The Shroud of Turin, one of the most famous and contested relics in the Christian world, has long been the subject of heated debate. Now, a newly published study reveals that skepticism about the relic’s authenticity emerged earlier than previously thought—thanks to the writings of the fourteenth-century scholar Nicole Oresme.
In his Problemata, composed between 1370 and his death in 1382, Oresme denounced the Shroud—then displayed in Lirey, Champagne—as a “patent” example of clerical deception. These writings were uncovered by Nicolas Sarzeaud, a researcher at the Université Catholique de Louvain in Belgium, who published an article this week in the Journal of Medieval History.
“This now-controversial relic has been caught up in a polemic between supporters and detractors of its cult for centuries,” explains Dr Sarzeaud.
He adds: “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.”
A New Early Source
Antonio Tempesta (1555-1630), View of the Piazza del Castello, Turin, during the ostension of the Holy Shroud, 1613
Until now, one of the earliest known references to the Shroud of Turin dated to 1389–1390, when a dispute erupted between Geoffroy II de Charny, who sought to display the cloth at the collegiate church of Lirey, and Pierre d’Arcis, Bishop of Troyes, who denounced it as a painted fake. Papal interventions in 1390 permitted the cloth to be shown as a “representation” of Christ’s Shroud but not as a true relic.
The discovery of Oresme’s reference predates this controversy by at least several years. In the Problemata, a collection of questions about unexplained phenomena, Oresme warned against the dangers of false testimony and fabricated miracles. He explicitly cited the Lirey Shroud as an example:
I do not need to believe anyone who claims: “Someone performed such miracle for me”, because many clergymen 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.
This reference confirms that the Shroud was already widely known—and widely doubted—before the events of 1389. For Oresme, it provided the perfect case study to illustrate his broader point: that belief should not rest on rumour or clerical authority, but on reason and evidence.
Oresme the Skeptic
Portrait of Nicole Oresme: Miniature from Oresme’s Traité de l’espère, Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, MS Français 565, fol. 1r
Nicole Oresme (c. 1320–1382) was one of the great intellectuals of the fourteenth century. A Paris-trained scholar, he became a trusted adviser to King Charles V of France and was later appointed Bishop of Lisieux. His works ranged across mathematics, natural philosophy, politics, and theology. He was also an important translator of Aristotle into French, making complex philosophical ideas available to a wider audience.
In his writings on mirabilia—phenomena that seemed strange, wondrous, or inexplicable—Oresme consistently sought naturalistic explanations. Rather than attributing such events to demons, divine signs, or hidden forces, he looked to logic, experience, and reason.
Oresme was sharply critical of how both ordinary people and clergy spread unverified claims. He noted that many “common people” affirmed strange phenomena as true, yet admitted under questioning that they had never seen them. Even “learned clerics,” he added, often repeated such stories without real evidence, so that “they can no better answer than a simple woman.”
By including the Shroud among his examples, Oresme underlined just how notorious its reputation had already become. His remarks also reveal a strikingly critical approach to ecclesiastical authority. Far from being credulous, Oresme held that even the testimony of clergy could not be accepted without rational scrutiny.
A Fraud Exposed Early
Shroud of Turin
Dr Sarzeaud notes that Oresme’s remarks strengthen the case, already attested in Bishop Pierre d’Arcis’ memorandum of 1389, that the Shroud was understood as a fabricated object from the very start.
“Although we generally consider people from this era to be credulous,” Sarzeaud explains, “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.”
Sarzeaud also emphasises the irony of the relic’s later history: “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.”
Indeed, modern sindonology—the field devoted to studying the Shroud—emerged in the twentieth century largely to defend its authenticity, despite radiocarbon tests in 1988 dating its fabric to between 1260 and 1390. Oresme’s testimony shows that doubts about the relic are not a modern invention but were voiced at the highest intellectual levels of the fourteenth century.
Clergy, Fraud, and Belief
Beyond the Shroud itself, Oresme’s remarks highlight a broader issue: the problem of false relics and false belief in medieval Christianity. The fourteenth century saw an explosion of devotion to images and relics, but also growing concern about their authenticity.
Oresme’s method was to rank testimony according to its reliability, emphasising the importance of direct witnesses, critical distance, and conformity to reason. “Regarding anything that is against reason … no man should be believed absolutely,” he insisted.
This was precisely the approach that Bishop Henri de Poitiers had taken in the 1350s, when he investigated the Shroud at Lirey and concluded it was “artificially portrayed.” Oresme’s testimony, coming from a different milieu, suggests that the case was well known enough to serve as an example of clerical deception even outside Champagne.
The Legacy of Oresme’s Testimony
The appearance of this passage in the Problemata enriches the documentary record of the Shroud’s origins. It shows that criticism of the relic did not begin in 1389, but circulated much earlier in scholarly and clerical circles.
For modern historians, it underscores how medieval thinkers like Oresme could be both deeply religious and sharply critical of ecclesiastical abuses. His willingness to call out the Lirey Shroud as a fraud reveals a skeptical edge in medieval thought that is too often overlooked.
The article, “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, is published in the Journal of Medieval History. Click here to read it.
