The history of the Shroud of Turin begins in the year 1390 AD, when Bishop Pierre d'Arcis wrote a memorandum where he charged that the Shroud was a forgery.Emmanuel Poulle, ″Les sources de l'histoire du linceul de Turin. Revue critique″, Revue d'Histoire Ecclésiastique, 2009/3–4, p. 776.Abstract Historical records seem to indicate that a shroud bearing an image of a crucified man existed in the possession of Geoffroy de Charny in the small town of Lirey, France around the years 1353 to 1357.Mercer dictionary of the Bible by Watson E. Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard 1998 p. 822 The history from the 15th century to the present is well-documented.
The period until 1390 is subject to debate and controversy among historians. Prior to the 14th century there are some allegedly congruent but controversial references such as the Pray Codex.William Meacham, The Authentication of the Turin Shroud, An Issue in Archeological Epistemogy, Current Anthropology, 24, 3, 1983 ArticleBBC article 31 January 2005 Although there are numerous reports of Jesus' burial shroud, or an image of his head, of unknown origin, being venerated in various locations before the 14th century, there is no reliable historical evidence that these refer to the shroud currently held at Turin Cathedral.Humber, Thomas: The Sacred Shroud. New York: Pocket Books, 1980. A burial cloth, which some historians maintain was the Shroud, was owned by the Byzantine emperors but disappeared during the Sack of Constantinople in 1204.Emmanuel Poulle, ″Les sources de l'histoire du linceul de Turin. Revue critique″, Revue d'Histoire Ecclésiastique, 2009/3–4, pp. 747–781.Abstract Barbara Frale has cited that the Order of Knights Templar were in the possession of a relic showing a red, monochromatic image of a bearded man on linen or cotton.Barbara Frale, The Templars and The Shroud of Christ, p. 99 (Maverick House, 2011; ), Frale citing Charles Du Fresne, Glossarium Mediae et Infimae Latinitatis, p. 447 (Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1954).
In 1453 Margaret de Charny deeded the Shroud to the House of Savoy. In 1532, the shroud suffered damage from a fire in the church in Chambery, France where it was stored. A drop of molten silver from the reliquary produced a symmetrically placed mark through the layers of the folded cloth. Poor Clare Nuns attempted to repair this damage with patches. Repairs were made to the shroud in 1694 by Sebastian Valfrè to improve the repairs of the Poor Clare nuns.Architecture for the shroud: relic and ritual in Turin by John Beldon Scott 2003 p. 26 Further repairs were made in 1868 by Clotilde of Savoy.Holy Shroud of Turin by Arthur Stapylton Barnes 2003 p. 62
In 1578 the House of Savoy took the shroud to Turin and it has remained at Turin Cathedral ever since.The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: Q–Z by Geoffrey W. Bromiley 1995 p. 495 As of the 17th century the Shroud has been displayed (e.g. in the chapel built for that purpose by Guarino Guarini)Architecture for the shroud: relic and ritual in Turin by John Beldon Scott 2003 p. xxi and in 1898 it was first photographed during a public exhibition. The Shroud remained the property of the House of Savoy until 1983, when it was given to the Holy See, the rule of the House of Savoy having ended in 1946.
A fire, possibly caused by arson, threatened the Shroud on 11 April 1997.NY Times April 12, 1997 Shroud of Turin Saved From Fire in Cathedral In 2002, the Holy See had the Shroud restored. The cloth backing and thirty patches were removed, making it possible to photograph and scan the reverse side of the cloth, which had been hidden from view for centuries. The Shroud was exhibited to the public from August 8 to August 12, 2018. Andrea Nicolotti in a 2019 critical analysis of the Shroud's historical provenance, concludes the documented evidence and physical testing point to its origin in the High Middle Ages, while earlier references to burial cloths or image bearing relics refer to different objects and legends.
Fringe speculations about early artworks and relics
Although there are numerous reports of Jesus' burial shroud, or an image of his head, of unknown origin, being venerated in various locations before the fourteenth century, there is no historical evidence that these refer to the shroud currently at Turin Cathedral. Various speculations have attempted to link the Shroud of Turin with the legendary Image of EdessaWilson, pp. 148–175 although no legend connected with that image suggests that it contained the image of a beaten and bloody Jesus. Others have denied the possibility of the Turin shroud being identified with the Image of Edessa, on various grounds.Averil Cameron, The Sceptic and the Shroud London: King's College Inaugural Lecture monograph (1980)Averil Cameron, The mandylion and Byzantine Iconoclasm. in H. Kessler, G. Wolf, eds, The holy face and the paradox of representation. Bologna, (1998), 33–54
Shroud proponents cite an illustration in the Codex Pray, an Illuminated manuscript written in Budapest, Hungary between 1192 and 1195, as evidence for the shroud's existence before the fourteenth century.Wilson, Ian.(1986)The Mysterious Shroud, Garden city, New York; Doubleday & Company. p. 115Bercovits, I. (1969) Dublin: Irish University Press. Illuminated Manuscripts in HungaryWilson, I., "The Evidence of the Shroud", Guild Publishing: London, 1986, p. 114 and http://www.newgeology.us/presentation24.html However Italian Shroud researcher Gian Marco Rinaldi interprets the item that is sometimes identified as the Shroud as a probable rectangular tombstone as seen on other sacred images. Rinaldi also points out that the alleged shroud in the Pray Codex does not contain any image of a human body, and that a wadded cloth is clearly visible on top of this object.G.M.Rinaldi, "Il Codice Pray", http://sindone.weebly.com/pray.html
14th and 15th centuries The fullest academic account of the history of the Shroud since its first appearance in 1355 is John Beldon-Scott, Architecture for the Shroud: Relic and Ritual in Turin, University of Chicago Press, 2003. This study is indispensable for its many illustrations that show features of the Shroud images now lost.
