Hugh Farey has posted a careful, characteristically rigorous analysis of the Sermon of Gregory Referendarius over at his Medieval Shroud site, and it’s well worth your time. I recommend reading it in full.
The sermon — written shortly after the Image of Edessa arrived in Constantinople in 944 AD and rediscovered in the Vatican Archives in 1987 — has become a cornerstone of Teddi Pappas’s argument that the Image of Edessa was the Shroud of Turin. Hugh walks through the Greek text and its successive translations by Dubarle, Guscin, and Nicolotti, and shows how small translation choices carry enormous interpretive weight. He demonstrates that the sermon consistently refers to a face cloth, not a burial shroud, that it never mentions funerary linens, and that even Mark Guscin — one of the sermon’s leading authenticist translators — eventually walked back his own earlier reading.
The point about “θρόμβοι” — clots vs. drops — is a good example of how this debate works. Pappas is right that the word means something more like “clot” than “drop.” But Hugh points out that Gregory is quoting Luke 22:44, not describing what he actually saw on the cloth. And the bloodstains on the Shroud, however they got there, look like liquid flows — not clots.
A note on Teddi Pappas’s larger argument: she is a lawyer, and lawyers think carefully about evidence. But the standard for evidence isn’t “this could fit” — it’s “this fits better than the alternatives.” The sermon has been read by serious Byzantine scholars for decades, and none of them, Hugh notes, have concluded it points to the Shroud unless they were already convinced authenticists going in. That’s not convergence on evidence. That’s confirmation bias working in reverse. A good lawyer knows that when there are too many competing explanations — all of them plausible, none of them decisive — a thinking person cannot accept any single one as proven. The sermon is interesting. It is not a smoking gun.
Read Hugh’s full post here: Medieval Shroud
No one talks about how the image was created or formed on the linen cloth. That is the most important thing about the Shroud of Turin.
Hi Hemraj!
How the image was created or formed is a constant, regular, continuous topic of blogs, interviews, discussions and papers, and has been for years. To think that “no one talks about” it suggests that you do not keep up with current affairs. If you want to, why not start with Dan’s posts on this very blog, many of which are devoted to precisely the subject you claim is ignored.
Best wishes,
Hugh
Yes, I know that, Hugh. Any idea how the image was formed? That is the most important thing to understand?
Regards
Hemraj
This is what AI think:
The Shroud of Turin remains one of the most scientifically frustrating and deeply fascinating artifacts in human history. The reason “no one knows” exactly how the image was formed is not for a lack of trying; it’s because the image possesses a unique combination of physical and chemical characteristics that no modern scientist, artist, or forger has ever been able to replicate simultaneously. When scientists look at the Shroud, they run into a wall of contradictions. Here is why the image defies a simple explanation:1. It is “Superficial” Beyond BeliefThe image on the Shroud is not an ink, dye, or paint stain that soaked into the fabric. In fact, it is entirely restricted to the absolute topmost layer of microfibers (fibrils) — a thickness of less than 0.4 microns (thinner than a single bacterium). The chemical change is a microscopic oxidation and dehydration of the linen’s cellulose itself. If it were a liquid or a vapor, it would have soaked deeper into the threads or spread sideways. It didn’t.2. It is a Perfect Photographic NegativeWhen photographer Secondo Pia first photographed the Shroud in 1898, he was stunned to find that the darks and lights on the raw cloth were reversed. The image is actually a photographic negative. A medieval artist would have had to paint or create an image with inverted gradients centuries before the invention of photography, a concept virtually unknown to the human mind at the time.3. It Contains 3D Distance InformationIn the late 1970s, scientists with the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) put the Shroud’s image into a VP-8 Image Analyzer (a tool NASA used to map planetary topography). Normal photographs result in distorted, smeared shapes under this test. The Shroud image, however, translated into a perfect, mathematically accurate 3D relief of a human body. This means the intensity of the discoloration corresponds precisely to how close that specific part of the cloth was to the body.4. Image Exists Where There Was No ContactThe image depicts parts of the body that wouldn’t have physically touched the cloth while a corpse lay flat on a stone slab. Yet, the image doesn’t suffer from the massive side-to-side distortion you would expect if a cloth wrapped tightly around a 3D face. It looks like a flat, vertical projection.The Competing Hypotheses (and why they fail)Because of these bizarre properties, science is stuck in a game of elimination. Every time a theory solves one puzzle piece, it fails at another:TheoryHow it worksWhy it falls shortThe Artist / Paint TheoryA medieval artist used iron oxide or pigment to paint the image.Under high-magnification microscopy, there are no brush strokes, no binder, and no clogging of the threads. The image is a chemical degradation of the flax itself, not an added substance.The Vapor / Chemical TheoryBody heat, sweat, and burial spices (like myrrh and aloes) reacted to create a chemical vapor that stained the cloth.Vapors travel in all directions and blur. This cannot account for the incredibly sharp resolution of the image or its 3D distance data.The Radiation TheoryAn intense, instantaneous burst of electromagnetic energy or light (like UV radiation or static electricity) scorched the surface of the fibers.This is currently the only mechanism that scientists have used to successfully mimic the superficiality of the image in a lab (using high-powered ultraviolet lasers). However, it requires billions of watts of light energy—far exceeding anything a natural human body can produce, and it leaves the obvious question of how a first-century or medieval corpse emitted laser-like radiation.Ultimately, the Shroud behaves less like a painting or a natural burial stain, and more like a photograph taken by an unknown, instantaneous energy event. Because science cannot reliably recreate it using medieval methods, and cannot explain it using natural biological ones, it remains an unsolved mystery.
Curious, Hemraj, if I may say so. In one post you say, “No one talks about how the image was created, and in the next post you say, “Yes, I know that [how the image was created or formed is a constant, regular, continuous topic of blogs, interviews, discussions and papers, and has been for years.]
Not only that, but I (and many others) have a very good idea how the image was formed, and discuss it at length at medievalshroud.
Best wishes,
Hugh
This is not what AI thinks. It is what AI regurgitates. This is a great example of why we should not depend too much on AI. If AI had been invented a few centuries ago, we might still believe that our world is only 6000 years old, at the center of crystal spheres pr stars, and whatnots.
