The Shroud of Turin, a centuries-old linen cloth believed by many to have wrapped the body of Jesus after his crucifixion, has long been surrounded by mystery and controversy.
Now, a newly uncovered medieval document provides fresh evidence that the cloth may not be authentic.
The findings, published in the Journal of Medieval History, reveal that a prominent Norman scholar and theologian, Nicole Oresme, dismissed the Shroud as a deliberate fraud in the 14th century.
This makes his statement one of the earliest and most authoritative rejections of the Shroud’s authenticity ever recorded.
The Shroud, which measures about 14 feet long, carries a faint image of the front and back of a man who appears to have been crucified. Many Christians have venerated it as a sacred relic, while others have questioned its origins for centuries.
Scientific testing has consistently cast doubt on the Shroud’s authenticity. Radiocarbon dating has shown that the cloth likely dates to the 13th or 14th century, and a recent study using 3D analysis suggested the fabric had once been wrapped around a sculpture rather than a real body.
The newly discovered document shows that skepticism about the Shroud is not new.
Oresme, who would later become the Bishop of Lisieux in France, was highly respected in his time for applying rational explanations to alleged miracles and unexplained phenomena.
Historians Alain Boureau and Béatrice Delaurenti found his writings, in which he described the Shroud as a clear example of deception by clergymen seeking to attract offerings to their churches.
Oresme wrote, “I do not need to believe anyone who claims: Someone performed such a miracle for me, because many clergymen thus deceive others, in order to elicit offerings for their churches.”
He specifically pointed to a church in Champagne, France, where the Shroud—then known as the Shroud of Lirey—was displayed. By using this example, Oresme presented the Shroud as one of the most striking cases of clerical fraud.
What makes Oresme’s dismissal especially significant is that it predates the better-known rejection by Pierre d’Arcis, the Bishop of Troyes, who in 1389 also denounced the cloth as a fake.
Oresme’s critique likely dates to the 1370s and shows that doubts about the relic were already widespread in intellectual and clerical circles at the time.
According to Dr. Nicolas Sarzeaud, the lead author of the study, Oresme’s importance lies not only in his dismissal of the Shroud but in his broader approach to evidence.
He evaluated the reliability of witnesses, cautioned against rumors, and consistently sought rational explanations rather than resorting to claims of divine or demonic intervention. His rejection of the Shroud reflects a medieval form of critical thinking that may surprise many who imagine people of the Middle Ages as credulous.
Shroud expert Professor Andrea Nicolotti of the University of Turin said the discovery is further proof that the Shroud was known to be fraudulent even in the Middle Ages. He emphasized that Oresme had no personal interest in the dispute and thus provided an independent voice.
Despite being denounced centuries ago as a forgery, the Shroud of Turin has become one of the most famous relics in Christianity. Today, it is rarely displayed, but replicas are found worldwide.
For Dr. Sarzeaud, this makes the case all the more remarkable. “It is striking that, of the thousands of relics from this period, the one most clearly described as false by the medieval Church has become the most famous today,” he said.
