A leading Shroud of Turin scholar says the findings are “further historical evidence that even in the Middle Ages, they knew that the Shroud was not authentic.”
Newly discovered medieval evidence provides fresh reason to question the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, the linen cloth long believed by many to have wrapped the body of the crucified Jesus.
After analysis, this previously unknown document has emerged as one of the earliest rejections of the famous 14-foot relic and currently stands as the oldest written evidence dismissing its authenticity.
The findings, published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Medieval History, reveal that Nicole Oresme, a prominent Norman theologian and later bishop, had described the Shroud as a “clear” and “patent” forgery, attributing it to deliberate deceptions carried out by members of the clergy.
Oresme’s critical rejection of the Shroud
The Shroud bears a faint double image of a naked man, resembling traditional depictions of Jesus after crucifixion, and its authenticity continues to be hotly debated. Despite persistent belief among many, growing scientific research continues to challenge its origin.
For instance, a recent study published in Archaeometry used 3D analysis to argue that the cloth had been draped over a sculpture rather than a human body. Radiocarbon dating has also placed the linen’s production in the late 13th or 14th century.
“This now-controversial relic has been caught up in a polemic between supporters and detractors of its cult for centuries,” explains Dr. Nicolas Sarzeaud, the lead author of this new study.
Importance of Nicole Oresme’s critique
Dr. Sarzeaud, a historian at the Université Catholique of Louvain in Belgium and a fellow of the Villa Médicis in Rome, specializes in the study of relics, images, and their role in medieval society.
He emphasizes the importance of this new paper, noting that the statement uncovered within Oresme’s treatise—first identified by historians Alain Boureau and Béatrice Delaurenti—constitutes the earliest “official” and authoritative rejection of the Shroud yet found.
This precedes the well-known denunciation of 1389 by Pierre d’Arcis, bishop of Troyes, who denounced the cloth as a fraud and reported that an earlier bishop had raised the same objections around 1355.
According to Dr. Sarzeaud, Oresme—who later became the Bishop of Lisieux in France—was a key intellectual of his time, noted for applying rational explanations to reported miracles and unexplained phenomena. His influence extended across fields as varied as economics, mathematics, physics, astrology, astronomy, and philosophy.
Oresme’s views on clerical deception
“What has been uncovered is a significant dismissal of the Shroud,” Dr. Sarzeaud states.
“Oresme asserts: ‘I do not need to believe anyone who claims: “Someone performed such miracle for me,” because many clergy men thus deceive others, in order to elicit offerings for their churches. ‘This is clearly the case for a church in Champagne, where it was said that there was the shroud of the Lord Jesus Christ, and for the almost infinite number of those who have forged such things, and others.’
“Nicole Oresme did not choose just any venerated object as an example of a fraud orchestrated by the clergy. Oresme chose the claim of the Champenoise (Lirey) shrine to possess the Shroud as a striking example of lies fabricated by the clergy.
“What makes Oresme’s writing stand out is his attempt to provide rational explanations for unexplained phenomena, rather than interpreting them as divine or demonic. The philosopher even rated witnesses according to factors such as their reliability and cautioned against rumors.
Historical context of clerical fraud accusations
“Nicole Oresme was unwilling to compromise his scholarly approach for pastoral purposes; it was essential for him to denounce all errors and manipulations.”
Dr. Sarzeaud adds: “When viewed in the broader history of relics and devotional images, this case gives us an unusually detailed account of clerical fraud – a topic typically treated generically in satire or theological debates on the potential for superstitious devotion, but very rarely documented in the form of concrete accusations of fraud against a clerical institution.
“Oresme’s assessment of the Shroud, too, actually prompted him to be more broadly suspicious of the word of clergy altogether.”
Commenting on Dr. Sarzeaud’s findings, world-leading Shroud of Turin expert Professor Andrea Nicolotti says the results are “further historical evidence that even in the Middle Ages, they knew that the Shroud was not authentic”.
“The other technological and scientific evidence, which points in the same direction, remains unchanged,” adds Professor Nicolotti, who is a Professor of History of Christianity and Churches at the University of Turin.
“This new discovery of Oresme’s conclusion is particularly important because it confirms that at the time of its composition, likely in the 1370s, that a shroud had been fraudulently presented as authentic in Lirey. And this was widespread news, reaching as far as Paris.
“This allowed Oresme to cite it in one of his books, confident that his readers would understand what he was talking about.
