For centuries, skeptics have pointed to a 1389 letter by Bishop Pierre d’Arcis as proof that the Shroud of Turin was a medieval forgery. But in this compelling episode of The Backstory on the Shroud of Turin, researcher Teemu Hartikainen challenges that claim.
Hartikainen explains that the so-called “letter” is not a letter at all. Instead, it is a pair of rough memos dictated by the bishop and written by a scribe. These drafts lack a date, a signature, and polished Latin—key elements for any official papal correspondence. Even more revealing, the original documents never reached the Pope.
The controversy deepens with later translations. In the early 1900s, French and English scholars combined and edited the texts, adding dates and shifting meaning to suggest confession from an “artist.” These changes cast doubt on the Shroud’s authenticity, even though no such confession exists in the originals.
Hartikainen highlights the historical backdrop of the Black Death, church politics, and competition between Troyes and Lirey. Both cities vied for pilgrims and revenue, and d’Arcis’ writings may have been motivated more by economics than truth.
This research reframes the debate, showing how mistranslations and context can distort history. For believers, it strengthens the case that the Shroud of Turin remains one of the most compelling evidences of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Recent Comments