This is the twenty-third (see here and here) instalment of My critique of Sarzeaud, N., 2025, "Further evidence suggests Jesus was not wrapped in 'Shroud of Turin'," Scimex, 29 Aug 2025. My words are in [bold square brackets] to distinguish them from those of the article's.
Today (25 October 2025) I Googled "Shroud of Turin" and I noticed the "AI Overview":
"The Shroud of Turin: Ancient Relic or Artistic Masterpiece? ... The Shroud of Turin is a linen cloth bearing the faint image of a crucified man, believed by many to be the burial shroud of Jesus Christ, though its authenticity is debated. While 1988 radiocarbon dating placed its origin between 1260 and 1390 AD, other scientific analyses of the image and bloodstains suggest they were formed in a way not yet fully understood and are consistent with the biblical account of Jesus's suffering. The image is a negative with three-dimensional information, and some modern studies question previous assumptions about its formation" (my emphasis)!This is consistent with my assumption about this article by Sarzeaud, that the sceptics realise that they are losing in the court of public opinion and are desperate to turn this around. However, they won't do it with such a pathetic beat up that a 14th century philosopher, Nicole Oresme, who had never seen the Shroud, mentioned in a footnote, a rumour ("it was said"), that in the 1355 exposition of "the shroud of the Lord Jesus Christ" at Lirey, France, the "clergy" deceived the public to "elicit offerings for their church ...," which was false (see below). And Oresme did not dispute that it was "the shroud of the Lord Jesus Christ"!
"Further evidence suggests Jesus was not wrapped in 'Shroud of Turin',"Scimex, 29 August 2025.
[Right (enlarge): Full-length negative image of the Shroud (Wikipedia)[STW]. Could an unknown medieval forger really have created this? Or does Naturalism's Emperor have no clothes?]
[Today (10 October 2025) I discovered the media release that all the news articles about medieval philosopher Nicole Oresme (1325-82)'s supposed rejection of the Shroud are based on, so I will start again and respond to that.]
A newly uncovered Medieval document has added further evidence to suggest that the famous Shroud of Turin was not authentic.
[This latest "evidence ... that the Shroud ... is not authentic" is a mere footnote (see below)! Oresme, a 14th century philosopher who had never seen the Shroud (because for ~30 years from 1359 to 1389, following the widowed Jeanne de Vergy (c.1332–1428)'s marriage to Aymon (Amadeus) IV of Geneva (-1369), the Shroud had been taken to Anthon in High Savoy[13Apr18] and even Bishop Pierre d'Arcis did not know where it was[27Dec14] until after Oresme had died in 1382). In a 1370 footnote, Oresme wrote:
"I do not need to believe those who say: 'So-and-so performed this or that miracle for me,' because in this way many clerics deceive others, inducing them to bring offerings to their churches. This is clear from the example of the church in Champagne, where it was said that it was the Shroud of the Lord Jesus Christ, and from the seemingly endless number of others who have invented this or that"[PA25].That's it! In the above footnote, Oresme does not dispute that the Shroud exhibited at "the church in Champagne" (i.e. the Church of St Mary, Lirey, France[13Aprl8]) was "the Shroud of the Lord Jesus Christ." His topic is not the Shroud but "clerics" who had claimed that their relics had worked miracles, deceiving their followers and "inducing them to bring offerings to their churches." Oresme's example of "the church in Champagne"(i.e. the Lirey church) is evidently based on the rumour ("it was said"), later made explicit by the Bishop of Troyes, Pierre d'Arcis (r. 1377-95) in his 1389 Memorandum, about the Shroud's c. 1356 exposition, that because "from all parts people came together to view" the Shroud, the de Charny's and/or the Lirey church canons must have made a lot of money from it:
"This story was put about not only in the kingdom of France, but, so to speak, through out the world, so that from all parts people came together to view it. And further to attract the multitude so that money might cunningly be wrung from them, pretended miracles were worked, certain men being hired to represent themselves as healed at the moment of the exhibition of the shroud, which all believed to be the shroud of our Lord"[WI79, 267].But as I pointed out in my post of 16Dec24:
• The evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud is "the shroud of our Lord." So it is possible that there were real miracles of healing associated with that first undisputed exposition of the Shroud. • Neither Geoffroy I de Charny's widow, Jeanne de Vergy, nor the Lirey church, were wealthy after the c. 1355 exposition. Following her husband's 1356 death, Jeanne had to appeal to the young future king Charles V (r. 1364-80) for her infant son Geoffroy II (1352-98) to be granted the two houses in Paris that Charles' captured father, King John II (r. 1350-64) had promised Geoffroy I (c. 1306-56) ... • And the small wooden Lirey church fell into disrepair ... until it was replaced in stone over 170 years later in 1526 ... [which d'Arcis knew up to 1395, when he ceased being the Bishop of Troyes, because Lirey is only ~12 miles (~20 km) from Troyes[13Apr18].]. • Yet according to d'Arcis ... Jeanne de Vergy, and/or the Lirey church, would have been fabulously wealthy from all that "money" they allegedly had "cunningly ... wrung from" the "multitude"! (• I could have added that "Simony ... the act of selling church offices and roles or sacred things" was a major crime in the Middle Ages and d'Arcis or his predecessor Henri de Poitiers (r. 1354–70), would have prosecuted Jeanne de Vergy and/or the Lirey church canons if they had made a lot of money from exhibiting the Shroud.) • This is ... evidence that d'Arcis was not simply mistaken, but was actually lying in his Memorandum!]