“Oresme’s opinion is very important because it comes from a person who was not personally involved in the dispute, and therefore had no interest in supporting his own position.
Mapping the Shroud’s medieval history
“With this document, the story we already knew from other sources is perfectly confirmed.”
In addition to the revelation of Oresme’s document, a main feature of Sarzeaud’s paper is its detailed history mapping of the physical journey of the Shroud during this period.
Sarzeaud says Oresme would have assessed the Shroud, as it had found its way to Lirey, a village in France’s Champagne region. (As such, the controversial relic was known as the Shroud of Lirey in medieval times.)
Oresme, Dr. Sarzeaud explains, referenced the Shroud in a document written between 1355 and 1382, most likely after 1370. He hypothesizes that Oresme learned about the Lirey fraud while he was a scholar and counselor to the king in the 1350s.
Church investigations and later exposure
It was displayed in Lirey until around 1355 when the Bishop of Troyes ordered its removal. This followed extensive investigations, adding evidence that it was not authentic and people had been paid to ‘fake miracles’.
It was then hidden away for more than three decades until it was granted permission from Pope Clement VII to be displayed once more, but under the strict instruction that worshippers were to be told that it was a ‘figure or representation of the Shroud’ and it should be exposed as such.
It was formally announced as a fake in a memorandum for Pope Clement VII in 1389. The bishop even asked Charles VI of France to halt further displays of the Shroud – referring to it as ‘a manufactured cloth, artificially portrayed’.
Today, many centuries on, replicas are exposed all over the world, but the Shroud is rarely shown to the public.
So, what does Dr. Sarzeaud feel about what Oresme’s conclusion of the Shroud of Turin means for its authenticity?
“The Shroud is the most documented case of a forged relic in the Middle Ages, and one of the few examples of a cult denounced and stopped by the Church and clerics,” he explains.
“Although we generally consider people from this era to be credulous, Oresme provides a precious example of medieval critical thinking, evaluating testimonies and dismissing evidence not corroborated by any real evidence – so, naturally, I agree with his assessment.
“It is striking that, of the thousands of relics from this period, it is the one most clearly described as false by the medieval Church that has become the most famous today.”
Reference: “A New Document on the Appearance of the Shroud of Turin from Nicole Oresme: Fighting False Relics and False Rumours in the Fourteenth Century” by Nicolas Sarzeaud, 28 August 2025, Journal of Medieval History.
DOI: 10.1080/03044181.2025.2546884
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
11 Comments
One medieval skeptic does not account for all the facts known about the shroud. There is evidence for the historical personage of Jesus. In the middle ages, they did not have the technology to create to create this kind of image in this way nor the forensic science to analyze it properly. Here is what we do know:
X-ray Scattering Analysis:
A 2022 Italian study using wide-angle X-ray scattering found the shroud’s linen fibers had structural degradations compatible with a 55-74 AD sample. The study attributed potential inaccuracies in the 1988 carbon dating to environmental contamination of the fabric.
Forensic Analysis of Wounds:
In August 2024, University of Padua professor Giulio Fanti published a study focusing on the blood stains and scourge marks, arguing they are consistent with the biblical account of crucifixion.
Pollen Analysis:
A study by Frei identified pollen grains from Middle Eastern plants, including those found in the Jerusalem area, supporting the theory the Shroud originated in the time and place of Jesus’ crucifixion.
Debates and Further Research
Contested 1988 Carbon Dating:
Some research challenges the validity of the 1988 carbon dating results, suggesting the dated material was not representative of the entire shroud.
Unexplained Image Formation:
A major challenge for both sides is the lack of a scientifically reproducible method for creating the unique image on the shroud.
The real question is not that the shroud itself is a fraud. It is clearly an artifact of antiquity with markings consistent with the story of the cruxifiction, what can not be answered is whether that shroud was taken from Jesus and the image created from his resurrection from the dead. This is what the science and the forensic evidence can not confirm and must be left up to one’s personal beliefs.
It is true that one medieval study doesn’t conclusively prove anything, even though the study would be closer to the date of the fraud if such fraud actually did occur. But the 2022 study also makes assumptions. They compare with just one sample that is definitively from the first century – at the very least they should have compared with a second sample from medieval times. Their claims about temperature and humidity are iffy as well – did they actually know the temperature and humidity conditions of the reference sample? No wonder that the study was published in a history magazine – it didn’t seem to have gone through a scientific review.
