670-Year-Old Manuscript On “Unexplained Phenomena” Is Bad News For Believers In The Shroud Of Turin

The Shroud of Turin is a large piece of linen cloth that was used to wrap the body of Jesus Christ, according to those who believe in it. The cloth contains a faint image, which people have claimed shows the face of Jesus of Nazareth himself, complete with a crown of thorns and stains that people believe to be blood.

As with other supposed relics relating to Jesus, its authenticity has been heavily disputed. The first historical record we have of it was in 1354, belonging to knight Geoffroi de Charnay. Thirty-five years later, it went on exhibition, but was soon labeled a fraud by the bishop of Troyes who called it “cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who painted it.” 

Nevertheless, popes through the years have believed in its authenticity and made pilgrimages to it as late as 2015. The shroud is rarely displayed today but has been submitted to scientific testing in an attempt to determine precisely when and where it was made, and by whom.

In the 1980s, the shroud was submitted to radiocarbon dating, along with three control samples, by three separate teams of scientists, each working independently. 

“The results of radiocarbon measurements at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich yield a calibrated calendar age range with at least 95 percent confidence for the linen of the Shroud of Turin of [CE] 1260-1390,” a paper on the tests published in Nature concludes. 

“These results therefore provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is medieval.”

This dates it roughly to around the time it appeared in historical records. It has since been suggested, by those who likely want to believe in its authenticity, that the teams could have taken a sample from an area of the shroud that was repaired in the 12-1300s, or that the shroud was contaminated during a fire in Chambery, France, in 1532.

Clutching even more desperately at straws, others have suggested that the shroud became contaminated by carbon monoxide, throwing off the dating of the cloth by a thousand or so years. Subjecting other cloths to carbon monoxide as a test, however, has not shown any significant impact on radiocarbon dating. 

Other studies have focused on the patterns on the shroud itself. One team, using a mannequin and a volunteer, simulated wounds as shown on the shroud using real and synthetic blood. Blood was pumped around the mannequin, and released at the wound points supposedly shown on the shroud, which was then left to flow to show researchers what the resulting patterns would look like.

 

The team had been hoping to determine whether the patterns were consistent with a T-shaped crucifix or a Y-shaped crucifix, but concluded that they were not consistent with crucifixion at all. The body parts would have had to have been at different angles to produce the patterns seen on the shroud.

Though this analysis has also been questioned – by people saying it could have been altered if a body had been transported inside the linen, for example – the scientific evidence so far tells a simple story.

“The simplest, albeit the dullest, conclusion to reach,” as one team put it, “is that the shroud’s age is its historic age.” At some point before the shroud entered historical records in the 1300s, it was forged.

Adding more evidence to that is the new study, which found even earlier suggestions that the shroud was a fraud.

“This article is the result of the discovery of a new, older source,” author Dr Nicolas Sarzeaud, researcher in history at the Université Catholique of Louvain, in Belgium, and a fellow of the Villa Médicis, the French Academy, in Rome, Italy, explained in his paper. “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.”

While Oresme was alive during a time of religious mysticism, and was writing about unexplained phenomena, he took a somewhat rational approach, judging them based on criteria such as the number of witnesses and their reliability, and how much the phenomenon conforms to nature and reason.

“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.’,” Sarzeaud explained in a statement.

“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.”

According to Sarzeaud, Oresme likely wrote about the fraud in 1370, after having learned of it as a scholar to the King of France, after it was displayed in Lirey, in France’s Champagne region.

“The other technological and scientific evidence, which points in the same direction, remains unchanged,” Andrea Nicolotti, Professor of History of Christianity and Churches at the University of Turin, added.

“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.”

While no new evidence of the Shroud’s inauthenticity is added here (for that, see this study from July), it shows that people were skeptical of the supposed relic even as it was first shown.

“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,” Sarzeaud added.

“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.”

The study is published in the Journal of Medieval History.