A recently discovered medieval document is being hailed as the earliest written mention of the Shroud of Turin. Its author, Nicole Oresme, the learned Bishop of Lisieux, writing around 1370, claims the Shroud is a forgery. Some have rushed to seize on this fragment as if it were a fatal blow to the Shroud’s authenticity.
But is it?
To treat this new discovery as proof that the Shroud is a forgery means ignoring the massive wealth of evidence that indicates its authenticity.
Historian Nicolas Sarzeaud’s recent article uses Oresme’s passage as basis for rejecting the Shroud. However, the facts reveal more fallacy than forgery.
In the ongoing debate about the Shroud’s authenticity, the question is what this discovery actually means. Imagine a set of scales. On one side rests the enormous weight of historical, scientific, and forensic evidence pointing to the Shroud’s authenticity. On the other side, we now place this solitary note from a skeptical medieval bishop.
So does this new discovery tip the balance? The answer is a resounding no — and here’s why.
Reason 1: The inexplicable image
Picture yourself in 1370. You live in a pre-scientific, pre-photographic world, and your thoughtful approach to faith makes you skeptical of the mania for relics at that time. You hear reports of a mysterious cloth bearing the image of a crucified man, said to be Jesus.
What would you think? Most likely, your first reaction would be, “Someone must have painted it.” And as a product of his time, that is exactly what Oresme assumed.
But Oresme had no access to modern science — or to the groundbreaking work of the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project.
After an exhaustive investigation, STURP concluded that the image was not created by pigment, stain, dye, paint, or any known artistic method. In fact, the image itself isn’t made of any substance that rests on top or is embedded in the weave of the cloth — it is a discoloration of the linen fibers themselves. When the Shroud is backlit, the image disappears, something no painting could replicate. Even more remarkably, the image is not the result of brush strokes; it is a photographic-negative-like image encoded with three-dimensional information.
This means that whatever makes the image was not deposited on the cloth and that the image was not made by contact with a body, statue, or brush.
Oresme had no framework for scientific thought and how to interpret such a phenomenon. In his world, images came only from the hand of an artist. The Shroud has revealed itself as an exception to the rule. In our world, the Shroud has defied every artistic or technological explanation. What seemed “obvious” in the 14th century has proven scientifically untenable today.
And for historian Sarzeaud, the use of Oresme’s comments strikes me as strained, particularly when they are presented as if they were direct references to the Shroud itself. The move from a general critique of relics to the assumption that he meant the Shroud is more conjecture than evidence.
Just as telling is Sarzeaud’s reliance on a modern interpretive framework while failing to engage seriously with the textile, historical, and iconographic data that challenge his conclusions.
Reason 2: Corrupt corroboration
In Sarzeaud’s assertion that the Shroud is a forgery, he relies heavily on the previously oldest known mention of the Shroud, which is known as the d’Arcis Memorandum, written around 1390, in which Pierre d’Arcis, Bishop of Troyes, claimed the Shroud was painted. He includes the entire memo as evidence that the Shroud was considered a forgery as soon as it was first exhibited 35 years earlier. Although this is corroboration, Sarzeaud presents the memo without mentioning the controversy surrounding it.
Sarzeaud fails as a historian and treats this as if it were a straightforward confirmation of Oresme’s skepticism. But the reality is far murkier.
RELATED: Shroud of Turin debunked? Not even close — here’s the truth
claudiodivizia/iStock/Getty Images Plus
First, there isn’t just one memo. Calling it “the memo” is misleading, since there are two surviving drafts that differ in tone and detail. The French scholar Ulysse Chevalier, who published the d’Arcis memo in the early 20th century, conflated the two versions into a single document — and then asserted, without proof, that it had been sent to Pope Clement VII. No such record exists in the Vatican archives, and there is no evidence that it was ever sent to the pope.
Second, even within the memorandum, d’Arcis admits that his charge was based on hearsay: His predecessor supposedly knew the name of the forger but never revealed it. Modern scholarship has highlighted these inconsistencies, but Sarzeaud neglects to mention them. In other words, what he presents as solid corroboration rests on fragile ground.
As historians, we must do better and not overreach in presenting the evidence as Sarzeaud has done.
Reason 3: Earlier does not equal better
We share Oresme’s skepticism of relics. I’ve visited the Saxony hometown of Johann Tetzel (1465-1519), the Dominican friar infamous for selling indulgences in the early 16th century. He was commissioned to raise money for the rebuilding of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. Tetzel became notorious for a jingle he reportedly used in his preaching to stir people to buy indulgences: “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs.”