None of this is surprising – it is really hard to do this much forensic work on samples hundreds or thousands of years old. But so what? Suppose there was someone named Jesus. There must have been quite a few Jesus’ at that time. Heck, I met a Jesus at Denny’s last month. How is the existence of Jesus a proof of his divinity? How does it show that Jesus is accurately represented in the Bible?
What should be expected is that the Bible was correct in predicting the structure of the heavenly bodies. The Bible doesn’t do that.
What would be useful is if the Bible told about how germs causes diseases. But, no, Bible misses that critical information that could have helped millions.
And it would be stunning if they described the mathematics of Schrodinger’s equation of quantum Mechanics. But, no, there’s nothing.
Bible is a flawed document. It’s claims of divine origin is therefore suspect.
In my opinion, Oresme was a hero for speaking out against the abuses of some of the clergy and some of the laity of his day. Clearly, as happens today in some groups of fellow Catholics, there is not a balance between fides et ratio. Sadly though, in his attempt to speak out against abuses, Oresma, like many other people of good will may have lumped the Shroud of Turin in with “real” fakes. It is clear from the article that the author(s) were relying on Oresme’s sincerity as definitive proof of the inauthenticity of the Shroud of Turin. Really? If sincerity is a criterion, then the current model for the universe (Big Bang) is wrong, because for fourteen years, Albert Einstein sincerely fought the idea that the universe was expanding. It took the overwhelming accumulation of data acquired through the tools of science to change his mind. Speaking of overwhelming data, it is interesting that the author(s) used the carbon dating as the one piece of data to question the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. Last I checked, in peer-reviewed publications, the samples were hopelessly contaminated by the presence of medieval patches of cotton not to mention the physical handling of the linen for decades if not centuries. If one looks at the mountain of data telling us that, scientifically, we have no idea how the image got there (STURP 1978), or how ancient pollen from Jerusalem got there, or how anatomically correct the depiction is, etc. then it is ok for a person to lean into the “ratio” part of “fides et ratio” to reasonably conclude that the Shroud of Turin is probably (as in probability) an authentic archaeological artifact preserving the cruel details of a crucified man from the area around Jerusalem.
Stating the obvious. The $64,000 question is not what a medieval skeptic Thought who had neither: access to a photographic negative image nor 3D imaging EVIDENCE on the surface of a linen cloth whether 2,000, 1,000 or 500 years ago, BUT what a modern day skeptic and supposed Shroud of Turin Expert Thinks who does have access to all of that information and more…….(especially the very flawed radiocarbon dating of which he does not seem to be aware) and acknowledges only a medieval opinion on medieval evidence?
The medieval skeptics may have been closer in time to the purported time the Shroud was produced; however, that would STILL have been more than 1300 years later.
I’ve keeping up this, but as I understand, no one has explained how someone in 14th century Europe could have made the thing, or even produce it these days. I think the jury is still out.
One simply needs to look at it to know it is a fake. The dripping “blood” on his face would have been absorbed into the cloth if it was real and look nothing like dripping blood. It would look like wider roundish shaped stains. The “blood” was clearly painted on the cloth. If the shroud was genuine, no one would have dared to paint anything on it. Obviously a fake. Just use your eyes.
The “dripping” observation is a smart one.
“Radiocarbon dating has also placed the linen’s production in the late 13th or 14th century,…….”
That resolves that argument. A scam operated by the Catholic Church to encourage paying pilgrims to donate cash to the Church.
Sorry believers; you’ve been dudded (again).
The only color photograph I have seen was on the cover of Time Magazine – and having an expertise in antiquities, as I do, I assumed it a grotesque and sarcastic fake by the magazine of the real Shroud – as the obviously and amateurish brushed-on “blood” running down the face stood plainly and the Herringbone weave of an expensive alter cloth is not muslin. I thought the magazine was playing a shock irreligiosity on the public.
But no, it was a real photograph of the real Shroud.
Everyone has been exposed to the negative images, that is: reversed grayscale, and like dentist-office xrays, effectively act to hide the piece, and the ability to judge.
Look up that Time magazine cover photo.
There are questions about how it was made as it appears to be very difficult to duplicate. A very plausible explanation (to me) for the who, what, why and how of the shroud’s origin can be found in The Second Messiah by Christopher Knight.
The image of the Man represents a Elderly man , Jesus is not that old . Devichy was a master at raising images from flat canvas and had a forward thought on transference of a heat source to a cool white shroud .