A demonstrable reference to it. Not a shoulda coulda woulda maybe possibly could be. An actual reference that we know refers to our shroud. If you cannot provide that you cannot provide any compelling historical evidence.
Sources, dates, reliability of the families claim. From Wiki:
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.[2][4] 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 at Turin Cathedral.[5] 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.[6] Barbara Fralehas 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.
The shroud was identified as a forgery in 1390 by a Bishop. It largely appears when forgeries were big business. Anyone can claim anything. How do we know what is true?
Please list all the depictions of Jesus in the entire Christian world (spread over a huge geographical location) up to the sixth century and then list all the ones that just “very rapidly” turned into an image that looks like what we find on the Shroud? Please also explain how the shroud somehow, unknown for 500 years, changes all art, then goes unrecorded for another 800 years. This is not good historical thinking.
You, like many Christian apologists and Shroud proponents, are confused as to how history actually works. If the shroud doesn’t show up until 1300 years after Jesus , 500 generations later, there is no historical reason to accept it. Your comment seems to stem from presumption as if it is the burden of proof of someone to disprove the shroud’s authenticity. That burden lies on any and every truth claim made.
Archaeological discoveries have to be dated. Th portion of the Shroud that was dated was shown to very late indeed. Maybe I am being uncharitable but I saw people who still want to believe in it decide they must have dated a portion that was repaired much later – or insert 10 other excuses here. Maybe one is legitimate. I am skeptical though. People don’t like to let go of beliefs and some people have just committed to authenticity and will do what needs to de done to harmonize things in their mind smoothly.
Even if the shroud was mentioned in the 6th century (something not even REMOTELY established) that’s still 500 years later (20 generations). Apologists try hard to establish that the gospels are based on eyewitnesses and certainly dismiss the dozens of second century gospels as accurate, yet we are to credulously and blindly believe later legends about the Shroud.
The appropriate historical judgment on anything when there is a lack of evidence is non-liquet and that is being pinch charitable since the actual dated portion of the shroud was shown to be late along with its first historical reference–which occurs in a time of rampant forgeries and was actually pronounced a forgery at the time. What I never understand is how some Christians (apparently in a haphazard fashion) choose to accept some “tradition” over others. Why reject the pronouncements that it was a forgery 600 years ago?
From a quora response ( I bolded some things):
- Documentary evidence: The first reference to the “Shroud” dates to 1390, when the Bishop of Troyes, Bishop Pierre d’Arcis, wrote a letter to the Pope in Avignon, Clement VII, telling him that a noble family in his diocese was displaying a relic for veneration that was in fact a fake. He informed Clement that this supposed “Shroud” had also been displayed by the De Charny family about 35 years earlier and that it had been investigated by the then Bishop of Troyes, Henri de Poitiers, who had been suspicious of how such a major relic could suddenly appear in the hands of French family and sceptical that there would be no mention of a miraculous image on the burial cloths of Jesus in the gospels or any other Christian writing of the previous millennium. D’Arcis informed the Pope that Bishop Henri inquired as to the origin of this remarkable artefact and quickly discovered it was a fake:
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.
As it happens, Pope Clement VII (who was actually an Antipope set up in opposition to Pope Urban VI in Rome) was a relative of the De Charny family and so would be inclined to defend them against this charge of faking the “Shroud” if it had no basis. Clearly it did have a basis, however, so Clement instead ordered the De Charnys to stop declaring the “Shroud” to be the genuine article and to display it as as a “representation” of the shroud of Jesus only. But he also granted indulgences to any pilgrims who went to see this “representation”, so his cash-strapped relatives still got the pilgrims and money they were seeking via their scam in the first place.
So why do we believe the family with the shroud but not Bishop Pierre d’Arcis and Bishop Henri?
Vinnie