Journal of Medieval History: 14th century scholar declared ‘Shroud of Turin’ was a fraud; Catholic.com claims ‘new evidence’ it is real.

Face in Shroud: Actual and Enhanced (Dianelos Georgoudis)

COGwriter

While many insisting that the Shroud of Turin was Jesus’ actual burial cloth, the Journal of Medieval History published a report of an early denouncement of it. Here is the abstract in that report:

ABSTRACT

For over a century, the debate surrounding the appearance of the Shroud of Turin has revolved around documents produced in Champagne in 1389–1390, when this now-controversial relic was already caught up in a polemic between supporters and detractors of its cult. This article is the result of the discovery of a new, older source: in a treatise on unexplained phenomena (mirabilia) dated between 1355–82, the Norman scholar Nicole Oresme (d. 1382) refers to the Shroud as a ‘patent’ example of clerical fraud, prompting him to be more broadly suspicious of the word of ecclesiastics. After showing how this new document sheds light on the case for the Shroud’s appearance in Lirey in Champagne, and confirming the thesis corroborated by other fourteenth-century sources that the Shroud is a medieval artifact, the article uses the example of the Shroud to interrogate the role assumed by scholars of the period as verifiers of dubious opinions, and the methods they used. (Sarzeaud, N. (2025). A New Document on the Appearance of the Shroud of Turin from Nicole Oresme: Fighting False Relics and False Rumours in the Fourteenth Century. Journal of Medieval History, 51(5), 604–621. https://doi.org/10.1080/03044181.2025.2546884)

Here is more about it from Popular Mechanics:

March 18, 2026

• A treatise by the theologian Nicole Oresme, written some time in the 1300s, outright declares the Shroud a fake, being passed off as authentic by unscrupulous clergymen.
• In recent years, scientific analysis has offered strong proof the Shroud is inauthentic, but this study shows that its likely illegitimacy has been well-known for more than 600 years. …

Specifically, the study presents a newly rediscovered piece of writing, penned by the French theologian Nicole Oresme, which discusses the famed Shroud of Turin, a cloth that features the outline of a man’s face many believers purport to have been left behind by Jesus Christ after his crucifixion. And Oresme minces no words, outright declaring the object a fraud perpetuated by unscrupulous clergymen.

“What has been uncovered is a significant dismissal of the Shroud,” notes the study’s lead author, Dr Nicolas Sarzeaud of the Université Catholique of Louvain. That significance is, in part, because Oresme is revered even today as great scholar of the 14th century, having made contributions to the studies of mathematics, astrology, and even psychology as he ascended to the role of Bishop of Lisieux under Charles V of France.

But this text, part of a treatise by Oresme written some time between 1355 and 1382 (the paper speculates, but cannot confirm, a timeframe of approximately the 1370s), also represents the earliest written denunciation of the Shroud of Turin, supplanting the previous earliest rejection, made in 1389 by Pierre d’Arcis, the Bishop of Troyes.

“What makes Oresme’s writing stand out,” Sarzeaud stated in a press release, “…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.”

In the case of Oresme’s Shroud of Turin rejection, the study summarizes his argument to be that “simply because ‘good people’, including clergy, claim certain events to have happened does not make them true.”

Specifically, the 14th century scholar declared that:

“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.”

“Nicole Oresme did not choose just any venerated object as an example of a fraud orchestrated by the clergy,” Sarzeaud notes, “Oresme chose the claim of the Champenoise (Lirey) shrine to possess the Shroud as a striking example of lies fabricated by the clergy.”

The study notes that this kind of declarative denunciation of clerical fabrication is highly significant, as during this time such subjects were “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.”

Professor Andrea Nicolotti, an expert on the Shroud of Turin, commented on the new study, noting that provides “further historical evidence that even in the Middle Ages, they knew that the Shroud was not authentic.” A 600-year-old document exposes a historic fraud: Someone faked the Shroud of Turin

The factual reality of the Shroud of Turin is that it is fake. Just because some disagree and some scientists say they do not know how it can be replicated does not mean that it was used by Jesus–plus I have heard testimony from other scientists who have shown how it could have been made as they replicated techniques that were available in the Middle Ages to mimic the Shroud.