Hi, Dan,
I’m glad to know that you think that we should not depend too much on A.I. But, that then raises the question of why you have, in the past, used A.I. to “fact-check” information and given us here on your blog A.I.’s results on something–like it matters? I see how A.I. is quite often incorrect–it’s a roll of the dice.
Also, for readers interested in my comments on the Archdeacon Gregory sermon and the “res ipsa loquitur” issue, please see my comments on Hugh Farey’s website where I have posted them. Also, there will be a lot more commentary that is forthcoming.
Thank you for bringing attention to this important sermon!
Cheers,
Teddi
Hi, Dan and Everyone,
Prior to Hugh’s blogpost reaching its terminus, we got up to 79 comments–although almost all of the comments were between Marco Corvaglia and me. For those people who are interested in exploring certain key portions of the text from Archdeacon Gregory’s sermon, the comments there might be of interest.
One thing that I was just thinking about, however, is how the consensus seems to be that Christianity did not exist in any particularly significant way in Edessa in the first century. However, here’s something to think about. We know from the “Chronicle of Edessa” that there was a historic flood there–of “Biblical proportions”–of the Daysan River in November of A.D. 201. Among the things that were damaged from this flood was “the temple of the church of the Christians.” Now, let’s think about it. While we don’t really know what this church looked like, it was likely something more than a shack. It probably cost a substantial amount of money to build. For that, one would need either a lot of Christians contributing to the Church OR government money being used to build this church. Is it likely that something like that would spring up out of nowhere? Or, does it take some momentum for Christianity to get to the point in a land where a church is then built (as opposed to people practicing Christianity in home churches or somewhere else in secret.?) We know from Gregory’s sermon that there were still some archives that remained in Edessa, it is said that the aforementioned flood wiped out the older public archives in Edessa. So, the question is how can we be so confident that there was no Christianity in Edessa in the 1st century under such circumstances?
Best regards,
Teddi
Also, on a side-note, regarding the issue of the meaning of the Greek word “tetradiplon,” I know that the standard understanding is that it means something folded into eight parts, yet there has been comment that the breakdown of the words means folded into four. The confusion here (which leads to a misunderstanding) is that the word is broken down not far enough–in order to get the full meaning. The people who think that the cloth is just folded into 4 parts take from the word “tetradiplon” the word “tetra” (meaning four) and “diplon” which they define as “fold”–so they, then, arrive at the definition of folded into four parts.
HOWEVER, this is not telling the full story. when something is–at its most elemental stage–folded, it is folded into TWO parts. That’s why the word “diplon” starts off with the word “di”–which, of course, means TWO. So, “diplon” really means “folded into two parts.” So, when you have the word “tetradiplon” you have a situation where something is DOUBLED in four. 4×2=8.
Best regards,
Teddi
Oh, I forgot to add that in the Greek document “Acts of Thaddeus” (the earliest date given for this text is around the 6th century), this is our earliest known evidence of a mention of the cloth at issue with King Abgar is first referred to as a “tetradiplon.” This, of course, goes against the idea that this cloth brought to King Abgar (to show Abgar what Jesus looked like) was only a face cloth–as opposed to a full-sized frontal and dorsal body image of Jesus.
I’m not sure if anybody’s ever paid attention to and/or commented on the following in the closing portion of Gregory’s sermon. “[B]ehold the crown which the pious zeal of the Emperor places on the reflection of your face and bestow diadems of grace on it like those of absolute sovereignty.”
Is this “crown” (which, of course, tends to be circular) placed on the facial area of the image a reference to what is thought to be a circular (? probably glass) opening to the reliquary that the Image of Edessa was kept in–and which accounts for what has been noticed as a “halo-effect” around the depiction of the Holy Face on the Shroud of Turin?
I know that Ian Wilson has mentioned a circular reliquary, but I totally have no recall or awareness as to why he thought this–perhaps due to the “halo effect” that was seen on the Shroud of Turin–as well as how the Shroud would be folded so as to be put in a reliquary with the Holy Face showing? Not sure. Anybody know anything more about this?
Correction: Wilson didn’t mention a circular reliquary but a reliquary with a sort of circular opening around the face that is seen when the cloth is in its reliquary.
Hi, Everybody,
I just got what I think (at least to me) is a new, sort of subtle–but sort of really big (yeah, I know I’m contradicting myself here)–understanding of the following:
“ότι άμα ειδον ηπλωμενην αυτήν εν τη οψει σου απηλλαγην τησ νόσου μου και τησ κλίνης ανεστην, ίσχυν τε ησθομην αναλαβομενοσ ην ακμαζων ειχον τω σώματι.”
This is From Section 9, first paragraph of Guscin’s translation and Section 10 of Dubarle’s translation.
Guscin translated this as: “[s]ince when I saw it unfolded on your face I was cured of my illness[.]”
Now, here’s the thing–the word that is being translated as “face” is “οψει.” From what I’m finding, the best translation (which also makes a lot of sense to me) is that this means “in your presence.” Now, I mentioned this in the comment section of Hugh’s website pertaining to Gregory’s sermon. BUT, here is the new understanding that I’ve got:
“Since, when I saw it unfolded–in your presence–I was set free from my disease/illness.”
So, the emphasis doesn’t seem to me to be the the “in your presence” is referring to the unfolding of the cloth (although, undoubtedly, this happened in Thaddaios’ presence when King Abgar saw the linen cloth with the miraculous image on it.) But, instead, the “in your presence” seems to me to be focused on King Abgar’s being cured of his illness/disease (and that he got up out of bed and felt strength in his body) WHILE IN THADDAIOS’ presence.
It would be a good idea to get several specialists to examine this idea.
Best regards,
Teddi
Oh, something else that is very, VERY interesting that I found out as I kept tickling through the text of the sermon. But, I’m concerned it might not be correct—but it might be!) Again, the help of a specialist (preferably a neutral one who is not involved in Holy Shroud matters) would be really important.
A.I.’s analysis of this sentence was that “in your presence” is referring to JESUS’ presence” via the miraculous image of Him on the cloth. (!!!) As in, Abgar is saying that he (Abgar) was healed when in the presence of the image on the cloth when Thaddaios unfolded the cloth (in front of Abgar.)
