In my essay, Slouching Towards Emmaus, I wrote about a short paper by Kim Dreisbach called “Liturgical Clues to the Shroud’s history.” Two items, in particular, caught my attention. The first was the “Hymn of the Pearl,” an epic poem found within the Acts of Thomas (not to be confused with the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas). Some scholars think the poem is older than the Acts of Thomas. It is often attributed to Bardesane of Edessa, a Gnostic poet writing as early as 216 CE. A few puzzling words, a mere four lines of poetry that seem curiously out of place, that are found in different places in different Greek and Syriac versions of the Acts, are spoken, as though, in the first person by the risen Christ:
Suddenly, I saw my image on my garment like in a mirror
Myself and myself through myself [or myself facing outward and inward]
As though divided, yet one likeness
Two images: but one likeness of the King [or King of kings]
Keith Witherup, a blogger over at ReligionForum.org, would later explain:
If you look at a photograph of the Shroud you see two full-size images of a man, one in which the image is facing outward and one inward. In more modern terms we describe these as front-side and back-side images, or ventral and dorsal images. They are, indeed, as in a mirror as they are full size and seemingly perpendicular to the surface. Those words, “as though divided, yet one likeness,” resonate with the two separate images that meet at the top of the head.
It is hard to imagine what else these lines of poetry could refer to. Saying that, however, doesn’t make for logically sound, objective history,
I have to say I don’t find it at all hard to imagine that the bejewelled golden robe described in the Hymn of the Pearl is not the Shroud. I don’t think those four lines are incongruous within the narrative for the poem, and I don’t think they should be taken out of context.
Although written in somewhat mystical terms, which certainly permit a variety of metaphorical interpretations, the clothes referred to in the story are clearly delineated all the way through. The bright golden robe, invariably accompanied by a purple ‘toga,’ is worn by the protagonist at the beginning and returned to him at the end. It is his ‘proper’ clothing and reflects (see what I did there) his status. He removes it at the beginning of the story and recovers it at the end. In the meanwhile he wears traveling clothes (presumably), and then the clothes of the people he visits, and then nothing at all. Losing his clothing is specifically identified with his forgetting who he is, as well as his mission. A letter from his parents helps him to remember, and achieve, his mission, and the sight of his royal clothes helps him to remember his true identity. He sees his real self in their glory, and their elaborate jewelled decoration. The clothes beckon him to wear them again, and return to his rightful place, which he does.
If this is a metaphor for the incarnation, then the robe and toga are the attributes of God the Son in heaven. If we must find a reference to the resurrection and his shroud, it will be in the lines: “I stripped off my filthy rags, leaving them in a field, and went on my way into the light of my homeland.”
Following this theme, no doubt we could try to identify the real meanings of the pearl, the co-ruler, the letter and so on, and not have too much difficulty with the serpent and the inn. No doubt there are other interpretations. I’m afraid I do not find it at all “hard to imagine what else these lines of poetry could refer to.”
We Christians are very good at picking out lines of scripture and using them out of context, often carelessly. Why should we not do so with the Hymn of the Pearl? Often, in the past, copyists and scribes have done so and we have promulgated their deeds. And so we must be cautious. I agree, and I suggest that in my essay.
But we must also consider the nature of ancient writing of that era and part of the world. We are still and will probably always will be trying to understand it. It is fair to say it is heavy with symbolism and metaphor. Indeed, I think much of scripture is like that. It is also characterized by sometimes out-of-context insertions of sophia. That may be what we are looking at here. I’m inclined to think so, admittedly more so than many.
Thanks for your thoughts on this. They are always welcome and considered.
Tried sending the following to you personally by email, Dan, but your end rejected the email in question – but not a later simpler one minus screen grabs etc.
So rather than toss to one side, I’m posting it here. Will your site accept one wonders?
###########################
I shall spare you and your welcome renewed site my half-formed long-shot idea re that Hymn of the Pearl, Dan.
Let’s leave it as saying this: go to the Gospel of Mark, Chp14, verses 51 and 52. Ask yourself what on earth those verses are about, with an unnamed young man appearing from nowhere, wearing nowt but a linen cloth (yes, LINEN) which he strips off, handing over to Jesus within Gethsemane before running off naked.
Know what I think? I think it’s a reference to the origin of the ACTUAL linen referred to in John only- later used after cutting up to make multiple linen clothes (yes , ultimately a “BURIAL” as distinct from mere transport shroud) .
Why a fragmentary reference in Mark only?
Answer: because rich and well-connected “high profile” Joseph of Arimathea was a largely mythical, possibly totally invented figure, introduced by Apostle writers decades later.
Why? Answer: To work in yet one more reference to the fulfilment of prophecy. (See the quote from wiki re J of A being the “rich man” who appears immediately post mortem
Old Testament prophecy:
Tomb of Jesus in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre
Many Christians[5] interpret Joseph’s role as fulfilling Isaiah’s prediction that the grave of the “Suffering Servant” would be with a rich man (Isaiah 53:9), assuming that Isaiah was referring to the Messiah. The prophecy in Isaiah chapter 53 is known as the “Man of Sorrows” passage:
He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.
Yes, much of the Gospels refer to fulfilment of ancient Old Testament prophecy – albeit pretty vague and/or far-fetched at times.
J of A had to be “squeezed in” – but a tiny reference was left -deliberately or otherwise – to the real source of the “burial clothes” of John.
No need to mention this on your posting – biblical scholarship not being my forte!
Cheers
Colin
##########################
Shall now go and read Hugh Farey’s comment, see immediately below, having merely skimmed thus far.
I though I’d write a separate note on the Wikipedia article on the Shroud, which has been denounced as “propaganda garbage, written by Internet trolls who by abusing the rules, censor any attempts to show that the Shroud may very likely be authentic relic,” and “biased against any balanced accounting of the authenticity dispute. In fact, it is obviously a typical anti-religion screed filled with its own abundance of false and “pseudo-scientific” analysis and conclusions. “Garbage” is a good word for it.”
I wonder if the commentators have looked at it, or the four spin-off articles it has spawned? I certainly grant that they are not out-and-out declarations of authenticity, but they are certainly not garbage, do not deny that there is dispute about authenticity, and do explain the views of those who think it is a genuine burial cloth. It contains a few factual errors, but considerably fewer than any of the fervent authenticist podcasts published on YouTube.
If any of our correspondents here disagree, perhaps they’d like to quote some ‘garbage’ or ‘anti-religion screed,’ or “pseudo-scientific analysis” and persuade me they’re right?