The linen cloth, which many believe was used to wrap the crucified body of Jesus, is called into question in this new document, which is described as the first-ever written, ‘official’ and highly respected rejection of the Shroud presented to-date. [It is laughable that Sarzeaud thinks that the overwhelming evidence that the Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet could be "called into question" by a mere footnote (see above), by Oresme, a 14th century philosopher, who had never seen the Shroud (see above), and who in his footnote did not dispute that the Shroud exhibited at the church in Champagne was the Shroud of the Lord Jesus Christ (see above). And it is not a "document" but a footnote (see above)! And while it is "the first-ever written ... rejection of the Shroud" by a named Shroud sceptic that has survived, it is hardly "‘official’ and highly respected," since, as Sarzeaud says in in this media release (see future below), it was only recently discovered by "historians Alain Boureau [1946-] and Béatrice Delaurenti [1972-]."
Also, in 1978, ~47 years ago, Ian Wilson (1941-) published an English translation of the 1389 Memorandum of Bishop Pierre d'Arcis, in which d'Arcis stated:
"For many theologians and other wise persons declared that this could not be the real shroud of our Lord having the Saviour's likeness thus imprinted upon it, since the holy Gospel made no mention of any such imprint, while, if it had been true, it was quite unlikely that the holy Evangelists would have omitted to record it, or that the fact should have remained hidden until the present time"[WI78, 230].So there were many Shroud sceptics in d'Arcis' and Oresme's day. That is understandable because it was not until 1898 (528 years after Oresme's 1370 footnote) when Secondo Pia (1855-1941) photographed the Shroud[05Jun21], and discovered that the Shroudman's image was a photographic negative (see above)[22Dec16; 05Jun21], that scientists and the general public began to take the Shroud seriously as possibly Jesus' burial sheet.]
The statement was written by Norman theologian Nicole Oresme, who later became the Bishop of Lisieux in France. [Oresme was not a "theologian." Wikipedia says he was "a French philosopher of the later Middle Ages ... [who] wrote influential works on economics, mathematics, physics, astrology, astronomy, philosophy, and theology"[ONW]. Nicolas Sarzeaud (1992-) boosts Oresme, such that it is more about what Sarzeaud thinks about the Shroud than what Oresme thought about it! It reminds me of the joke about the preacher's sermon note which read, "argument weak here - shout"!]
His opinion is particularly useful, according to the researchers, because he was well known for working to provide rational explanations for unexplained phenomena (rather than interpreting them as divine or demonic), and he was not personally involved in the dispute – so had no interest in supporting his own position. [See above that Oresme did not express an opinion on the Shroud. And if he had, it would have been worthless, since, as we saw above, Oresme had never seen the Shroud. And as for it being "useful ... to provide rational explanations for unexplained phenomena (rather than interpreting them as divine ...)," that would only be true, in the case of the Shroud, if Naturalism, the philosophy that nature is all there is, there is no supernatural, including God, were true. But the Shroud is scientific evidence that Jesus was raised supernaturally from death by the power of God (1Cor 6:14; Col 2:12) (see 03Aug24), and therefore that Naturalism is not true!]
[...]
