Shroud of Turin Blog

This is a perfect example of a copy of the Mandylion that was probably done by an artist who was an eye-witness of the relic !!! Did you see blood somewhere folks ???

Oh, I’m sure Wilson would be willing to pretend that the red dots are blood marks… :-)

And I’ll repeat it for those who never read my comment about the Vignon markings : For Paul Vignon, the fact that the copies of the Mandylion show a great degree of ressemblance with the Shroud face was a very compelling evidence that this relic was a manmade creation of the Church of Edessa (probably a painting) based, directly or indirectly, on the Shroud. Vignon never thought for a second that this relic could have been the Shroud folded in 8 like Wilson pretend. For Vignon, there was a close connexion between the 2 relics, but at the same time, they were different relics in his mind ! And a very big bunch of historians, experts in byzantine art, etc. also conclude that those relics were really 2 different relics. The sad part of the story is this : In all my researches about the Mandylion, I only noticed some “shroudies” who believe WIlson is right. I never saw a single historian (a real one, not a journalist) that come from OUTSIDE the Shroud world and who his a defender of Wilson’s hypothesis. Not a single one !

I will conclude by saying this : Look closely at this Holy face of Laon that was probably made by an artist who knew very well the real Mandylion. Seriously, do you really think it represent the face we see on the Shroud of Turin ? You really think this artist would have done a copy of the relic and, at the same time, transform some of the most evident properties of the image : He would have taken the image of a dead Christ and turn it into an image of a living Christ. Also, he would have taken the image of a bloody Christ and turn it into an image of an alive and well Christ ! YOU SERIOUSLY BELIEVE THAT ??? That’s your liberty !!!

Very good point Max. The Pray codex is a good example that show that before the 13th century, it was not “in the air” to represent a bloody Christ. And then, someone can extrapolate and think that this reasoning can be also applied to the copies of the Mandylion. But, at the same time, ancient sources (like the Narratio de Imagine Edessena) is pretty clear about the fact that the Mandylion had been showed publicly at some points during his history. And the “Narratio” informs us also about the precious fact that there were already 2 copies of the Mandylion in Edessa at the time of the deal (in 944) between the byzantine emperor Romanus Lecapenus and the Arab ruler of Edessa that enable the emperor to get the Mandylion and take him back to Constantinople. And, also from the “Narratio”, we learn that those 2 copies were so good that the Byzantines had to make a careful check of the relic they were about the get, in order to be 100% sure that it was the authentic Mandylion.

From those information, we can deduce 2 important things :

1- The Mandylion must have looked very much like a painting, since it appear that paint copies of the relic were so similar that it needed a careful check to differentiate them with the authentic relic.
2- During the time the Mandylion was still in Edessa (before 944), there was already copies of the relic that were made and since it’s evident that they were very good copies that look very like the original (see my previous explanation), if Wilson was right, then that would mean the artists who made those copies DID SHOW THE BLOODSTAINS on their copies !!!

In this context, you will make me believe that those 2 Edessenian copies were the only 2 in history to be almost exact copies showing the bloodstains (so exact that they could easily have been confused with the original) and then, after the transfer to Constantinople, no artist would have dared to make another exact copy showing the bloodstains like the 2 exact copies in Edessa ? I think a scenario like that is highly unlikely. I don’t see why those exact copies from Edessa would have been very different than the subsequent copies done in Constantinople (like this Holy Face of Laon). To me, the fact that there was already some copies made during the time the relic was still in Edessa strengthen the idea that the relic was really an image of the living Christ showing no bloodstain at all. I really think that if there would have been copies in Edessa showing the bloodstains, there would also have been those kind of exact copies made later on when the Image was in Constantinople. I’m sure you understand my argument !!!

And if we analyse the Pray codex, then it is pretty evident that the artist who did the work had seen the Shroud with his own eyes. But he did not show the bloodstains (or maybe just a little bit in one particular place, but that’s not guarantee). Since this artwork was done during the 12th century by an artist who was most probably one of the few to have been able to see the inside part of the Shroud at that time (before the public showing of the Shroud in Constantinople during the years 1203-1204), I think it is enough to understand why he didn’t draw the bloodstains (or just a few). In fact, it wasn’t “in the air” of the time to show a suffering Christ and this artist didn’t dare to show those bloodstains in every details. It is understandable that he acted like that because of the artistic context of the time were there was absolutely no image of a suffering Christ with bloodstains anywhere in Christian art. It took the most probable first ever public showing of the inside part of the Shroud with the images to see things changed in Christian art related to the Passion. I’m pretty sure this particular public showing was the starting point of the changes we saw later on during the 13th century…