Top Image: High resolution of the face in the Shroud of Turin, taken in 2002 – photo by Rudolf Berwanger / Wikimedia Commons
The Shroud of Turin, one of the most famous and contested relics in the Christian world, has long been the subject of heated debate. Now, a newly published study reveals that skepticism about the relic’s authenticity emerged earlier than previously thought—thanks to the writings of the fourteenth-century scholar Nicole Oresme.
In his Problemata, composed between 1370 and his death in 1382, Oresme denounced the Shroud—then displayed in Lirey, Champagne—as a “patent” example of clerical deception. These writings were uncovered by Nicolas Sarzeaud, a researcher at the Université Catholique de Louvain in Belgium, who published an article this week in the Journal of Medieval History.
“This now-controversial relic has been caught up in a polemic between supporters and detractors of its cult for centuries,” explains Dr Sarzeaud.
He adds: “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.”
A New Early Source
Until now, one of the earliest known references to the Shroud of Turin dated to 1389–1390, when a dispute erupted between Geoffroy II de Charny, who sought to display the cloth at the collegiate church of Lirey, and Pierre d’Arcis, Bishop of Troyes, who denounced it as a painted fake. Papal interventions in 1390 permitted the cloth to be shown as a “representation” of Christ’s Shroud but not as a true relic.
The discovery of Oresme’s reference predates this controversy by at least several years. In the Problemata, a collection of questions about unexplained phenomena, Oresme warned against the dangers of false testimony and fabricated miracles. He explicitly cited the Lirey Shroud as an example:
I do not need to believe anyone who claims: “Someone performed such miracle for me”, because many clergymen 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.
This reference confirms that the Shroud was already widely known—and widely doubted—before the events of 1389. For Oresme, it provided the perfect case study to illustrate his broader point: that belief should not rest on rumour or clerical authority, but on reason and evidence.
Oresme the Skeptic
Nicole Oresme (c. 1320–1382) was one of the great intellectuals of the fourteenth century. A Paris-trained scholar, he became a trusted adviser to King Charles V of France and was later appointed Bishop of Lisieux. His works ranged across mathematics, natural philosophy, politics, and theology. He was also an important translator of Aristotle into French, making complex philosophical ideas available to a wider audience.
In his writings on mirabilia—phenomena that seemed strange, wondrous, or inexplicable—Oresme consistently sought naturalistic explanations. Rather than attributing such events to demons, divine signs, or hidden forces, he looked to logic, experience, and reason.
Oresme was sharply critical of how both ordinary people and clergy spread unverified claims. He noted that many “common people” affirmed strange phenomena as true, yet admitted under questioning that they had never seen them. Even “learned clerics,” he added, often repeated such stories without real evidence, so that “they can no better answer than a simple woman.”
By including the Shroud among his examples, Oresme underlined just how notorious its reputation had already become. His remarks also reveal a strikingly critical approach to ecclesiastical authority. Far from being credulous, Oresme held that even the testimony of clergy could not be accepted without rational scrutiny.
A Fraud Exposed Early
Dr Sarzeaud notes that Oresme’s remarks strengthen the case, already attested in Bishop Pierre d’Arcis’ memorandum of 1389, that the Shroud was understood as a fabricated object from the very start.
“Although we generally consider people from this era to be credulous,” Sarzeaud explains, “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.”
Sarzeaud also emphasises the irony of the relic’s later history: “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.”
Indeed, modern sindonology—the field devoted to studying the Shroud—emerged in the twentieth century largely to defend its authenticity, despite radiocarbon tests in 1988 dating its fabric to between 1260 and 1390. Oresme’s testimony shows that doubts about the relic are not a modern invention but were voiced at the highest intellectual levels of the fourteenth century.
Clergy, Fraud, and Belief
Beyond the Shroud itself, Oresme’s remarks highlight a broader issue: the problem of false relics and false belief in medieval Christianity. The fourteenth century saw an explosion of devotion to images and relics, but also growing concern about their authenticity.
Oresme’s method was to rank testimony according to its reliability, emphasising the importance of direct witnesses, critical distance, and conformity to reason. “Regarding anything that is against reason … no man should be believed absolutely,” he insisted.
This was precisely the approach that Bishop Henri de Poitiers had taken in the 1350s, when he investigated the Shroud at Lirey and concluded it was “artificially portrayed.” Oresme’s testimony, coming from a different milieu, suggests that the case was well known enough to serve as an example of clerical deception even outside Champagne.
The Legacy of Oresme’s Testimony
The appearance of this passage in the Problemata enriches the documentary record of the Shroud’s origins. It shows that criticism of the relic did not begin in 1389, but circulated much earlier in scholarly and clerical circles.
For modern historians, it underscores how medieval thinkers like Oresme could be both deeply religious and sharply critical of ecclesiastical abuses. His willingness to call out the Lirey Shroud as a fraud reveals a skeptical edge in medieval thought that is too often overlooked.
The article, “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, is published in the Journal of Medieval History. Click here to read it.
Top Image: High resolution of the face in the Shroud of Turin, taken in 2002 – photo by Rudolf Berwanger / Wikimedia Commons
Subscribe to Medievalverse
Related Posts