I think that this is a radically new (and very interesting) interpretation of this text. I’m not sure if it’s viable, but it just might be.
Best regards,
Teddi
Hi, Everybody,
A key alternate translation to Mark Guscin’s “when I [Abgar] saw it [the cloth] unfolded on your [Thaddaios’] face” that I am suggesting has nothing to do with either “on” or “your face.” This is important with regard to the debate as to whether or not the cloth that Abgar saw was a face cloth (that would have only depicted Jesus’ face) or a cloth large enough to possibly depict Jesus’ entire bodily form. The question is: does the text here dictate the translation of “face” for “οψει?” From all that I can tell, it most definitely does not–and, to the contrary–it seems like there are other translations that are a better fit.
See the details, below (cut and pasted from Google’s A.I. mode after I typed in the Greek text–since I was unable to cut and paste the Dubarle text without various corruptions to the text):
Dubarle, Section 10, Guscin section 9, paragraph 1
“Εφη προσ Θαδδαιον ο βασιλεύσ Αβγαροσ ορθώς περί τησ συγκαταβασεωσ και των παραδόξων θαυμάτων και παθών, ταφής τε και αναστάσεως, τησ τε προσ τον φυσει αυτού πατέρα θαυμαστής αναλήψεως διηγησω μοι, και ομολογώ αυτόν θεον αληθή εκείνο δε δίδαξον, πωσ η εν τη οθόνη αναστησασα με αγία ενετυπωθη μορφή, ου γαρ όρω αυτήν γεγονυιαν συνηθεσι χρωμασι, και τισ η ταυτησ ισχύς υπερβάλλουσα, ότι άμα ειδον ηπλωμενην αυτήν εν τη όψει σου απηλλαγην τησ νόσου μου και τησ κλίνης ανεστην, ίσχυν τε ησθομην αναλαβομενοσ ην ακμάζων είχον τω σώματι.”
“WORD-BY-WORD, grammatical breakdown:
1. The Main Clause: King Abgar Speaks
• ἔφη (ephē): Verb, imperfect active indicative, 3rd person singular, from φημί (phēmi, to say). Meaning:”said”.
• πρὸς (pros): Preposition with accusative. Meaning: “to / toward”.
• Θαδδαῖον (Thaddaion): Proper noun, masculine accusative singular, from Θαδδαῖος. Meaning:”Thaddeus”.
• ὁ (ho): Definite article, masculine nominative singular. Meaning: “the”.
• βασιλεὺς (basileus): Noun, masculine nominative singular. Meaning: “king”.
• Ἄβγαρος (Abgaros): Proper noun, masculine nominative singular. Meaning: “Abgar”.
2. Acknowledging the Teachings
• ὀρθῶς (orthōs): Adverb, from ὀρθός (orthos, straight/correct). Meaning: “correctly / rightly”.
• περὶ (peri): Preposition with genitive. Meaning: “concerning / about”.
• τῆς (tēs): Definite article, feminine genitive singular. Meaning: “the”.
• συγκαταβάσεως (synkatabaseōs): Noun, feminine genitive singular, from συγκατάβασις (synkatabasis). Meaning: “condescension / divine accommodation”.
• καὶ (kai): Conjunction. Meaning: “and”.
• τῶν (tōn): Definite article, neuter genitive plural. Meaning: “the”.
• παραδόξων (paradoxōn): Adjective, neuter genitive plural, modifying θαυμάτων. Meaning:”extraordinary / marvelous / paradoxical”.
• θαυμάτων (thaumatōn): Noun, neuter genitive plural, from θαῦμα (thauma). Meaning: “miracles / wonders”.
• καὶ (kai): Conjunction. Meaning: “and”.
• παθῶν (pathōn): Noun, neuter genitive plural, from πάθος (pathos). Meaning: “passions / sufferings”.
• ταφῆς (taphēs): Noun, feminine genitive singular, from ταφή (taphē). Meaning: “of burial”.
• τε (te): Enclitic conjunction, pairs with the following καὶ. Meaning: “both / as well as”.
• καὶ (kai): Conjunction. Meaning: “and”.
• ἀναστάσεως (anastaseōs): Noun, feminine genitive singular, from ἀνάστασις (anastasis). Meaning: “of resurrection”.
• τῆς (tēs): Definite article, feminine genitive singular, introducing the next phrase. Meaning: “the”.
• τε (te): Enclitic conjunction. Meaning: “and”.
• πρὸς (pros): Preposition with accusative. Meaning: “to / toward”.
• τὸν (ton): Definite article, masculine accusative singular. Meaning: “the”.
• φύσει (physei): Noun, feminine dative singular used adverbially, from φύσις (physis). Meaning: “by nature”.
• αὐτοῦ (autou): Personal pronoun, masculine genitive singular. Meaning: “of Him / His”.
• πατέρα (patera): Noun, masculine accusative singular, object of πρός, from πατήρ (patēr). Meaning:”Father”.
• θαυμαστῆς (thaumastēs): Adjective, feminine genitive singular, modifying ἀναλήψεως. Meaning:”wondrous / admirable”.
• ἀναλήψεως (analēpseōs): Noun, feminine genitive singular, from ἀνάληψις (analēpsis). Meaning:”ascension”.
3. Request and Confession
• διήγησώ (diēgēsō): Verb, aorist middle imperative, 2nd person singular, from διηγέομαι (diēgeomai). Meaning: “relate / recount (for me)”.
• μοι (moi): Personal pronoun, 1st person dative singular. Meaning: “to me”.
• καὶ (kai): Conjunction. Meaning: “and”.
• ὁμολογῶ (homologō): Verb, present active indicative, 1st person singular, from ὁμολογέω (homologeō). Meaning: “I confess / acknowledge”.
• αὐτὸν (auton): Personal pronoun, masculine accusative singular. Meaning: “Him”.
• θεὸν (theon): Noun, masculine accusative singular, predicate accusative. Meaning: “God”.
• ἀληθή (alēthē): Adjective, masculine accusative singular, from ἀληθής (alēthēs). Meaning: “true”.