Was Jesus’ crucified body wrapped in the Shroud of Turin? A newly discovered Medieval document is the earliest written evidence to suggest not. [Again, see above that it was not a "document" but a mere footnote. And in that footnote, Oresme, who had never seen the Shroud (see above) does not dispute that the Shroud exhibited at "the church in Champagne" was "the Shroud of the Lord Jesus Christ." (see above).]
World-leading Shroud of Turin expert says findings are "further historical evidence that even in the Middle Ages, they knew that the Shroud was not authentic" [This "World-leading Shroud of Turin expert" is revealed (see future below) as Professor Andrea Nicolotti (1974-). But Nicolotti is an embodiment of "The invincible ignorance fallacy":
"The invincible ignorance fallacy, also known as argument by pigheadedness, is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word. The method used in this fallacy is either to make assertions with no consideration of objections or to simply dismiss objections by calling them excuses, conjecture, anecdotal, etc. or saying that they are proof of nothing, all without actually demonstrating how the objections fit these terms"[IIW].]Three Shroudie reviews of Nicolotti's book (which I own), "The Shroud of Turin - The History and Legends of the World’s Most Famous Relic" (2019), by Emanuela Marinelli (1951-), Ian Wilson (1941-) and Paolo Di Lazzaro (1958-), support this:
"Anyone who has already read other books by Nicolotti knows, however, his destructive attitude: his interpretation of the sources is always contrary to the authenticity of the Shroud and the denial of any possibility that the relic is the funeral sheet of Christ is continually repeated. He is anxious to turn off any light, so that the darkness could be total. Nicolotti operates a systematic exaltation of the scholars who believe the Shroud to be false, people he presents as reliable, and an equally systematic denigration of those who consider it authentic, branded as sindonologists who make pseudoscience"[ME22].
"Superficially, Nicolotti’s book presents as an authoritative, well-researched account of everything that is worth knowing about the Turin cloth’s history ... despite which high standing and convenient location he appears never to have examined the cloth itself at close quarters ... reasonably high-resolution digital photographs have been available since 2008, yet Nicolotti turns a surprisingly blind eye to the imagery that has so astonished many, providing scant description of it, and seeing no problem to it being accepted as the work of a medieval artist. The book’s ... illustrations lack any close-up views of its imagery’s characteristics, and there is no in-depth textual discussion of these ... denying their medical convincingness (in the teeth of some serious professional opinion to the contrary), and downplaying their famous `negative' properties"[WI22].
"Nicolotti on the contrary feels it is appropriate to write a chapter [5. `The creation of a myth'] that describes and comments on the results of the scientific research of the Shroud ... He ignored scientific articles of the utmost importance for the knowledge of the Shroud image ... he proved to have a marked tendency to select information and interpretations that are in line with his convictions, and this tendency prevents him to balance arguments in favor and against to hypotheses and results ... he reported outdated speculations that should be corrected in light of recent results ..."[DL20]As for this footnote being "further historical evidence that even in the Middle Ages, they knew that the Shroud was not authentic" is obviously false. The Shroud first appeared in undisputed history late in the Middle Ages (AD 500-1500) at a brief exposition at Lirey, France in 1355[13Apr18]. It was displayed on a high platform and the public below could not touch the Shroud, let alone examine it[24Nov15]. Soon afterwards the Shroud disappeared until a second brief exposition at Lirey in 1389[03Jul18]. At no time in the Middle Ages could anyone know that the Shroud was "not authentic.". Oresme couldn't know it because he never saw the Shroud[see above]! It was not until 1978 when STURP examined the Shroud for five days around the clock with a battery of scientific tests[20Jun22] , that it could be known that the Shroud was not a painting[08Dec22] and therefore it could reasonably be inferred that the Shroud was authentic, that is, Jesus' burial sheet[HG87, 28; SH90, 12; IJ98, 118; DT12, 26]. Today, The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet! And the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud has been proved beyond reasonable doubt to have been the result of a computer hacking[08Jul15; 14Jun25]!
