Few relics in Christian history have sparked as much fascination, devotion, and controversy as the Shroud of Turin. Stretching fourteen feet in length, this piece of linen bears the faint, haunting image of a man who appears to have been beaten, scourged, and crucified. For centuries, millions of believers have regarded it as the burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth, the silent witness to his crucifixion and resurrection.
And yet, for just as long, doubts have followed. Was it truly wrapped around Christ’s body two thousand years ago, or is it the product of medieval artistry, crafted to inspire awe—and perhaps to draw offerings from the faithful?
Now, newly uncovered medieval evidence has reignited the debate. A recently discovered text reveals that Nicole Oresme, one of the most respected intellectuals of the 14th century, dismissed the Shroud as a fraud long before modern science entered the conversation.
Nicole Oresme: A Voice of Reason in the Middle Ages
Nicole Oresme may not be a household name today, but in his own time he was a towering figure. A theologian, philosopher, mathematician, and later the Bishop of Lisieux, Oresme stood out for his sharp mind and his willingness to seek rational explanations in an era when miracles were often accepted without question.
In a treatise written between 1355 and 1382, Oresme warned against clerical trickery, singling out the Shroud of Turin—then known as the Shroud of Lirey—as a blatant example of deception. He argued that clergymen were fabricating relics to attract pilgrims and their offerings. His words were direct, even blunt: many such miracles, he insisted, were nothing more than tricks designed to manipulate devotion.
This account, analyzed in a new paper by Dr. Nicolas Sarzeaud of the Université Catholique of Louvain and published in the Journal of Medieval History, now stands as the earliest known scholarly rejection of the Shroud’s authenticity.
The Shroud’s Troubled Medieval Past
To understand the weight of Oresme’s words, one must step back into the Shroud’s early history. The cloth first appeared publicly in the tiny village of Lirey, in France’s Champagne region, around the mid-14th century. Local clergy claimed it was none other than the burial shroud of Christ. Unsurprisingly, pilgrims flocked to see it, bringing with them prayers, devotion, and financial offerings.
But not everyone was convinced. By 1355, the Bishop of Troyes ordered the Shroud’s removal after investigations revealed suspicious practices—including staged “miracles.” For decades, the relic remained hidden.
Only in the late 14th century did it resurface, and even then under cautious conditions. Pope Clement VII allowed it to be displayed again, but only on the condition that it be presented as a representation of Christ’s shroud—not the genuine article. In 1389, Bishop Pierre d’Arcis went further, writing a memorandum to the Pope that explicitly condemned the Shroud as a “fraud” and a “manufactured cloth.”
Against this backdrop, Oresme’s dismissal gains new significance. His writings suggest that doubts about the Shroud were not limited to a few local bishops—they were widespread enough to reach Paris, and they were being voiced by some of the era’s most respected scholars.
Faith, Fraud, and Human Longing
Why would such a relic inspire devotion if its authenticity was questioned so early? The answer lies in the emotional power of objects of faith. In the Middle Ages, relics were not merely sacred artifacts; they were living connections to the divine, physical anchors for belief in a world often shaken by plague, war, and uncertainty.
To look upon the Shroud was to feel closer to Christ’s suffering, to touch something believed to bear witness to the greatest story of redemption in human history. Even if skeptics raised doubts, many believers chose to see the image not as evidence to be tested but as a sacred mystery to be revered.
This human longing for contact with the divine explains why the Shroud survived condemnation, skepticism, and scientific scrutiny. It was not only about whether it was “real” but about what it meant to those who saw it.
Science Enters the Debate
In more recent centuries, modern science has taken up where medieval critics left off. Radiocarbon dating conducted in 1988 placed the fabric’s origin between 1260 and 1390—a result consistent with Oresme’s 14th-century rejection. Other analyses have suggested the image was produced using artistic techniques, possibly with pigments or heat.
Just this year, a study published in Archaeometry concluded that the cloth had likely been wrapped around a sculpture, rather than an actual body. Advanced 3D analysis revealed distortions in the image inconsistent with the shape of a real human figure.
For many scientists, these findings strengthen the case that the Shroud is a medieval creation rather than a first-century relic.
The Power of Oresme’s Critique
Dr. Sarzeaud’s study highlights why Oresme’s rejection stands out in history. Unlike many critics, Oresme was not personally involved in the disputes over the Shroud. He had nothing to gain from attacking it. His critique came not from rivalry but from principle—his dedication to reason over rumor, and to truth over manipulation.
In doing so, Oresme showed that critical thinking thrived even in an era often caricatured as “credulous” or “superstitious.” His writings remind us that skepticism, rational analysis, and demands for evidence are not modern inventions but part of a much older human tradition.
A Relic That Refuses to Fade
And yet, the Shroud endures. Despite centuries of criticism, it remains one of the most famous religious relics in the world, housed in Turin Cathedral and rarely shown to the public. Replicas circulate globally, drawing pilgrims, tourists, and the curious alike.
For believers, no amount of scientific data or medieval skepticism can erase the aura of holiness surrounding the cloth. For skeptics, it is a fascinating case study in how faith, fraud, and history intertwine.
Perhaps that is the true power of the Shroud of Turin: not whether it is authentic, but how it continues to inspire debate, devotion, and discovery, centuries after it first appeared.
A Lesson from History
What the rediscovery of Oresme’s critique offers us today is not simply another piece of evidence against the Shroud, but a reminder of the enduring importance of questioning. In the Middle Ages, as now, belief and skepticism walked hand in hand. The Shroud’s story is not only about a piece of linen—it is about the human desire for certainty, the willingness of some to exploit that desire, and the courage of others to demand proof.
In the end, whether the Shroud is an ingenious medieval forgery or a mysterious artifact yet to be explained, it remains a mirror reflecting back the complexities of faith and reason. And as long as the faint image of that crucified figure lingers on its fabric, the world will keep asking questions—questions that speak as much about us as about the cloth itself.
More information: Nicolas Sarzeaud, A New Document on the Appearance of the Shroud of Turin from Nicole Oresme: Fighting False Relics and False Rumours in the Fourteenth Century, Journal of Medieval History (2025). DOI: 10.1080/03044181.2025.2546884