Orsme was thinking, writing, and standing firm for Christian truth in a time rife with spiritual manipulation, and this influenced his overreaction to the Shroud. By the 14th century, Europe was rife with dubious relics. Skeptical observers like Oresme often dismissed any new devotional object as fraudulent.
But what Oresme lacked — and what we now possess — is the benefit of centuries of scientific progress.
It is true that Oresme’s fragment pushes the written record of the Shroud back to around 1370. And yes, having a mention of the Shroud so close to when it first appeared in Europe is noteworthy. But it doesn’t mean it carries more weight than other evidence.
In fact, given the advent of the age of science and the technological advances since Oresme’s day, there is far more and far better evidence now than there was then.
Think of it this way: Knowledge accumulates like compound interest. Every decade of careful research into the Shroud — microscopy, spectroscopy, blood chemistry, pollen analysis, and digital imaging — adds layers of data. To elevate a lone medieval opinion over the wealth of evidence gathered since 1978 is to confuse proximity with authority. Oresme’s comment is historically interesting, but evidentially it is a footnote, not a verdict.
Sarzeaud does appeal to the 1988 radiocarbon test that dated the Shroud to 1260-1380 to support the claim that the Shroud is medieval. Once again, however, he does not mention the fierce debate surrounding the results or the work done since then that casts serious doubt on its validity.
The very latest state of the evidence is the richest; we only gain more knowledge. To treat this new discovery as proof that the Shroud is a forgery means ignoring the massive wealth of evidence that indicates its authenticity. The new find only has force when isolated from the overwhelming contextual evidence.
Reason 4: The ‘forgery’ claim falls apart
The fatal flaw in relying on this new document and the d’Arcis Memorandum as proof that the Shroud is a forgery is that the dots don’t connect.
If the Shroud were obviously painted, as Oresme assumed, then why have the best scientists in the world — equipped with electron microscopes, chemical analysis, and cutting-edge imaging technology — failed to detect any paint, pigment, or dye responsible for the image?
RELATED: New evidence indicates Shroud of Turin shows EXACT moment of resurrection
Stefano Guidi/Getty Images
Dr. John Jackson, physicist and leader of the STURP team, cataloged 17 unique characteristics of the image on the Shroud — features that any genuine explanation must account for. Countless attempts to reproduce the image have fallen short. Photographs, paintings, and scorchings may imitate some features, but none replicate them all.
The Shroud’s image remains, scientifically speaking, an unsolved phenomenon.
This is the Achilles’ heel of the forgery theory: What was “obvious” to a 14th-century skeptic has been thoroughly disproven by modern analysis. The image is not a painting. The claim collapses under scrutiny.
Weighing the evidence
Nicole Oresme was right about one thing: Popular religious claims should be subjected to rigorous testing. As Sarzeaud himself quotes, Oresme insisted that such claims be examined through Scripture, credible testimony, and reason.
Sarzeaud concludes, “For Oresme, popular beliefs must be critically examined through methodical analysis, using Scriptural authorities, credible testimonies, and arguments grounded in reason, with significant weight being given to the latter.”
Yet in holding Sarzeaud to his own standard, his argument and conclusion fail. He has failed to critically examine the new Oresme passage with methodical analysis by ignoring the problems with the d’Arcis Memorandum. He has ignored the credible testimony of the scientific evidence and the compelling historical evidence of the Shroud’s existence in history prior to appearing in Europe. He has overlooked the historical evidence placing the Shroud well before the 14th century.
When all the evidence is placed on the scales, this newly found fragment does not tip the balance. Instead, it reminds us of an enduring truth: Skepticism is not new.
From the beginning, voices have attempted to dismiss the Shroud as forgery or fabrication. But 2,000 years of history and a century of scientific inquiry testify otherwise. And by appealing only to selective evidence that agrees with his premise, Sarzeaud fails to ground his arguments in reason, but rather commits the fallacy of special pleading.
The one thing Sarzeaud succeeds in is generating headlines by making something from nothing. Sarzeaud’s article may generate headlines, but it does not overturn the evidence.
In the end, the Shroud continues to confront us with the same, unyielding mystery: the image of a crucified man, unlike any other in human history — a discovery that refuses to be explained away.
Shroud of turin, Jeremiah johnston, Christianity, Christians, Jesus, Jesus christ, Nicole oresme, Nicolas sarzeaud, Faith