The 14th century attribution of the origin of the shroud refers to a shroud in Lirey, France dating to 1353–1357. It is related that the widow of the French knight Geoffroi de Charny had it displayed in a church at Lirey, France (diocese of Troyes). According to the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia:
On 20 June 1353, Geoffroy de Charny, Lord of Savoisy and Lirey, founded at Lirey in honour of the Annunciation a collegiate church with six canonries, and in this church he exposed for veneration the Holy Winding Sheet. Opposition arose on the part of the Bishop of Troyes, who declared after due inquiry that the relic was nothing but a painting, and opposed its exposition. Clement VI by four Bulls, 6 Jan., 1390, approved the exposition as lawful. In 1418 during the civil wars, the canons entrusted the Winding Sheet to Humbert, Count de La Roche, Lord of Lirey. Margaret, widow of Humbert, never returned it but gave it in 1452 to the Duke of Savoy. The requests of the canons of Lirey were unavailing, and the Lirey Winding Sheet is the same that is now exposed and honoured at Turin."
In the Museum Cluny in Paris, the coats of arms of this knight and his widow can be seen on a pilgrim medallion, which also shows an image of the Shroud of Turin.
During the fourteenth century, the shroud was often publicly exposed, though not continuously, because the bishop of Troyes, Henri de Poitiers, had prohibited veneration of the image. Thirty-two years after this pronouncement, the image was displayed again, and King Charles VI of France ordered its removal to Troyes, citing the impropriety of the image. The sheriffs were unable to carry out the order.
In 1389, the image was denounced as a fraud by Bishop Pierre D'Arcis in a letter to the Avignon Antipope Clement VII, mentioning that the image had previously been denounced by his predecessor Henri de Poitiers, who had been concerned that no such image was mentioned in scripture. Bishop D'Arcis continued, "Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed." (In German:.) The artist is not named in the letter.English translation of Memorandum contained in Ian Wilson, The Turin Shroud, pp. 230–235 (Victor Gollancz Ltd; 1978 )Joe Nickell, Inquest on the Shroud of Turin: Latest Scientific Findings, Prometheus Books, 1998, The bishop stated during the Shroud's initial exhibition, a number of people were also hired to pretend to be healed to fool the crowds. He too recalled that during de Poitiers investigation, many other theologians declared it could not be the real shroud of Jesus.
The letter of Bishop D'Arcis also mentions Bishop Henri's attempt to suppress veneration but notes that the cloth was quickly hidden "for 35 years or so", thus agreeing with the historical details already established above. The letter provides an accurate description of the cloth: "upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and the front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Saviour Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb, and upon which the whole likeness of the Saviour had remained thus impressed together with the wounds which He bore."
Despite the pronouncement of Bishop D'Arcis, Antipope Clement VII (first antipope of the Western Schism) did not revoke the permission given earlier to the church of Lirey to display the object,Emmanuel Poulle, "Le linceul de Turin victime d'Ulysse Chevalier [The Turin shroud victim of Ulysse Chevalier]", Revue d'Histoire de l'Eglise de France, t. 92, 2006, 343–358. Abstract (in french only). but instructed its clergy that it should not be treated as a relicCf. U. Chevalier (1903), Autour des origines du suaire de Lirey. Avec documents inédits (Bibliothèque liturgique, vol. 5) (Paris: Picard), p. 35 (letter J): "...nec alias solempnitates faciant que fieri solent in reliquiis ostendendis..." This stipulation was maintained in the final version of the letter (Reg. Avign. n° 261, folio 259), as cited in Pierre de Riedmatten (2008), Ulysse Chevalier pris en flagrant délit... (Retrieved from http://suaire-turin.fr/?page_id=176 ) and should not be presented to the public as the actual shroud of Christ, but as an image or representation of it.Cf. U. Chevalier (1903), Autour des origines du suaire de Lirey. Avec documents inédits (Bibliothèque liturgique, vol. 5) (Paris: Picard), p. 37 (letter K): "...quod figuram seu representationem predictam non ostendunt ut verum sudarium ... sed tanquam figuram seu representationem dicti sudarii". Also cited in Pierre de Riedmatten (2008), Ulysse Chevalier pris en flagrant délit... (Retrieved from http://suaire-turin.fr/?page_id=176 ) He prescribed indulgences for the many pilgrims who came to the church out of devotion for "even a representation of this kind","Cum ... ad ecclesiam ... causa devocionis eciam representacionis hujusmodi confluat non modica populi multitudo..." (U. Chevalier (1903), Autour des origines du suaire de Lirey. Avec documents inédits (Bibliothèque liturgique, vol. 5) (Paris: Picard), p. 38 (letter K)). so that veneration continued.
Around the years 1370–1392, Nicole Oresme would also denounce the Shroud of Turin as a forgery that was being used by clergy to gain offerings for churches.