself. For it to be a fake, it needs to be scientifically capable of being shown to be a fake–which would require showing how it could be made either naturally (such as with a human body–decomposing or not–or through human artifice. And, well, the evidence goes quite against this. So, not even close, and definitely no cigar! Baseless claims don’t trump Science, Logic and Reason.

    Teddi