4. Inquiry About the Cloth
• ἐκεῖνο (ekeino): Demonstrative pronoun, neuter accusative singular, functions as the direct object of δίδαξον. Meaning: “that (thing)”.
• δὲ (de): Conjunction. Meaning: “but / and”.
• δίδαξον (didaxon): Verb, aorist active imperative, 2nd person singular, from διδάσκω (didaskō). Meaning: “teach / instruct”.
• πῶς (pōs): Interrogative adverb. Meaning: “how”.
• ἡ (hē): Definite article, feminine nominative singular. Meaning: “the”.
• ἐν (en): Preposition with dative. Meaning: “in / upon”.
• τῇ (tē): Definite article, feminine dative singular. Meaning: “the”.
• ὀθόνῃ (othonē): Noun, feminine dative singular, from ὀθόνη (othonē). Meaning: “cloth / linen shroud”.
• ἀναστήσασά (anastēsasa): Participle, aorist active nominative feminine singular, from ἀνίστημι (anistēmi). Modifies μορφή. Meaning: “having restored / raised up”.
• με (me): Personal pronoun, 1st person accusative singular, object of the participle. Meaning: “me”.
• ἁγία (hagia): Adjective, feminine nominative singular, modifying μορφή. Meaning: “holy”.
• ἐνετυπώθη (enetypōthē): Verb, aorist passive indicative, 3rd person singular, from ἐντυπόω (entypoō). Meaning: “was imprinted / stamped”.
• μορφή (morphē): Noun, feminine nominative singular, subject of ἐνετυπώθη. Meaning: “likeness / form / image”. [1]
5. Examination of the Image
• οὐ (ou): Negative particle. Meaning: “not”.
• γὰρ (gar): Conjunction. Meaning: “for”.
• ὁρῶ (horō): Verb, present active indicative, 1st person singular, from ὁράω (horaō). Meaning: “I see / perceive”.
• αὐτὴν (autēn): Personal pronoun, feminine accusative singular, object of ὁρῶ. Meaning: “it (the image)”.
• γεγονυῖαν (gegonuian): Participle, perfect active accusative feminine singular, from γίνομαι (ginomai). Predicate participle with αὐτήν. Meaning: “having been made / produced”.
• συνήθεσι (synēthesi): Adjective, neuter dative plural, from συνήθης (synēthēs). Modifies χρώμασι. Meaning: “with customary / ordinary”.
• χρώμασι (chrōmasi): Noun, neuter dative plural of instrument, from χρῶμα (chrōma). Meaning: “colors / pigments”.
6. The Nature and Effect of its Power
• καὶ (kai): Conjunction. Meaning: “and”.
• τίς (tis): Interrogative pronoun, feminine nominative singular. Meaning: “what”.
• ἡ (hē): Definite article, feminine nominative singular. Meaning: “the”.
• ταύτης (tautēs): Demonstrative pronoun, feminine genitive singular. Meaning: “of this (image)”.
• ἰσχὺς (ischys): Noun, feminine nominative singular, subject of the implied “is”. Meaning: “power / strength”.
• ὑπερβάλλουσα (yperballousa): Participle, present active nominative feminine singular, from ὑπερβάλλω (yperballō). Modifies ἰσχύς. Meaning: “surpassing / exceeding”.
• ὅτι (hoti): Conjunction introducing a causal clause. Meaning: “because / since”.
• ἅμα (hama): Adverb used as a temporal conjunction when paired with εἶδον. Meaning: “at the same time as / as soon as”.
• εἶδον (eidon): Verb, aorist active indicative, 1st person singular, from ὁράω (horaō). Meaning: “I saw”.
• ἡπλωμένην (hēplōmenēn): Participle, perfect passive accusative feminine singular, from ἁπλόω (haploō). Predicate participle modifying αὐτήν (implied). Meaning: “spread out / unfolded”.
• αὐτὴν (autēn): Personal pronoun, feminine accusative singular, object of εἶδον. Meaning: “it”.
• ἐν (en): Preposition with dative. Meaning: “in / before”.
• τῇ (tē): Definite article, feminine dative singular. Meaning: “the”.
• ὄψει (opsei): Noun, feminine dative singular, from ὄψις (opsis). Meaning: “sight / face / presence”.
• σου (sou): Personal pronoun, 2nd person genitive singular. Meaning: “of you / your”. [1, 2, 3]
7. The Healing of the King
• ἀπηλλάγην (apēllagēn): Verb, aorist passive indicative, 1st person singular, from ἀπαλλάσσω (apallassō). Meaning: “I was delivered / freed”.
• τῆς (tēs): Definite article, feminine genitive singular. Meaning: “from the”.
• νόσου (nosou): Noun, feminine genitive singular of separation, from νόσος (nosos). Meaning: “illness / disease”.
• μου (mou): Personal pronoun, 1st person genitive singular. Meaning: “of me / my”.
• καὶ (kai): Conjunction. Meaning: “and”.
• τῆς (tēs): Definite article, feminine genitive singular. Meaning: “from the”.
• κλίνης (klinēs): Noun, feminine genitive singular of separation, from κλίνη (klinē). Meaning: “bed / couch”.
• ἀνέστην (anestēn): Verb, second aorist active indicative, 1st person singular, from ἀνίστημι (anistēmi). Meaning: “I arose”.
• ἰσχύν (ischyn): Noun, feminine accusative singular, object of ἀναλαβόμενος, from ἰσχύς (ischys). Meaning: “strength / vigor”.
• τε (te): Enclitic conjunction. Meaning: “and”.
• ᾐσθόμην (ēsthomēn): Verb, aorist middle indicative, 1st person singular, from αἰσθάνομαι (aisthanomai). Meaning: “I felt / perceived”.
• ἀναλαβόμενος (analabomenos): Participle, aorist middle nominative masculine singular, from ἀναλαμβάνω (analambanō). Modifies the subject of ᾐσθόμην. Meaning: “having regained / taken back”.
• ἣν (hēn): Relative pronoun, feminine accusative singular, object of εἶχον. Meaning: “which”.
