Researchers find oldest written claim that the Shroud of Turin was faked

Bishops and priests prayed in front of the Shroud of Turin in 2010 in the Cathedral in Turin. (Vincenzo Pinto/AFP/Getty Images via CNN Newsource)

The Shroud of Turin — a 14-foot-long linen cloth bearing an image of a crucified man — has captivated people for centuries, stirring debate over whether the relic once wrapped the body of Jesus Christ.

For some, the cloth serves as visual proof of Jesus’ resurrection; for others, it is merely a medieval relic made by an artist in the 14th century.

Now, researchers have found new evidence that the authenticity of the cloth was disputed in writing earlier than once thought: medieval texts from a respected and influential French philosopher, Nicole Oresme, who alleged around 1370 that the Shroud was faked for the purpose of the church. These claims appeared in Oresme’s collection of writings known as his “Problemata,” which are dated between 1355 and 1382, according to the new study published on August 28 in the Journal of Medieval History.

Oresme’s Problemata has been well researched — much of the text is even available online —but the philosopher’s claims about the Shroud had been overlooked for centuries. It wasn’t until lead study author Nicolas Sarzeaud, a researcher in history at the Catholic University Louvain, in Belgium, received the text from a colleague editing an unpublished treatise that he realized the significance of the writing.

“The fact that we have this new testimony on this object is very, very valuable,” said Sarzeaud, who is also a fellow of the Villa Medici, a French Academy in Rome. Oresme was an interesting figure, not only for his merit as a scholar and philosopher, but because of his unbiased approach to topics, particularly those involving the church. “In his debates, he tried to be sure that a phenomenon was real before he (discussed it). … he wrote a lot about believing. ‘What is believing? And why do we believe in something?’”

Prior to the discovery of Oresme’s claims, the oldest known documentation of the Shroud was in a series of documents from 1389 to 1390 written by notable figures such as the former bishop of Troyes, Pierre d’Arcis, who stated that the Shroud was created by an artist.

While researchers like Sarzeaud claim Oresme’s text adds to the already plentiful scientific and historical evidence that the Shroud is fake, some remain unconvinced.

Oresme and the Shroud of Turin

According to the 1389 documents, including a letter written by Bishop d’Arcis to the pope, the Shroud of Turin appeared in the Champagne region of France around 1355. The cloth, bearing an image of a naked man with long hair and a beard, as well as reddish-brown stains resembling wounds from crucifixion, quickly became popular. News spread that the fabric was believed to have once wrapped the body of Christ, and the Shroud was said to cause miracles.

Shortly after, the documents noted, the bishop of Troyes, Henri de Poitiers, announced that the cloth was fraudulent, adding he had met the artist who created the image. About 30 years later, when the cloth began to attract popular attention once more, the following bishop, Pierre d’Arcis, also stated in his letter that the cloth was artwork, and the pope decided soon after that it could continue being on display only as a representation of the true Shroud of Christ.

The cloth moved around several times after that, until it was relocated to Turin, Italy, in 1578. It can still be found there today, at the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist.

Radiocarbon dating, conducted in 1988 by three separate laboratories, dated the fabric between 1260 and 1390, said Andrea Nicolotti, a professor of the history of Christianity and churches at the University of Turin who was not involved with the study but had worked with Sarzeaud previously.

The Shroud shows evidence of being a relic from medieval times, as its patterns are complex and would have required a sufficient loom likely not introduced until the 13th century, added Nicolotti, who is also the author of the 2019 book “The Shroud of Turin: The History and Legends of the World’s Most Famous Relic.”

“In my opinion, we already have enough information to have settled the debate a long time ago,” he said.

“Since no human body can leave that kind of image on the cloth, only two possibilities seem to remain: either it was artificially created by an artist, or it is a miracle,” Nicolotti said in an email. “Being able to say that the shroud is the result of a miracle, and that it is proof of the resurrection, is very tempting for some Christians: they think this way they can demonstrate Christ’s divinity to the world.”

In his Problemata, Oresme recommended caution when assessing alleged miracles, “because many clergy men thus deceive others, in order to elicit offerings for their churches.” He cited the Shroud as an example: “There is manifest experience of that in a church in Champagne, where it was said that there was the shroud of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Oresme died in 1382, seven years prior to the claims from the bishop of Troyes in the 1389 letter.

Ongoing debate

More than 600 years after its documented discovery, the Shroud of Turin is still being researched and debated. In July, a study from a researcher in Brazil using 3D-modeling software concluded that the image on the cloth is more likely the result of an imprint from a statue rather than from a human body.

Those who believe the Shroud to be authentic, however, argued that the 3D-modeling study was incomplete. Skeptics claimed that the researcher did not factor in findings from the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) that could disprove the theory of the cloth being artwork, such as a lack of pigment and the details of the blood stains, which are detectable with UV technology.

Cheryl White, the Hubert Humphreys Endowed Professor of History at Louisiana State University at Shreveport, said that the newly examined texts from Oresme do not add much to our understanding of the Shroud and its debated authenticity. White was not involved in the new study.

“This reference points only to something I think historians have always known — that skepticism about the Shroud existed early on,” White, who also served as the historical consultant for the original Shroud of Turin exhibition at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, DC, said in an email. “There is no question (Oresme) was one of the leading intellectuals of 14th-century France, a bishop and royal advisor. His skepticism might carry more weight given his standing, but it actually reflects his broader fight against false relics more than drawing upon any direct knowledge he had of the Shroud itself.”

“My position is that the Shroud of Turin has defied explanation for centuries. … It is neither falsifiable nor is it reproducible, making it an ongoing mystery,” White added. “We need both more historical documents and the most advanced scientific testing; however, the Shroud may never be ‘put to rest’ — its enduring mystery is what makes it so compelling.”

Sarzeaud believes the document is significant because it shows how the Shroud was perceived in the 14th century. But like many other researchers, he acknowledges that additional research would be beneficial to understand more about the Shroud and how it was made: “I think the problem is that everything and its opposite has been written about the Shroud of Turin, so that it has become possible to pick and choose what we like and what we don’t like.”