Newly uncovered medieval evidence is the latest to cast doubt on the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, the linen cloth many believe was used to wrap the crucified body of Jesus. [See above here and here]. Sarzeaud is deceiving himself. To cast doubt on the authenticity of the Shroud, he would need to 1) plausibly explain all the Shroud's major features, including: • photographic negativity (see above)[22Dec16]; • three-dimensionallity[05Feb17]; • extreme superficiality[11Nov16]; • non-directionality[29Oct16]; • no outline[11Jun16]; • no style[05Sep16]; • x-rays of hand bones and teeth (x-rays discovered
[Above (enlarge): of a positive photograph of the Shroud on Shroud Scope, showing the finger (phalanges) and the hand (metacarpals) bones beneath the skin[20Apr17]. X-rays are invisible, but when they are absorbed by calcium in bones, the calcium fluoresces[CG82, 433; BM95, 42; RC99, 150-151]. Dead bodies don't emit x-rays but the Gospel accounts of the Transfiguration (Mt 17:1-2; Mk 9:2-3; Lk 9:28-31) record that Jesus' body emitted intense light[23Jun15; 05Sep16; 05Feb17], which includes x-rays as part of the Electromagnetic Spectrum[EMW], as a preview of Jesus' resurrection[05Sep16; 05Feb17; 08Dec22; 09Sep23; 02Jul24]! So this x-ray photograph of the Shroudman's hands is alone (and it is not alone) proof beyond reasonable doubt that the man on the Shroud is Jesus, photographed (written by light) at the instant of his resurrection[08Jul07]! So, to paraphrase Hebrews 2:3, how shall sceptics escape if they ignore such great evidence?]
1895)[20Apr17]; • real human blood[03Jun17]; • blood clots intact[04Sep17]; blood was on cloth before the image[05Nov17; 03Aug24]; • blood clot serum retraction halos[27Dec21](visible in ultraviolet light - discovered 1801)]; • distinction between arterial and venous blood flows (discovered 1628)[27Dec21]. And 2) plausibly explain away: • the historical[04Jul25], and • artistic[04Jul25] evidence that the Shroud existed seven centuries before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud[21Aug18; 04Oct18; 21Mar23; 11Jun23; 10Feb25].]
Following analysis, this recently discovered, previously unknown ancient document has become one of the oldest dismissals of the famous 14-foot cloth – and the oldest written evidence known to-date. [Again, see above, it is only a footnote, not a "document." And in that footnote, there is no "dismissal" of the Shroud by Oresme (see above). And even if there was, it would be worthless because Oresme never saw the Shroud (see above). Sceptics must be desperate for good news from their perspective, that they needed to resort to this fact-free beat up!]
Findings, published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Medieval History, show a highly-respected [Sarzeaud's second "highly-respected." See above on his rhetoric.] Norman theologian Nicole Oresme had rejected the Shroud, with this future bishop claiming it as a "clear" and "patent" fake – the result of deceptions by ‘clergy men’.[This is a LIE by Sarzeaud. Oresme never said those words! Neither did Oresme "reject ... the Shroud" (see above). And even if he had, it would have been worthless, because Oresme never saw the Shroud (see above). Neither were there "deceptions by ‘clergy men’" in exhibiting the Shroud at Lirey (see above). And as for "this future bishop," according to Sarzeaud's own journal article, Oresme was a bishop in name only, being more involved in Paris politics than attending his cathedral" (205 km = 127 miles away):
"Oresme actively participated in Parisian political life, particularly during the tumultuous 1350s, as an ally of the royal faction. Charles V exempted him from residence requirements at Rouen Cathedral, where complaints arose about his lack of attendance"[SN25].]Bearing a faint imprint image of the front and back of a naked man, consistent with traditional accounts of Jesus of Nazareth after his death by crucifixion, the Shroud’s genuineness is still being questioned to this day [Following its 1988 radiocarbon date of 1260-1390, the Shroud sunk to an all-time low in public opinion. Sceptic Lynne Picknett (1947-) recorded the "post-carbon-dating ... ridicule" of shroudies:
“The post-carbon-dating world of the Shroudies was very different from the one that preceded the devastating announcement of October 13, 1988. For the Shroudies, the worst thing about the carbon dating was the ridicule. Cartoons began to appear, and jokes about it crept into television programs, such as the irreverent satirical show Spitting Image. A full-length transparency of the Shroud would later figure in the British Museum's exhibition Fake: The Art of Deception. When Ian Wilson gave a talk to the Wrekin Trust on November 5, 1988, and was introduced as `being best known for his book The Turin Shroud, the large audience of respectable, intelligent people laughed. He may have smiled back, but one does not have to try too hard to understand his feelings[PP06, 11]– with many supporters of its authenticity maintaining their belief. [But since then as further evidence was discovered which supported that the Shroud is indeed Jesus' burial sheeet and problems of the Shroud's 1260-1390 radiocarbon date came to light, the Shroud has been steadily rising in public opinion. Articles like this show how desperate sceptics are, resorting to hype, lies, half-truths and suppressing evidence.]