• ἀκμάζων (akmazōn): Participle, present active nominative masculine singular, from ἀκμάζω (akmazō). Used circumstantially. Meaning: “being at my prime / flourishing”.
• εἶχον (eichon): Verb, imperfect active indicative, 1st person singular, from ἔχω (echō). Meaning: “I used to have / possessed”.
• τῷ (tō): Definite article, neuter dative singular. Meaning: “in the”.
• σώματι (sōmati): Noun, neuter dative singular of respect/place, from σῶμα (sōma). Meaning: “body”.
3. The Sensory Contrast: Physical Sight vs. Spiritual Recognition
The author intentionally uses ὄψει to set up a profound contrast with the surrounding vocabulary of seeing and appearing:
• The Physical Action: The King says that as soon as the cloth was spread out in the sight/presence(ὄψει) of Thaddeus, a physical healing occurred.
• The Visual Puzzle: Immediately before this, Abgar notes, “for I do not see (ὁρῶ) it as having been made with ordinary colors.”
• The Aesthetic Form: He asks how this holy likeness/appearance (μορφή) was imprinted.
By placing ὄψει here, the text emphasizes that the image was not a distant rumor; it was brought directly into the King’s immediate field of vision (ὄψις), prompting an instantaneous, physical reaction in his body before he could even comprehend how the image was made.
Summary of the Best Translations for this Context
Depending on which nuance a translator wants to emphasize, ἐν τῇ ὄψει σου can be rendered as:
• “the moment I saw it spread out before your face” (emphasizing the physical cloth held up by Thaddeus).
• “the moment I saw it spread out in your presence” (emphasizing the spatial proximity).
• “the moment I saw it spread out before your eyes” (emphasizing the shared visual experience between the Apostle and the King).”
Best regards,
Teddi
An interesting side-note: I had, previously, noticed that what John the Geometer was said to have seen (regarding the Mandolin) was just of the face. Well, I just tracked down the original Greek. And, well, guess what: it’s a SINDON /SHROUD that’s mentioned (!!!)–not a sudarion/facecloth or something else. I’m going to copy-and-paste what I’ve just found out from A.I.:
«Τὸ ἀπερίγραπτον, τὸ σχήματι τῷ καθ’ ἡμᾶς περιγραπτόν, ὡς ἡμεῖς περιγραπτόν, τῷ τυπωθῆναι ἐν πρωτοτύπῳ τῷ σινδονίῳ»
“This is a profound, high-style Byzantine theological text dealing with Christology (the nature of Christ) and the defense of holy icons, specifically echoing themes from the Iconoclastic controversies.
Direct English Translation”The uncircumscribable [One], circumscribable in a form according to our own, [yet] as we are circumscribable, by being imprinted as a prototype on the shroud.”
Key Vocabulary BreakdownTo help you understand the precise theological weight of these words, here is how the key terms break down:Τὸ ἀπερίγραπτον (To aperigrapton): “The uncircumscribable” or “the boundless.” In Byzantine theology, this refers strictly to the divine nature of God, which cannot be limited, bounded, or drawn by human hands.τῷ σχήματι τῷ καθ’ ἡμᾶς (tō schēmati tō kath’ hēmas): “In the form/fashion according to us.” This means taking on a true human body and physical appearance.περιγραπτόν (perigrapton): “Circumscribable” or “able to be delineated/depicted.” Because Christ became a real man, His physical presence could be circumscribed (drawn or limited by a boundary).ἐν πρωτοτύπῳ (en prōtotypō): “As a prototype” or “in original form.” This refers to the original source image from which copies or impressions are made.τῷ σινδονίῳ (tō sindoniō): “On the linen cloth” or “shroud.”
Theological and Historical Context: This sentence encapsulates the core argument of the Iconodule (icon-venerating) theologians like St. John of Damascus or St. Theodore the Studite.The Paradox of the Incarnation: The text highlights a deliberate paradox. God in His divine nature is infinite and invisible (uncircumscribable). However, through the Incarnation, He took on a human form exactly like ours (circumscribable). Therefore, because He truly became man, He can be physically depicted.The Reference to the Shroud: The mention of the sindonion (shroud or burial cloth) suggests a connection to the Acheiropoieta—images “not made by human hands.” It asserts that Christ’s image was physically left behind on the fabric as an original archetype, validating the artistic creation and veneration of icons.”
Rather interesting, huh?
Cheers,
Teddi
Well, now I’m getting info from A.I. that the prior information (that I just posted here) was an “A.I. hallucination.” A.I. gave me that “hallucination” answer after I was just further researching the issue. I, then, challenged this and I got a long, involved explanation that appears to me to be the hallucination.
Why do I think this? Because, prior to A.I., what first had brought my attention to this (this evening) is re-reading a portion of a book that I have from Paul C. Pappas (no relation) called, “Jesus’ Tomb in India.”
I’ll quote what is on page 125 of his book that was published in 1991:
“At the end of the tenth century, John Geometer, a priest in Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, wrote explicitly of the image of Christ on a shroud, after that references to an imprinted shroud became rather frequent in Constantinople.”
Best regards,
Teddi
Also, in Paul Pappas’ book, he mentions two other names that I don’t recall having heard of before (in connection with the early history of Jesus’ burial Shroud.
Quoting from Paul Pappas’ book on page 125:
“Two of the earliest accounts concerning the Shroud are the testimonies of St. Braulio, who in 631 wrote that the Shroud was then known as a relic, and of Arculph, who claimed to have kissed the “Lord’s winding sheet” in Jerusalem around 640.”
Hi Teddi,
I’m so glad you’ve managed to track down John the Geometer’s actual words. May I ask in which of his works you found them?
Best wishes,
Hugh
Hi, Hugh,
I was just now re-reading what I cut-and-pasted here from A.I. late last night. Also, I was double-checking on how (also last night) when I did some more research, there was the indication that what A.I. had just previously told me was an A.I. “hallucination.” However, there’s the question of which information is the hallucination–or, perhaps, both? I don’t know–this is just something that I had come across, and I wanted to mention it here (for people–including myself–to review in greater depth at another time–and before the comments section closes here.
