A medieval sceptic about the Shroud of Turin

Medievalists.net recently had an article about the doubts expressed by Nicholas Oresme in the years between 1370 and 1382 about the authenticity of what is now known as the Shroud of Turin

The piece, with a link to the academic article on which it is based, can be viewed at Medieval Scholar Called Out the Shroud of Turin as a Fake, Study Finds

It does not prove that the Shroud is not genuine, but it does show that a distinguished bishop was quite prepared to voice his doubts about its validity in the later fourteenth century using what might seem to some quite modern arguments.

Wikipedia has a biography of Oresene and an introduction to his wide-ranging academic writings at Nicole Oresme

A few years later the Bishop of Troyes within whose diocese the shroud was being exposed for veneration at Lirey also did not hesitate to describe as a forgery. That is one of the earliest specific references to the relic now in Turin and quoted by Ian Wilson in his ground breaking book on the Holy Shroud. The medieval church was on its guard against false relics, and certainly so if the purported relic was claimed to as as significant as the original Shroud.

I have written before that I think the sum total of historical and physical evidence is in favour of the Holy Shroud being what it is claimed to be. Cautious fourteenth century bishops are closer in date to us than they were to the first century.