| − | Over the centuries there have been critics and doubters of the Shroud being the authentic burial cloth of Jesus. One of the earliest unbelievers was Pierre d'Arcis, Bishop of Troyes who wrote a scathing letter to the pope in 1389 claiming that the Shroud was a "cunning" painting and that the artist had been discovered.<ref>The Shroud, Ian Wilson, 2010, page 102.</ref> In 1543, [[John Calvin]] wrote: | + | Over the centuries there have been critics and doubters of the Shroud being the authentic burial cloth of Jesus. One of the earliest unbelievers was Pierre d'Arcis, Bishop of Troyes who wrote a scathing letter to the pope in 1389 claiming that the Shroud was a "cunning" painting and that the artist had been discovered.<ref>The Shroud, Ian Wilson, 2010, page 102.</ref> An enemy of the Catholic Church, [[John Calvin]], would repeatedly rant against relics and he wrote against the Shroud in 1543: |
| | :''"How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christ's death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet? This fact undoubtedly deserved to be recorded. St John, in his Gospel, relates even how St Peter, having entered the sepulchre, saw the linen clothes lying on one side, and the napkin that was about his head on the other; but he does not say that there was a miraculous impression of our Lord's figure upon these clothes, and it is not to be imagined that he would have omitted to mention such a work of God if there had been any thing of this kind."''<ref>[[John Calvin]]: ''Traité des Reliques'', Geneve 1543, translated by '''Valerian Krasinski''': ''A treatise on Relics'', Edingburgh 1854</ref> | | :''"How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christ's death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet? This fact undoubtedly deserved to be recorded. St John, in his Gospel, relates even how St Peter, having entered the sepulchre, saw the linen clothes lying on one side, and the napkin that was about his head on the other; but he does not say that there was a miraculous impression of our Lord's figure upon these clothes, and it is not to be imagined that he would have omitted to mention such a work of God if there had been any thing of this kind."''<ref>[[John Calvin]]: ''Traité des Reliques'', Geneve 1543, translated by '''Valerian Krasinski''': ''A treatise on Relics'', Edingburgh 1854</ref> |
| − | Another critic was the scientist [[Walter McCrone]] (1906-2002) who insisted that it was a painting despite all the evidence against it being a painting. | + | The flaw in Calvin's argument, of course, is that the disciples had no reason to study the Shroud at the time, and no access to modern photographic equipment; they had far greater concerns during the chaotic period after Christ's Resurrection. Another critic was the scientist [[Walter McCrone]] (1906-2002) who insisted that it was a painting despite all the evidence against it being a painting. |