This is despite ever-growing new research. For example, one paper this summer, published in the journal Archaeometry concluded – using 3D analysis – that the material had been wrapped around a sculpture, rather than Jesus’ body. [This is the article: Moraes, C., 2025, "Image Formation on the Holy Shroud—A Digital 3D Approach," Archaeometry 8 July. I have been emailed a PDF of the article. It is an exercise in self-deception. The claim is: 1) create a computer simulation of the frontal side of the Shroud (ignoring the back side); 2) it therefore resembles the Shroud's frontal side (surprise, surprise!) (see below); 3) therefore the Shroud was created by draping ~4.4 x ~1.1 metre linen
[Above (enlarge): Extract from Fig. 6 of Moraes' article showing the frontal image of the Shroud (left) and overlay of the low-relief model (right)[MC25,8].]
cloth over a "low relief" (i.e. a bas relief[03Mar12]) of unspecified material, and either rubbing pigment on the cloth[01Nov08; 03Mar12; 09May15] (cold); or scorching it[03Mar12] (hot). The article has been answered by Shroudie Alessandro Piana in Piana, A., 2025, “Was the Shroud Laid on a Sculpture? A Study Full of Errors," UCCR, 3 August. Piana's first paragraph says, "The Shroud was allegedly not laid over a body but over a bas-relief sculpture. This is the `new' theory proposed by Brazilian designer Cicero Moraes, but it is riddled with errors that undermine its methodological validity."
Problems of the Shroud having been created by overlaying its cloth over a bas relief and either rubbing pigment on the cloth, or scorching it, include: • Bishop d'Arcis would be wrong that the Shroud had been "painted" by an artist who confessed it to his predecessor, Bishop Henri de Poitiers[09May15; 03Jul18]. • As leading Shroud sceptic Walter McCrone (1916-2020) pointed out, a medieval forger would have simply painted the Shroud[07Jul23]. • Art based on bas reliefs did not exist in the 14th century[01Nov08; 03Mar12]. • A bas relief is one-sided, whereas the Shroud image is two-sided: front and back[03Mar12]. So a medieval forger transferring a bas relief image to the Shroud cloth would need to have created two bas reliefs: one for the man's front and one for his back! • Such bas reliefs, engraved with anatomical details unknown in the fourteenth century[01Nov08], would be great works of art in their own right[01Nov08; 03Mar12]. So where are they; or where is the record of their having existed[03Mar12]? • STURP found that there is no paint, pigment or dye which constitutes the Shroud's image[01Nov08], so that rules out a cold transfer of the bas relief image to the Shroud cloth using pigments, etc, as they would inevitably be trapped in the Shroud's weave[03Mar12]. • STURP also found that bas-relief shrouds do not reproduce the Shroud's three-dimensional, superficial and non-directional properties[01Nov08; 05Feb17]. • If the Shroud image was created using heated bas reliefs to scorch the man's image onto the Shroud's linen, he would need to have manipulated a ~4.4 x ~1.1 metre (~14.4 x ~3.6 feet) linen cloth over two bas reliefs, heated at just the right temperature to not burn the cloth[03Mar12], when the only heat source was burning wood, charcoal, coal or oil, because electric heating was not invented until the 19th century[03Mar12]. A heat scorch of a cloth draped over a hot bas relief inevitably causes hot spots (e.g. the tip of the nose) on the image, but there are no hot spots on the Shroud image[11Feb22; [RTB]. Heat scorches fluoresce but the Shroud image does not fluoresce[23Jun15; 11Feb22; [RTB]. • The blood was on the Shroud's linen before the image[see above], which also rules out heated bas reliefs which would cook the blood[03Mar12]. • If the Shroud was printed on linen laid over two bas relief, then the forger could run off many Shrouds, so why did he stop at one Shroud[01Nov08; 03Mar12]? • How did the forger obtain a ~4.4 x ~1.1 metre rare and expensive herringbone twill linen cloth, which the Shroud is[10Jul15; 08Apr20]? Which `just happens' to be close to 8 x 2 Assyrian cubits of 21.6 inches[10Jul15; 08Apr20]!]
Previous radiocarbon dating of the Shroud has also determined the linen was produced at the end of the 13th or 14th century. [No it didn't. See 14May25 & 14Jun25 for proof beyond reasonable doubt that my Linick-Koch Hacker Theory is true. and therefore the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud is the result of a computer hacking[18Feb14; 24May14; 23Jul15 & 28Jan25]!]
