The shroud as it looks today.
Now, the earliest mention of this thing in history is
Modern shroud nuttiness begins when someone took a photo and looked at the negative and "Mama Mia...THERE'S FUCKING JESUS!!!" But I rather doubt that Bishop Pierre would have been impressed by the current shroud enough to call it "cunningly painted." This suggests that it was painted and faded (badly) over the centuries because no one had any fucking idea how to conserve it.
Now, the earliest mention of this thing in history is
Quote:The first time we hear of the Turin Shroud is in 1389×90, when Pierre d’Arcis (or d’Arcy, Bishop Pierre II of Troyes 1377-1395) wrote a letter to Pope Clement VII (1342-1394, elected Pope at Avignon in 1378, in opposition to Pope Urban VI). He objected to an exposition of the shroud in the collegiate church at Lirey on the grounds that it was being done by a landowner, who “falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, 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”.http://www.badarchaeology.com/out-of-pla...in_shroud/
Modern shroud nuttiness begins when someone took a photo and looked at the negative and "Mama Mia...THERE'S FUCKING JESUS!!!" But I rather doubt that Bishop Pierre would have been impressed by the current shroud enough to call it "cunningly painted." This suggests that it was painted and faded (badly) over the centuries because no one had any fucking idea how to conserve it.