For centuries, Catholics have flocked to the Italian city of Turin to be in the presence of its famous shroud.
The venerated piece of linen, measuring 14ft 5in by 3ft 7in, bears a faint image of the front and back of a man – interpreted by many as Jesus Christ.
Believers say it was used to wrap the body of Christ after his crucifixion, leaving his bloody imprint, like a photographic snapshot.
But a newly-uncovered piece of early evidence claims this actually wasn’t the case.
In the written document, dating from the 14th century, French theologian Nicole Oresme (1325-1382) wholeheartedly rejects the shroud, which was first uncovered in the Champagne region of France.
The influential philosopher and bishop calls the shroud a ‘clear’ and ‘patent’ fake – the result of deceptions by shady ‘clergy men’.
In the document, Oresme asserts: ‘I do not need to believe anyone who claims: “Someone performed such miracle for me”, because many clergy men thus deceive others, in order to elicit offerings for their churches.
‘This is clearly the case for a church in Champagne, where it was said that there was the shroud of the Lord Jesus Christ, and for the almost infinite number of those who have forged such things, and others.’
An influential philosopher and bishop calls the shroud a ‘clear’ and ‘patent’ fake – the result of deceptions by ‘clergy men’
The venerated piece of linen, measuring 14ft 5in by 3ft 7in, bears a faint image of the front and back of a man – interpreted by many as Jesus Christ. Believers say it was used to wrap the body of Christ after his crucifixion, leaving his bloody imprint, like a photographic snapshot. But a newly-uncovered piece of evidence suggests this was actually not the case
The previously-unknown document from 1355–82 offers one of the oldest dismissals of the famous 14-foot cloth – and the oldest written evidence known to-date.
It is discussed in a new paper authored by Dr Nicolas Sarzeaud, historian at Université Catholique of Louvain, in Belgium.
‘This now-controversial relic has been caught up in a polemic between supporters and detractors of its cult for centuries,’ Dr Sarzeaud said.
‘What has been uncovered is a significant dismissal of the shroud… this case gives us an unusually detailed account of clerical fraud.’
Nicole Oresme – who later became the Bishop of Lisieux, in France – was a particularly important religious figure in the later Middle Ages.
He was influential, too, for his works on economics, mathematics, physics, astrology, astronomy and philosophy.
But he was particularly well-regarded for his attempts to provide rational explanations for so-called miracles and other phenomena.
‘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,’ Dr Sarzeaud said.
In the document, French theologian Nicole Oresme (1325-1382) wholeheartedly rejects the shroud. This page from the book ‘Traité de l’espère’ depicts Nicole Oresme busy at his studies, with an armillary sphere in the foreground
The shroud first appeared in 1354 in France. After initially denouncing it as a fake, the Catholic church has now embraced the shroud as genuine. Pictured, Pope Francis visits the Shroud of Turin in 2015
The Shroud of Turin (pictured) is believed by many to be the cloth in which the body of Jesus was wrapped after his death, but not all experts are convinced it is genuine
‘The philosopher even rated witnesses according to factors such as their reliability, and also cautioned against rumour. It was essential for him to denounce all errors and manipulations.’
Oresme’s honest assessment of the Shroud of Turin generally prompted him to be ‘more broadly suspicious’ of the word of clergy altogether, adds Dr Sarzeaud, who completely agrees with the historic bishop that it was a ‘forged relic in the Middle Ages’.
‘Although we generally consider people from this era to be credulous, Oresme provides a precious example of medieval critical thinking,’ he said.
‘It is striking that, of the thousands of relics from this period, it is the one most clearly described as false by the medieval Church that has become the most famous today.’
The Shroud of Turin was likely strategically placed and fraudulently presented as authentic by clergy men in the church of Lirey, a commune in north-central France where it originates, in 1354.
As such, the controversial relic was known as the Shroud of Lirey in medieval times, before eventually being transported to Turin in 1578.
Commenting on Dr Sarzeaud’s findings, world-leading Shroud of Turin expert Professor Andrea Nicolotti called the results ‘further historical evidence that even in the Middle Ages, they knew that the shroud was not authentic’.
‘The other technological and scientific evidence, which points in the same direction, remains unchanged,’ said Professor Nicolotti, a professor of Christian history at the University of Turin.
Pictured, an exposition of the Shroud of Turin begins in the Turin Cathedral, Italy, April 2015. The object’s rich religious heritage and ceremonial value is thought to contribute to a passionate reverence, often religious in nature
However, the new paper, published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Medieval History, will unlikely put the debate to bed.
Way back in 1389, the shroud was denounced as a forgery by the bishop of Troyes, Pierre d’Arcis – but it has nevertheless inspired Catholic devotion since.
Even for some academics, the shroud – held at a chapel at the centre of the Italian city – is one of Christianity’s most holy relics that asks more questions that it answers.
Tim Andersen, research scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, previously said there is ‘no plausible scientific explanation for how it could have been forged or even created by natural processes’.
Meanwhile, Professor Liberato De Caro, a scientist at the Italian National Research Council who uses x-ray methods, said that everything on the shroud is ‘highly correlated to what the Gospels tell about Jesus Christ’ and his death.
It follows a paper published earlier this year in the journal Archaeometry that concluded – using 3D analysis – that the material had been wrapped around a sculpture, rather than Jesus’ body.
This article was originally published by a www.dailymail.co.uk . Read the Original article here. .