"This now-controversial relic has been caught up in a polemic between supporters and detractors of its cult for centuries," explains Dr Nicolas Sarzeaud, the lead author of this new study, out today. [The only "cult" in this context is that of Naturalism, i.e. nature is all that there is: there is no supernatural, including that the Shroud image was not the result of Jesus' resurrection! Like cultists, philosophical naturalists such as Sarzeaud, cannot conceive that the image on the Shroud is the result of a supernatural miracle by God - a "snapshot" of Jesus' resurrection:
"Even from the limited available information, a hypothetical glimpse of the power operating at the moment of creation of the Shroud's image may be ventured. In the darkness of the Jerusalem tomb the dead body of Jesus lay, unwashed, covered in blood, on a stone slab. Suddenly, there is a burst of mysterious power from it. In that instant ... the body becomes indelibly fused onto the cloth, preserving for posterity a literal `snapshot' of the Resurrection"[22Dec11; 05Sep16; 06Jan12; 07Feb12, etc].and therefore a false naturalistic explanation of the Shroud's image is preferred by them to a true supernatural explanation!]
Dr Sarzeaud is a researcher in history at the Université Catholique of Louvain, in Belgium, and a fellow of the Villa Médicis, the French Academy, in Rome, Italy. His focus is on the history of relics and images – and more specifically on the question of traces in the West in the late Middle Ages. [All from a naturalistic perspective! While the vast majority of Roman Catholic relics are presumably fakes, at least two of them: the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo are true relics, being Jesus' burial shroud (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53)[RTB] and the face cloth which had been on Jesus' head (Jn 20:7)[RTB], respectively.]
His new paper is important, he explains, as it shows that a statement – found by renowned historians Alain Boureau and Béatrice Delaurenti [Not just "historians but "renowned historians"! Béatrice Delaurenti is merely an Associate Professor in History, yet she is renowned! This shows that Sarzeaud, like his mentor Andrea Nicolotti "operates a systematic exaltation of the scholars who believe the Shroud to be false" (see above). See above that I am keeping track of Sarzeaud's rhetorical boosting of those who agree with him, to enhance his weak case.]– within a treatise by Oresme is now the first-ever written [Sarzeaud cannot know that. All that he can know is that it's the first that has survived. And this is the "Argument from age" fallacy: that because something is the oldest it must be true. And Oresme's 1370 footnote is not even the oldest mention of the Shroud. In 1207 Nicholas Mesarites (c. 1163/4–aft. 1216), before the 1204 Sack of Constantinople, was the custodian of the Byzantine Empire's relic collection in the Pharos Chapel. In 1207 Mesarites wrote of his repelling a mob intent on storming the Pharos Chapel in 1201, by warning them:
"In this chapel Christ rises again, and the sindon with the burial linens is the clear proof ... The burial sindon of Christ: this is of linen, of cheap and easily obtainable material, still smelling fragrant of myrrh, defying decay, because it wrapped the mysterious [aperilepton], naked dead body after the Passion"[29Mar14; RTB].The Greek word aperilepton means "un-outlined," which is a unique descriptor of the image on the Shroud, which has no outline[29Mar14; RTB]. Moreover, Mesarites stated that Christ's body was naked, but not until the fourteenth century, and then only rarely, was Christ's body depicted as naked[29Mar14; RTB]. These three unique descriptors of the image on the Shroud: sindon (shroud), aperilepton ("unoutlined"), and "naked," can only refer to the Shroud and therefore are proof beyond reasonable doubt that the Shroud existed in Constantinople in 1201[29Mar14; RTB], ~59 years before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud, ~154 years before the first undisputed exposition of the Shroud at Lirey, France, in c. 1355, and ~169 years before Oresme's 1370 footnote!]
