New research suggests that skepticism about the Shroud of Turin, the 14-foot linen cloth bearing the image of a crucified man, dates back earlier than previously thought.
French philosopher Nicole Oresme, writing around 1370, alleged that the Shroud was a deliberate creation designed to benefit the church.
His remarks appear in a collection of writings known as the Problemata, compiled between 1355 and 1382.
Oresme’s observations had largely been overlooked until historian Nicolas Sarzeaud at the Catholic University Louvain uncovered them while examining an unpublished treatise.
Sarzeaud described the findings as “very, very valuable,” noting that Oresme approached subjects with a rare combination of curiosity and caution, questioning phenomena before drawing conclusions.
Prior to this discovery, the earliest documented critique of the Shroud came from Bishop Pierre d’Arcis of Troyes, who, in letters from 1389 to 1390, claimed the cloth was created by an artist.
The Shroud first appeared in the Champagne region of France around 1355 and quickly gained fame as a relic believed to have wrapped the body of Christ.
Despite the bishop’s denunciation, the cloth remained on display and was later moved to Turin in 1578, where it remains today.
Radiocarbon dating conducted in 1988 dated the fabric to between 1260 and 1390, supporting the theory that it originated in medieval Europe.
Scholars such as Andrea Nicolotti of the University of Turin argue that the weave and patterns of the cloth are consistent with medieval techniques, leaving two possible explanations: artistic creation or miracle.
Despite centuries of investigation, the Shroud continues to provoke debate. Some recent studies suggest the image may have been formed by an imprint from a statue rather than a human body.
Others maintain the cloth defies conventional explanation, noting the lack of pigments and the detailed bloodstains.
Cheryl White, a historian at Louisiana State University, cautions that Oresme’s writings reflect broader skepticism about false relics rather than direct knowledge of the Shroud.
Nevertheless, the philosopher’s testimony provides a rare window into how one of the most famous religious artifacts was perceived in the 14th century.