Anyhow, I see from Nicolotti’s book that he claims on page 36, footnote 96 that (in his referencing in the main text how some witnesses affirm the presence in Byzantium of the sepulchral cloths of Jesus whereas other witnesses never mention it) that he include as an example of someone who supposedly did not mention Jesus’ sepulchral cloth as John the Geometer. Nicolotti states the following:
“One example is John the Geometer, who never speaks of “the image of Christ visible in his shroud,” contrary to the affirmation made by Baima Bollone (“Sindone: Storia e science, 29) as well as J.L. Carreno Etxeandia, “La Sindone: Ultimo reporter” (Alba: Paoline, 1977), 93; and P.C. Pappas, “Jesus’ Tomb in India” (Fremont: Jain, 1991), 125.”
Nicolotti then goes on to mention (in the main text) the following: “A letter sent by Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus clarifies what relics pertaining to Christ’s passion he possessed in the year 958: the beams and the placard of the cross, the spear, the reed, the blood escaped from his side, the garment, ‘the sacred bands, the theophoric swindon and the remaining marks of his undefiled passion.'”
If you look at what A.I. has to say about this, A.I. is claiming that there is confusion in that, supposedly, what Constantine said is being incorrectly attributed to John the Geometer. HOWEVER, what Nicolotti states in his book that Constantine said does NOT match the quote that I was given to me by A.I. last night. The Constantine quote (as provided by Nicolotti on page 36) from “De contionibus militaribus” 8 is: “των ιερων σπαργανων, και τησ θεοφορου σινδονοσ και των λοιπων του αχραντου παθουσ αυτου συμβολων[.]”
This does NOT match the quote that A.I. gave me. So, I’m not so sure that there truly is confusion.
I saw, also, (today), that some claim that there has been a mistake where people (I guess, allegedly, Baima Bollone, Carreno Etxeandia and Paul Pappas) are confusing the Virgin Mary’s shroud with Jesus–but, this seems far-fetched.
I do think, however, that the Greek quote that A.I. gave me (when I kept trying to get at a quote of the original wording in Greek) might have come from John the Geometer’s work on the Virgin Mary–but, I’m not sure.
It’s one thing to say A.I. “hallucinated” but did Baima Bollone? (And, I don’t know if the others just copied what Baima Bollone wrote–as opposed to independently getting the information or, at least, verifying it.)
But, all we have is Nicolotti’s just dismissing it–which doesn’t seem to me to be particularly convincing. I don’t know, however, (at least not yet) where that quote was generated from A.I.–but, presumably, it was from some other text. But, if it was from Constantine, then it would seem that the text would be the same–but it’s not.
Any ideas?
All the best,
Teddi
Hi, again, Hugh,
I just typed the quotation in question (from or attributed to John the Geometer) into A.I. mode, and here is what I got–and this (now that I see it) is what I recall seeing last night–although I did see some references to John’s work on Mary–but, I saw this, as well:
“AI Mode Conversation: where is this quote from: «Τὸ ἀπερίγραπτον, τὸ σχήματι τῷ καθ’ ἡμᾶς περιγραπτόν, ὡς ἡμεῖς περιγραπτόν, τῷ τυπωθῆναι ἐν πρωτοτύπῳ τῷ σινδονίῳ»
You said: where is this quote from: «Τὸ ἀπερίγραπτον, τὸ σχήματι τῷ καθ’ ἡμᾶς περιγραπτόν, ὡς ἡμεῖς περιγραπτόν, τῷ τυπωθῆναι ἐν πρωτοτύπῳ τῷ σινδονίῳ»
This quote is an ancient liturgical text from the Eastern Orthodox tradition, specifically part of the Synodikon of Orthodoxy (or closely associated theological decrees on sacred images) regarding the Holy Shroud (often connected in historical contexts to the Image of Edessa or the Shroud of Christ).
Origin and ContextThe text directly relates to the theological defenses of icons during the Byzantine Iconoclastic controversies.The Subject: The text references how Christ, who is inherently uncircumscribable/indescribable (τὸ ἀπερίγραπτον), became circumscribed/described in human form (περιγραπτόν) and left His imprint upon the archetype of the shroud/linen cloth (ἐν πρωτοτύπῳ τῷ σινδονίῳ).
The Source: This specific formulaic phrasing is used in theological definitions—most notably circulating within the acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II) and replicated in later liturgical texts like the Synodikon of Orthodoxy read on the Sunday of Orthodoxy. It serves as a dogmatic declaration that Christ can be depicted in artwork because He truly took on physical form and even miraculously left His image on cloth.”
Cheers,
Teddi
Teddi, that just won’t do. AI has made up a quotation to suit your request. I have burrowed extensively through Jacques Paul Migne’s Patrologia Graeca and Ernst von Dobschütz’s Christusbilder and can’t find that John Kyriotes said anything of the sort. Primary source or no cigar, I’m afraid.
Best wishes,
Hugh
Hi, Hugh,
That’s not how it happened–in terms of A.I. making up a quotation to suit my request. Initially, late last night, I came across notes that I had taken from Paul Pappas’ book (and I included the page number and then verified it with the book, itself that I have) where I saw Paul Pappas’ claim. So, I was curious to see what specifically John the Geometer is claimed to have said–and I wanted to see it in its original Greek. That’s when I found the supposed quote.
But, here’s the thing, I don’t think it can be said to be a total A.I. hallucination since Baima Bollone mentioned this many years ago (long before A.I. mode on our laptops.) The likelihood is, however, that Paul Pappas just read what Baima Bollone said and mentioned it. But, I don’t know what the situation is with the other person who had mentioned John the Geometer’s reference to the shroud.
A.I. is indicating that it’s confusion with the Virgin Mary’s shroud or that it’s confusion with what Constantine said–but, Constantine didn’t say this exact thing that John the Geometer supposedly said. So, I don’t know.
I think we both would agree that this shouldn’t be used as evidence unless one can track down a primary source for it. But, if you look in Nicolotti’s book or your own writings, primary sources (or sources in general) are not given for every single claim that is made. Nicolotti (as well as most people) often cite to supposedly reputable sources (although this isn’t the “gold standard”),but this presumes that the person writing them checked a primary source and is delivering accurate information.