This is rather [sic] than the previously known account written in 1389 by the bishop of Troyes, Pierre d’Arcis, who rejected the Shroud as a fraud and reported that a predecessor of his had done likewise in around 1355. [For starters, d'Arcis claimed that the Shroud had been "painted"(see above). But Sarzeaud claimed above that it was created by a bas relief. He cannot have it both ways. Anyway, STURP proved in 1978-81 that the Shroud image was not painted[RTB], so d'Arcis was wrong[RTB]. STURP also proved that the Shroud image was not created by a bas relief[RTB]! ]
Dr Sarzeaud says Oresme – who later became the Bishop of Lisieux, in France [See above that Oresme was a bishop in name only, being more involved in Paris politics than attending his cathedral.]– was a particularly important figure at the time and well-regarded for his attempts to provide rational explanations for so-called miracles and other phenomena [If Oresme denied Jesus' miracles in the Gospels, then he was not a Christian, but an anti-Christian, as Sarzeaud is.]. He was influential, too, for his works on economics, mathematics, physics, astrology, astronomy, and philosophy[None of which has any relevance to the Shroud.]"What has been uncovered is a significant dismissal of the Shroud," Dr Sarzeaud states. [See above that there was no "dismissal of the Shroud" by Oresme and even if there had been, it would not be "significant" because, again, Oresme had never seen the Shroud. See also above that for ~30 years from 1359 to 1389, following the c. 1355 first Lirey exposition, the Shroud had been taken by Jeanne de Vergy to Anthon in High Savoy (~405 kms = ~252 miles from Lirey) and even Bishop d'Arcis did not know where it was until the second Lirey Shroud exposition in 1389[03Jul18], after Oresme had died in 1382.] "Oresme asserts: ‘I do not need to believe anyone who claims: "Someone performed such miracle for me" [What if that "someone" was right and a real miracle of healing had occurred for them in Oresme's diocese? Would Oresme refuse to believe that parishioner's testimony?], because many clergy men thus deceive others, in order to elicit offerings for their churches. [This does not follow. Why should that "many clergy men ... deceive others, in order to elicit offerings for their churches" be a reason for Oresme to not believe "anyone who claims: `Someone performed [a] miracle for me"? They are two entirely different things. ] ‘This is clearly the case for a church in Champagne, where it was said that there was the shroud of the Lord Jesus Christ [Again "it was said" was only a rumour that at that first undisputed exposition of the Shroud at the Lirey church, because "from all parts people came together to view" the Shroud, the de Charny's and/or the Lirey church canons must have made a lot of money from it (see above). But Jeanne de Vergy remained poor after the 1356 exposition and so did the Lirey church, which fell into disrepair. Also, they would have been convicted of the crime of simony if what Oresme and d'Arcis claimed was true (see above).]"Nicole Oresme did not choose just any venerated object as an example of a fraud orchestrated by the clergy. Oresme chose the claim of the Champenoise (Lirey) shrine to possess the Shroud as a striking example of lies fabricated by the clergy. [And both Oresme and Sarzeaud picked the wrong example There must have been many churches in Oresme's time that were claiming that their fake relics worked miracles "to elicit offerings for their churches." Why did Oresme choose as his example a relic (the Shroud) that he had never seen and of which the evidence is against that Jeanne de Vergy and/or the Lirey canons "attract[ed] the multitude so that money might cunningly be wrung from them [by] pretended miracles"? Clearly the answer is that both Oresme and Sarzeaud were/are anti-Christians! And the Shroud was/is a threat to their anti-Christianity. They will find out how Jesus will deal with "these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them" (Lk 19:27)!]"What makes Oresme’s writing stand out is his attempt to provide rational explanations for unexplained phenomena, rather than interpreting them as divine or demonic. [By "rational" Sarzeaud means "naturalistic". But what if the Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet, as the evidence overwhelmingly indicates? Then "rational" is supernaturalistic and naturalistic is irrational!] The philosopher even rated witnesses according to factors such as their reliability, and also cautioned against rumour. [Oresme should have taken his own advice, because his footnote was based on a rumor (“it was said”) (see above) that the Lirey clerics deceived the public by exhibiting the Shroud in 1356, inducing them to bring offerings to the Lirey church. Which was false (see above.]"Nicole Oresme was unwilling to compromise his scholarly approach for pastoral purposes. [What "pastoral purposes”? According to Sarzeaud's own journal article, Oresme was more interesed in Paris politics (205 km = 127 miles away) than attending