7
Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., "Acts
of the Holy Apostle Thaddaeus, One of the Twelve,"
in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VIII (New
York: Scribners 1899) 558, esp. n. 4. Greek in von
Dobschtz (n. 1) 182*:
καὶ
ἐπεδόθη
αὐτᾡ
τετράδιπλov, καὶ
vιψάμεvoς ἀπεμάξατo
τὴv
ὂψιv
αὐτoΰ.
ἐvτυπωθείσης
δέ της εἰκόvoς
αὐτoΰ
έv τῇ
σιvδόvι ἐπέδωκεv
τᾡ
Ἀvαvίᾳ
. . .
8
Evagrius, HE 4.27 in von Dobschütz (supra, n.
1) 68** and 70**, introduces the image during the
siege in 544. See too Robert Drews (n. 1), ch. 5.
This text effectively counters the position of
Averil Cameron (infra, n. 9) based on Procopius.
9 See n.
14 below. That Mandylion and burial wrapping may be
one and the same, has been well-argued by Ian
Wilson, The Turin Shroud (London: Victor
Gollancz, Ltd. 1978) and others. This position is
strenuously opposed by Averil Cameron, The
Sceptic and the Shroud (London: King's College
Inaugural Lecture monograph 1980). The thrust of
Cameron's case is the failure of Procopius to
mention the Edessa image in the 6th c., though he
devoted much space to the reputed letters exchanged
between Jesus and Abgar and elsewhere accepts the
possibility of miraculous interventions. In view of
the copious literature on the image, Procopius might
be the only 6th c. writer who was oblivious of it.
Note that c. 1330 Nicephorus Callistus, Eccles.
Hist. XVII.16, in J.-P. Migne, PG, Vol.
147, cols. 259 [Latin] and 260 [Greek] asserted,
though without a specific citation, that: Insuper
etiam Procopius memorat ea quae a veteribus quoque
de effigie Christi memoriae sunt prodita, quae
Abgaro Edesse principi est missa. From this we
may conclude either that these lines of Procopius
have been lost or, more likely, that for the earlier
events in Edessa, precisely the acquisition of
letters and portrait (both parts of the same story),
Procopius must have used the Hist. Eccles. of
early iconoclast Eusebius, which omits any reference
to the portrait. Cameron further assumes that a
natural and ordinary picture of Christ introduced
into the literature in an extremely credulous period
of history was later embellished by even more
credulous minds into a miraculous image. This paper
argues that the reverse sequence is more realistic.
Cameron has not refuted Wilson but rather has
reintroduced the case for a mere painted icon (the
Mandylion) as it stood before Wilson's important
revision. Wilson's stance is strengthened by
documents included in the present paper. His own
response has appeared in William Meacham, ed.,
Turin Shroud--Image of Christ?, Proceedings of
the Hong Kong Shroud of Turin Symposium, March 3-6,
1986: "The Shroud and the Mandylion: A Reply to
Professor Averil Cameron," 19-28. Although Wilson
has argued that the history of the Edessa icon may
contribute to the history of the Turin Shroud, this
paper does not address that issue.
10 The
manner in which the Mandylion was encased is
verified by pictorial examples from the 10th to the
13th centuries. In a wide case the apparently
disembodied face was visible behind a circular
(nimbus-like) central opening, flanked by decorative
panels on either side. Ian Wilson, The
Mysterious Shroud, (Garden City, NY: Doubleday
1986) color plate 28; also Werner Bulst and Heinrich
Pfeiffer, Das Turiner Grabtuch und das
Christusbild (Frankfurt am Main: Knecht 1987)
illustrations 118, 119, 121, and 122.
11 Kurt
Weitzmann, "The Mandylion and Constantine
Porphyrogennetos," Cahiers Archéologiques XI,
1960, 163-184, p. 183-184.
12
Evagrius (n. 8) omitted any miraculous rediscovery.
A "hidden-away period" could be argued from--and
explains--the significant list of writers in and
about Edessa who did not mention the icon. The list
includes the 4th c. Spanish pilgrim Egeria and
several 4th and 5th century Edessan chroniclers and
bishops. Or, as Drews (n. 1, 62-68) thinks, an icon
thought at the time to have been man-made and thus
not noticed by Edessa sources, achieved prominence
in the siege of 544 when by its power--as the
Edessenes believed--their city was saved.