Yet, some sources continue to insist it is real. Notice something from an interview with a Roman Catholic priest:

New Evidence Counters the Biggest Objection to the Shroud of Turin

March 19, 2026

Transcript:

Edgar Lujuno: I remember growing up from the secular side being told that the Shroud had been debunked, that its authenticity has been completely debunked back in the 80s, that they did some carbon dating on it or something to that effect, and that it was actually traced back to the Middle Ages and not actually the first century. And is this still true or what’s modern scholarship on the Shroud say now?

Fr. Andrew Dalton: Right, well, it’s. You phrased it just right. It’s the international scholarly consensus that says the results from 1988 do not conclude that it’s from 1260 to 1390 as they originally published. That’s not Father Andrew’s personal opinion, it’s not the opinion of the Catholic Church, it’s those who publish in the field. … And so what you typically would do is take samples from here, there and everywhere and then, you know, get a sense of the whole garment. But instead they one sample from the top left corner, which we knew to be chemically anomalous. It’s not like the rest of the Shroud. …

Edgar Lujuno: So they already knew that portion that they pulled from the Shroud itself was not like the rest of it.

Fr. Andrew Dalton: They certainly ought to have known, had they done their research, because that came out 10 years prior. … You don’t disregard all the rest of the evidence and just fiedeistacally cling to the one piece that serves your own purposes. https://www.catholic.com/video/new-evidence-counters-the-biggest-objection-to-the-shroud-of-turin

So, priest Dalton is basically saying that a sample was taken in the wrong place of the Shroud, so the analysis is flawed. But that is not “new evidence,” as he asserts. However, he also said to not disregard all the rest of the evidence. On that last point, he is correct.

The biggest objection to the Shroud is not the arguments of dating, but in one sense is the size of the image. Its size is the “Biggest Objection”–and its size is not in dispute.

Its size proves it is a fake.

Notice also the following:

Length Measurements on the Shroud of Turin …

Measurements taken by Bruno Barberis and Gian Maria Zaccone give (frontal image at the bottom left, dorsal image at the top) 441.5 cm for the right height, and 442.5 cm for the left height. The bottom width is 113.0 cm and the top width is 113.7 cm. http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~latendre/shroud/shroudCal.html

This means that the Shroud of Turin is 174 inches, 14.5 feet, long. The height of the man in the shroud would need to be about 6 ft. tall. That could not be Jesus.

Why?

Jesus did not stick out in a crowd (cf. Luke 4:28-29), and even needed someone to identify Him (Matthew 26:48). Men were much shorter then than now (average was about 5’3″ to 5’4″) and a six foot man would be noticed. If the shroud was that of Jesus, Jesus would have had to be much to tall to blend into the crowds at that time. There is no reason to believe Jesus was tall or had any special appearance–the Bible indicates the opposite (cf. Isaiah 53:2).

Another absolute proof against the Shroud is that it shows an image with long hair. But since the New Testament teaches that men are not to have long hair in 1 Corinthians 11:14, we know that Jesus did not have long hair. Hence, that is another proof that the Shroud is fake and not Jesus

So, we know the Shroud was denounced as a fake in the 1300s and the size proves it could not be Jesus.

Hence, those willing to accept the evidence must conclude that the Shroud was not the burial cloth of Jesus.

The Continuing Church of God also has the following video on our Bible News Prophecy YouTube channel:

Here is a link to our video: Could the Shroud of Turin Be Real? 12 Reasons to Consider.

It is NOT possible that Shroud of Turin was the burial cloth of Jesus.

That said, there is REAL proof Jesus is the Messiah (see the free online book Proof Jesus is the Messiah). Do not, however, base your faith on fakes.

Those interested in early Christianity may wish to study the following documented items and presentations to learn more:

Clear Proof that the Shroud of Turin is Fake: Debunking the ‘reasons’ that the Shroud of Turin is real There is NO proof that the Shroud of Turin has Jesus’ image and those who are willing to believe the Bible can prove it is fake. Here is a link to a related video: Could the Shroud of Turin Be Real? 12 Reasons to Consider.
Proof Jesus is the Messiah This free book has over 200 Hebrew prophecies were fulfilled by Jesus. Plus, His arrival was consistent with specific prophecies and even Jewish interpretations of prophecy. Here are links to seven related sermons: Proof Jesus is the Messiah, Prophecies of Jesus’ birth, timing, and death, Jesus’ prophesied divinity, 200+ OT prophecies Jesus filled; Plus prophecies He made, Why Don’t Jews Accept Jesus?, Daniel 9, Jews, and Jesus, and Facts and Atheists’ Delusions About Jesus. Plus the links to two sermonettes: Luke’s census: Any historical evidence? and Muslims believe Jesus is the Messiah, but … These videos cover nearly all of the book, plus have some information not in the book.
Jesus: The Son of God and Saviour Who was Jesus? Why did He come to earth? What message did He bring? Is there evidence outside the Bible that He existed? Here is a YouTube sermon titled Jesus: Son of God and Saviour.
What Did the Early Church Teach About Idols and Icons? Did the early Church use icons? What was the position of Christians about such things? A related sermon is available: The Second Commandment, Idols, and Icons.
Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church: Could a remnant group have continuing apostolic succession? Did the original “catholic church” have doctrines held by the Continuing Church of God? Did Church of God leaders uses the term “catholic church” to ever describe the church they were part of? Here are links to related sermons: Original Catholic Church of God?, Original Catholic Doctrine: Creed, Liturgy, Baptism, Passover, What Type of Catholic was Polycarp of Smyrna?, Tradition, Holy Days, Salvation, Dress, & Celibacy, Early Heresies and Heretics, Doctrines: 3 Days, Abortion, Ecumenism, Meats, Tithes, Crosses, Destiny, and more, Saturday or Sunday?, The Godhead, Apostolic Laying on of Hands Succession, Church in the Wilderness Apostolic Succession List, Holy Mother Church and Heresies, and Lying Wonders and Original Beliefs. Here is a link to that book in the Spanish language: Creencias de la iglesia Católica original.
Continuing History of the Church of God This pdf booklet is a historical overview of the true Church of God and some of its main opponents from Acts 2 to the 21st century. Related sermon links include Continuing History of the Church of God: c. 31 to c. 300 A.D. and Continuing History of the Church of God: 4th-16th Centuries and Continuing History of the Church of God: 17th-20th Centuries. The booklet is available in Spanish: Continuación de la Historia de la Iglesia de Dios, German: Kontinuierliche Geschichte der Kirche Gottes, French: L Histoire Continue de l Église de Dieu and Ekegusii Omogano Bw’ekanisa Ya Nyasae Egendererete.
Where is the True Christian Church Today? This free online pdf booklet answers that question and includes 18 proofs, clues, and signs to identify the true vs. false Christian church. Plus 7 proofs, clues, and signs to help identify Laodicean churches. A related sermon is also available: Where is the True Christian Church? Here is a link to the booklet in the Spanish language: ¿Dónde está la verdadera Iglesia cristiana de hoy? Here is a link in the German language: WO IST DIE WAHRE CHRISTLICHE KIRCHE HEUTE?
The History of Early Christianity Are you aware that what most people believe is not what truly happened to the true Christian church? Do you know where the early church was based? Do you know what were the doctrines of the early church? Is your faith really based upon the truth or compromise?
The Churches of Revelation 2 & 3 Do they matter? Most say they must, but act like they do not. This article contains some history about the Church of God (sometimes referred to as the continuation of Primitive Christianity) over the past 2000 years.
What Do Roman Catholic Scholars Actually Teach About Early Church History? Although most believe that the Roman Catholic Church history teaches an unbroken line of succession of bishops beginning with Peter, with stories about most of them, Roman Catholic scholars know the truth of this matter. This eye-opening article is a must-read for any who really wants to know what Roman Catholic history actually admits about the early church.
Nazarene Christianity: Were the Original Christians Nazarenes? Who were the Nazarene Christians? What did they believe? Should 21st century Christians be modern Nazarenes? Is there a group that exists now that traces its history through the Nazarenes and holds the same beliefs today? Here is a link to a related video sermon Nazarene Christians: Were the early Christians “Nazarenes”?
Location of the Early Church: Another Look at Ephesus, Smyrna, and Rome What actually happened to the primitive Church? And did the Bible tell about this in advance?