his cathedral (see above). And did Oresme “denounce all errors and manipulations"? Or only Christian ones, because Oresme was, like Sarzeaud is, an anti-Christian? And the Shroud is not an “error” because the evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud is the burial sheet of Jesus!" Also it is fallacious for Sarzeaud to use Oresme against the Shroud, because he wrote his footnote in 1370, which was more than five centuries before Secondo Pia discovered in 1898 that the Shroud image was a photographic negative, and more than six centuries before STURP discovered in 1978-81 that the Shroud image was three-dimensional, extremely superficial and non-directional, etc. [see above].].Dr Sarzeaud adds: "When viewed in the broader history of relics and devotional images, this case gives us an unusually detailed account of clerical fraud [It is not "unusually detailed." It was just a rumour. And a false rumour at that!] – a topic typically treated generically in satire or theological debates on the potential for superstitious devotion [Sarzeaud is an atheist if he thinks that Christian devotion is "superstitious"!], but very rarely documented in the form of concrete accusations of fraud against a clerical institution. [There was no "concrete accusations of fraud." Oresme didn't even name the church. And there was no "fraud" because Jeanne de Vergy and/or the Lirey canons would have been charged with it by Bishops de Poitiers or d'Arcis, but they weren't (see above).]."Oresme’s assessment of the Shroud, too, actually prompted him to be more broadly suspicious of the word of clergy all together." [Oresme made no "assessment of the Shroud." How could he? He never saw it. And soon after the 1356 exposition Jeanne married Aymon IV of Geneva and had taken the Shroud with her to live with Aymon in Anthon, High Savoy, ~405 kms or ~252 miles from Lirey (see above). Even d'Arcis did not know where the Shroud was until it returned to Lirey for the Shroud's second, 1389 exposition. In his 1389 Memorandum d'Arcis wrongly thought that the Dean of Lirey church had "kept it hidden afterwards for thirty-four years or thereabouts down to the present year"[27Dec14; 11Jul16; 08Oct16; 08Nov22]. And Oresme had died 7 years earlier in 1382.]To be continued in the twenty-fourth instalment of this post.
Notes:
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its title, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
Rhetoric: "highly respected" (1)
Bibliography
BM95. Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, 18-51.
CG82. Carter, G.F., 1982, "Formation of the Image on the Shroud of Turin by x-Rays: A New Hypothesis," in Lambert, J.B., ed., 1984, "Archaeological Chemistry III: ACS Advances in Chemistry, No. 205," American Chemical Society, Washington D.C., 425-446.
DL20. Di Lazzaro, P., 2020, “Let no-one who is not a mathematician read my principles” -Scientific notes on the book of the historian Andrea Nicolotti The Shroud of Turin: the history and legends of the world's most famous relic," ResearchGate, December
DT12. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London.
EMW. "Electromagnetic spectrum," Wikipedia, 8 October 2025.
Electromagnetic spectrum," Wikipedia, 15 August 2025.
HG87. Habermas, G.R., 1987, "Affirmative Statement: Gary R. Habermas," in Habermas, G.R., Flew, A.G.N. & Miethe, T.L., ed., "Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?: The Resurrection Debate," Harper & Row: San Francisco CA.
IIW. "Invincible ignorance fallacy," Wikipedia, 5 May 2024.
IJ98. Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY.
ME22. Marinelli, E., 2022, "The Desire for Total Darkness: Review of Andrea Nicolotti’s The Shroud of Turin - The History and Legends of the World’s Most Famous Relic," Shroud.com.
ONW. "Nicole Oresme," Wikipedia, 8 October 2025.
MC25. Moraes, C., 2025, "Image Formation on the Holy Shroud-A Digital 3D Approach," Archaeometry, 18 July, 1-10.
PA25. Piana, A., 2025, "Shroud, A Rumor in a Medieval Document Peddled as Proof," UCCR, 29 Aug 2025.
PP06. Picknett, L. & Prince, C., 2006, "The Turin Shroud: How da Vinci Fooled History," [1994], Touchstone: New York NY, Second edition, Reprinted, 2007.
RC99. Ruffin, C.B., 1999, "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN.
RTB. Reference(s) to be provided.
SH90. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN.
SN25. Sarzeaud, N., 2025, "A New Document on the Appearance of the Shroud of Turin from Nicole Oresme: Fighting False Relics and False Rumours in the Fourteenth Century," Journal of Medieval History, 28 August.
STW. "Shroud of Turin," Wikipedia, 8 October 2025.
WI78. Wilson, I., 1978, "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London.
WI79. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition.
WI22. Wilson, I., 2022, "Is the Shroud of Turin a Fake?: Ian Wilson’s Critique of Andrea Nicolotti’s Study," The Catholic Historical Review, Vol. 108, No. 2, Spring, 391-404.
Posted 10 October 2025. Updated 31 October 2025.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment