My critique of Sarzeaud, N., 2025, "Further evidence suggests Jesus was not wrapped in 'Shroud of Turin'," Scimex, 29 Aug 2025

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

Newcomers start with: "The Turin Shroud in a nutshell"

This is the first instalment of My critique of Sarzeaud, N., 2025, "Further evidence suggests Jesus was not wrapped in 'Shroud of Turin'," Scimex, 29 Aug 2025. It was originally an item of my Shroud of Turin News, but I realised it would be too long for that. My words will be in [bold square brackets] to distinguish them from those of the article's.

---

"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 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 pathetic! A 14th century philosopher who had never seen the Shroud, in a footnote 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!]

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 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 Secondo Pia (1855-1941) photographed the Shroud in 1898[05Jun21], more than 500 years after Oresme's footnote, and discovered that the Shroudman's image was a photographic negative[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]. Throughout this media release, its author, 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 lawyer's courtroom note which read, "Argument weak here - shout"!]

To be continued in the second 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]

Bibliography
ONW. "Nicole Oresme," Wikipedia, 8 October 2025.
PA25. Piana, A., 2025, "Shroud, A Rumor in a Medieval Document Peddled as Proof," UCCR, 29 Aug 2025.
RTB. Reference(s) to be provided.
STW. "Shroud of Turin," Wikipedia, 8 October 2025.
WI78. Wilson, I., 1978, "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London.

Posted 10 October 2025. Updated 10 October 2025.