Newly found Medieval document says Shroud of Turin is fake

World-leading Shroud of Turin expert says findings are “further historical evidence that even in the Middle Ages, they knew that the Shroud was not authentic”

Peer-Reviewed Publication

Taylor & Francis Group

August 2025

Newly uncovered medieval evidence is the latest to cast doubt on the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, the linen cloth many believe was used to wrap the crucified body of Jesus. 

Following analysis, this recently discovered, previously unknown ancient document has become one of the oldest dismissals of the famous 14-foot cloth – and the oldest written evidence known to-date. 

Findings, published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Medieval History, show a highly-respected, Norman theologian Nicole Oresme had rejected the Shroud, with this future bishop claiming it as a “clear” and “patent” fake – the result of deceptions by ‘clergy men’. 

Bearing a faint imprint image of the front and back of a naked man, consistent with traditional accounts of Jesus of Nazareth after his death by crucifixion, the Shroud’s genuineness is still being questioned to this day – with many supporters of its authenticity maintaining their belief.  

This is despite ever-growing new research. For example, one paper this summer, published in the journal Archaeometry concluded – using 3D analysis – that the material had been wrapped around a sculpture, rather than Jesus’ body. 

Previous radiocarbon dating of the Shroud has also determined the linen was produced at the end of the 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, out today.  

Dr Sarzeaud is a researcher in history at the Université Catholique of Louvain, in Belgium, and a fellow of the Villa Médicis, the French Academy, in Rome, Italy. His focus is on the history of relics and images – and more specifically on the question of traces in the West in the late Middle Ages. 

His new paper is important, he explains, as it shows that a statement – found by renowned historians Alain Boureau and Béatrice Delaurenti – within a treatise by Oresme is now the first-ever written, ‘official’, and highly respected rejection of the Shroud presented to-date. 
 

This is rather than the previously known account written in 1389 by the bishop of Troyes, Pierre d’Arcis, who rejected the Shroud as a fraud and reported that a predecessor of his had done likewise in around 1355.

Dr Sarzeaud says Oresme – who later became the Bishop of Lisieux, in France – was a particularly important figure at the time and well-regarded for his attempts to provide rational explanations for so-called miracles and other phenomena. He was influential, too, for his works on economics, mathematics, physics, astrology, astronomy, and philosophy.

“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 also cautioned against rumour. 

 
“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 all together.” 

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.  

“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 when he was a scholar and a counsellor to the king in the 1350s. 

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 as a ‘figure or representation of the Shroud’ and it should be exposed as so.  

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 mean 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.”