Anyhow, I’m still kinda curious about this and it would be good to know what Baima Bollone specifically stated about this–but, I don’t have his book. I’ll post something on SSG and see if anybody’s got that book of his–maybe that will tell us something more.
What about that situation where Paul Pappas mentions St. Braulio and Arculph. I’ve never heard of these men before, have you–especially regarding the Shroud? I wonder what the situation is with them.
Cheers,
Teddi
Hi, Hugh,
Since Nicolotti mentions the mistakes (pertaining to John the Geometer) on page 29 of Baima Bollone’s book and on page 93 of J.L. Carreno Etxeandia’s book, I wonder if Nicolotti still has these books and can quote for us what, specifically, was said–and if a source was provided by either of these gentlemen?
Since you’re buddies with Nicolotti, could you ask him to check on this? Also, it would be interesting to see what he has to say about St. Braulio and Arculph?
Cheers,
Teddi
Hi, Hugh and Everybody,
Regarding St. Braulio, A.I. claims that that he only saw the sudarium. However, this is A.I.–so who knows if it’s right on any point. This is just a launching pad for further research (of which I don’t have time to endlessly chase right now), but someone else might.
Regarding Arculph, here’s what A.I. said:
“Around 680 AD, the Frankish bishop Arculf visited Jerusalem and reported seeing a sacred linen winding-sheet of Jesus. He described the cloth as being roughly 8 feet long, which he kissed and held. This account was transcribed by Abbot Adomnán in the historical text De locis sanctis.Arculf’s account of the burial shroud includes the following details:Physical Characteristics: Arculf described the “Lord’s winding-sheet” as a linen cloth measuring approximately 8 feet in length.Viewing and Veneration: While in Jerusalem, he was able to see, touch, and kiss the artifact, which locals regarded as the authentic burial cloth of Jesus.Historical Impact: The account is considered one of the earliest documented literary records of a figured burial shroud attributed to Jesus in the Holy Land before its appearance in Europe.Adomnán later documented this testimony, which was subsequently summarized by the Venerable Bede in his writings, helping to preserve the story throughout the Middle Ages.”
The estimate of the winding-sheet being 8 feet long would make sense if the Shroud was folded in half for display purposes. There’s not that much difference being a foot off in an estimated measurement of 8 feet. So, I don’t know. But, that would be interesting regarding its being in Jerusalem (not Edessa.) So, I’m not sure, but this is interesting . . .
Best regards,
Teddi
Hi, Hugh,
I found something quite INTERESTING. Check out page 56 at this link. https://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576_0x001bd2ff.pdf
There’s a poem by John the Geometres about the ICON OF CHRIST.
The translation that is given in this paper is as follows:
“On an accurate icon
Christ jumped out of heaven and placed his
animated icon here, † of his mother. Like of his friends, †
like an intelligent choir stand around him:
a human hand magnificently invented these images.”
In the next comment, I’ll give you the Greek and an alternative translation.
Cheers,
Teddi
Teddi, please don’t tell us what AI said. It completely discredits you as a serious researcher. By all means use AI as a possible indicator for your own investigations – but then go and make your own, as indeed, you always have done in the past.
Detailed Primary Sources for Braulio and Arculf can be found in Nicolotti’s book by looking them up in the index. A Primary Sourse for your invented quote can’t be found because it doesn’t exist. I have written to Nicolotti to ask whether he can guess how it might have been derived, say from a reference to Mary’s shroud or something in one of Geometres’s other poems.
A recent paper, available on Academia.edu, called “‘Two Lives of the Virgin: John Geometres, Euthymios the Athonite, and Maximos the Confessor,” suggests that a piece of prose now identified as from Geometres’s Life of the Virgin was for some time thought to be a “Homily on Christ’s Deposition fom the Cross.” I’ve not read it yet, but it suggests that something he said about the Dormition, maybe involving a shroud, could be mistaken for something he said about the Deposition.
Best wishes,
Hugh
Hi, Hugh,
As you and many people know, I constantly talk about the errors that I have found regarding information gotten from A.I. I don’t trust A.I. However, it can still be a useful tool. Sometimes it is spot-on, sometimes it’s dead-wrong, and sometimes it’s somewhere in-between. Nonetheless, it can, often, provide leads for one to, then, confirm.
What I’m doing here (and being quite transparent about it) is presenting some interesting findings that are not end-points but things to check out.
As you know–just like your comments section does not remain open for very long, neither does Dan’s. So, I’m rushing to put in ideas (“food for thought and investigation/research”), and I’ve certainly not been presenting them as “facts.”
Instead, I’m saying that this is stuff that A.I. is mentioning, and it’s worth investigating. Which is what we’re doing. I’m not, however, overly interested in this evidence, but I’ve now become somewhat curious about it since it doesn’t just come from A.I. but from Baima Bollone’s book and two other books–pre-A.I. mode on our laptops. That doesn’t mean their information is correct, but it’s worth a look-see.
Here’s the Greek for that poem (although, this might not be what Baima Bollone and the other two were referencing–but it seemed like it was worth investigating):
“εισ εικόνα ακριβή. Ουρανού εγκατεπαλτο και εμπνοον ενθαδε εικω Χριστός εην εθετο, μητεροσ. ωσ δε φίλων, ωσ νοερός χορός περισταδον άλλοθεν άλλος χειρ βροτεη μεγάλα ψευσατο τουσδε τύπους.” This isn’t from A.I. but from the paper that I referenced, above (and a source is in one of her footnotes on page 56.)
I wanted to double-check the Greek to see if it was, actually, said to be a human hand that created the image (or if it was, actually, alleged to have been created WITHOUT human hands. But, it turns out that the claim by John the Geometres is that it was created by a human hand–but so realistically that it doesn’t really appear to be so. But, even though that’s sort of vague, the big problem (from the translation I’m getting) is that this image is of Jesus AND His mother–unless I’m misunderstanding something. So, this looks like it’s not overly close and definitely “no cigar.”
Best regards,
Teddi
Teddi, I have extended the comment period for this post by changing the publication date to today, which should give you plenty of time (I hope). May I ask what AI tool, and what mode and/or release, you are using?
