Changes

In 1389 the French Bishop of Troyes, Pierre D'Arcis, wrote a letter to the Pope (Antipope Clement VII) detailing his complaints of a shroud "...upon which the whole likeness of the Saviour had remained thus impressed together with the wounds which He bore" was being exhibited at nearby Lirey; he further stated to the Pope of his belief that the shroud was a fraud, having found "[a man] 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… falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Savior Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb."  D'Arcis' predecessor, Henri de Poitiers, likewise was in a similar situation 35 years before, but did not launch an investigation into the matter; in his time he had concerns that the knight Geoffrey de Charny - who had just built the church at Lirey - was passing the relic off as the real shroud of the Lord.  Whether or not de Charny was questioned about it is conjecture; he was killed in the Battle of Poitiers in 1356.  Also undetermined is his relationship with the earlier Templar knight.  But the one thing that is certain is de Charny is the first documented owner of the Shroud.

In 1389 the French Bishop of Troyes, Pierre D'Arcis, wrote a letter to the Pope (Antipope Clement VII) detailing his complaints of a shroud "...upon which the whole likeness of the Saviour had remained thus impressed together with the wounds which He bore" was being exhibited at nearby Lirey; he further stated to the Pope of his belief that the shroud was a fraud, having found "[a man] 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… falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Savior Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb."  D'Arcis' predecessor, Henri de Poitiers, likewise was in a similar situation 35 years before, but did not launch an investigation into the matter; in his time he had concerns that the knight Geoffrey de Charny - who had just built the church at Lirey - was passing the relic off as the real shroud of the Lord.  Whether or not de Charny was questioned about it is conjecture; he was killed in the Battle of Poitiers in 1356.  Also undetermined is his relationship with the earlier Templar knight.  But the one thing that is certain is de Charny is the first documented owner of the Shroud.

His church at Lirey continued to exhibit the Shroud despite Bishop D'Arsis and those within the Church demanding that it cease displaying a "false relic," as they claimed.  The Church would eventually - grudgingly - allow the exhibitions to continue, provided that they billed the cloth as a "representation" of Christ, and not the true burial shroud.  A century after his death the Shroud was sold to the Savoy family of Italy, who had it brought to Turin where it resided ever since.<ref>http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/geoffrey.htm</ref>

His church at Lirey continued to exhibit the Shroud despite Bishop D'Arsis and those within the Church demanding that it cease displaying a "false relic," as they claimed.  The Church would eventually - grudgingly - allow the exhibitions to continue, provided that they billed the cloth as a "representation" of Christ, and not the true burial shroud.  A century after his death the Shroud was sold to the Savoy family of Italy, who had it brought to Turin where it resided ever since<ref>http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/geoffrey.htm</ref>.  It was willed in the late 20th century to the [[Roman Catholic Church]], which has never taken a position for or against its authenticity.

 

 

The Shroud was owned and maintained by families in [[Italy]] for centuries and given only in the late 20th century to the [[Roman Catholic Church]], which has never taken a position for or against its authenticity.

== Dating the Shroud ==

== Dating the Shroud ==

Raymond N. Rogers, a retired [[chemist]] from the [[Los Alamos National Laboratory]] in [[New Mexico]], studied the Shroud and declared, "The chemistry says it was a real shroud, the blood spots on it are real blood, and the technology that was used to make that piece of cloth was exactly what Pliny the Elder reported from his time," about A.D. 70.  "It's a shroud from the right time, but you're never going to find out (through science) if it was used on a person named [[Jesus]]," Rogers said.<ref>http://bibleprobe.com/</ref>

Raymond N. Rogers, a retired [[chemist]] from the [[Los Alamos National Laboratory]] in [[New Mexico]], studied the Shroud and declared, "The chemistry says it was a real shroud, the blood spots on it are real blood, and the technology that was used to make that piece of cloth was exactly what Pliny the Elder reported from his time," about A.D. 70.  "It's a shroud from the right time, but you're never going to find out (through science) if it was used on a person named [[Jesus]]," Rogers said.<ref>http://bibleprobe.com/</ref>