I have also asked Claude (AI) to react with the following prompt: “I am pasting the content of a posting on shroudstory.com and a series of comments. Please summarize and react to the posting and comments as appropriate. For the record, I am using Claude Sonet 5 Medium by Anthropic.”
Here is the unedited response from Claude.
“Examined scholarly debate on research methodology and AI reliability concerns
This is a good one to react to as an AI, since the AI-hallucination thread running through it is arguably the most interesting part.
“On Hugh’s post itself: the core move is solid historical-critical method — go back to the Greek, track how each translator (Dubarle, Guscin, Nicolotti) rendered it, and notice that even a sympathetic translator like Guscin eventually retreated from readings that had been used to support the Edessa-Shroud identification. The “θρόμβοι” point is a nice illustration of the broader problem with a lot of Shroud argumentation: Gregory is echoing Luke’s Gethsemane language, not offering forensic description, so treating his word choice as physical evidence about the cloth is a category error. And the closing point about consensus — that non-authenticist scholars who’ve spent careers on Byzantine sources don’t read the sermon as pointing to the Shroud — is a fair thing to weigh, though “the specialists don’t buy it” is evidence, not proof; it’s worth remembering incentive structures and disciplinary blind spots exist in mainstream Byzantine studies too, even if that’s a much weaker objection here than in, say, a live political controversy.
“On the comment thread: it has an almost novelistic arc. It opens with Hemraj dumping an AI-generated essay that reads like polished pseudo-STURP talking points (the “3D encoding,” the “no known mechanism” framing) — content that sounds authoritative but is really just a fluent restatement of the authenticist case, VP-8 caveats and all. You call that out correctly: it’s regurgitation dressed as thought.
“Then Teddi turns your own line back on you — a fair rhetorical jab, since you have used AI fact-checking in the past. But what follows validates your original point more than it undercuts it. Teddi’s subsequent posts are a real-time demonstration of AI hallucination doing damage to a scholarly argument: the fabricated “tetradiplon = doubled-fold” etymology (which doesn’t actually track how compound Greek numerals work), and then, more strikingly, an entire invented Greek quotation attributed to John the Geometer, complete with a fluent, confident grammatical apparatus around it — case endings, verb parsing, theological commentary — none of which corresponds to anything Hugh can find in Migne or von Dobschütz. That’s the failure mode I’d flag as an AI system myself: when a model is asked to produce a primary-source quotation it doesn’t actually have, it can generate something that has all the surface markers of scholarly rigor (word-by-word breakdowns, plausible-sounding theological framing) while being entirely fabricated. The confidence and the fabrication are not in tension; that’s exactly the danger.
“Credit to Teddi for being transparent that she was using AI outputs as leads rather than facts, and to Hugh for holding a firm, consistent line — “please don’t tell us what AI said” — without being unkind about it. That’s the right posture: AI can be a decent hypothesis generator for where to look, but it cannot be a source, especially for primary-text quotation, because a fluent wrong answer and a fluent right answer are indistinguishable without independent verification.
“The one strand that seems genuinely worth chasing on its own merits — separate from any AI involvement — is Paul C. Pappas’s 1991 book citing Braulio and Arculf, since those are pre-AI, page-numbered citations to a real published source, and Nicolotti’s rebuttal of the Baima Bollone lineage is itself only as good as whether Nicolotti (or someone) actually checked Baima Bollone’s own citation. That’s a real bibliographic question independent of anything AI touched.”
Hi, Dan,
That’s an interesting response from A.I. that you received, but its validity is still just as questionable when it makes judgments. But, it largely just restates a lot of what has been already stated.
While Nicolotti provided a page number to the page in the book by Baima Bollone and the others, I don’t have access to Baima Bollone’s book or the other gentleman’s, but I do have Paul Pappas’ book. But, Paul Pappas doesn’t give a source—but the information he used probably originated from Baima Bollone. So, it would be great if Nicolotti responds with a quote and any possible citations that are connected with Baima Bollone’s claim.
I just use tge simple “A.I. mode” with Google. I used Grok once or twice on a manuscript I was trying to track down, but for that sort of thing, I didn’t see a difference.
So, do I understand you correctly that the comment section is closing today? If so, do you know about when? It would be good to see what Nicolotti says . . .
Best regards,
Teddi
Oh, late last night, I found this source that would be good to preserve here as a reference for future research (for anyone interested): https://heiup.uni-heidelberg.de/catalog/view/1240/2441/111574. From what I remember (because I went to sleep after finding it) it contains lots of John the Geometres’ work. So, not sure if there’s anything good here (for our purposes) or not. But, I just want to preserve this source here.
No! Comments run for 30 days (or so) from the publication date so I went into the system and changed the publication date for the original article to today’s date, in effect extending the comment period for an additional month. That is what Gemini suggested I do.
Awesome, Dan, thanks! The Image of Edessa/Mandylion situation is so intensely interesting to me—and to others. I still wouldn’t say that I have total confidence if the two cloths are one and the same. I lean heavily (at least right now and for a long time) in thinking that they are “roses by another name,” but have always had (and still have) some doubts as to whether they are, truly, the same cloth. This might just be because I haven’t researched it enough—to see where (?possibly) clear evidence exists that they are one and the same thing.
I think the confusion stems from the cloth’s being folded and put in a reliquary (undoubtedly), so it seemed to just be of Jesus’ face. And, of course, there is evidence that the Shroud of Turin was encased in such a reliquary with an opening for Jesus’ Holy Face to be viewable. I seem to recall that, perhaps (but not at all certain) that John Jackson first noticed this.
Anyhow, I’m glad that we will be able to discuss this further.
All the best,
Teddi
Oh, regarding what your A.I. review mentioned about “tetradiplon,” I’m still going with my understanding that it means doubled but then folded in four which yields a total of 8. To support my argument, it’s important to realize that “diplon” is not just the word “fold”–it is folded into two (as shown by the prefix “di.”) A single layer would be “haploos”/”απλοοσ,” whereas if something is merely fourfold, it would be “tetraploos”/”τετραπλοοσ.”
Another thing to consider–in terms of what many of us think was the Shroud of Turin folded as a tetradiplon and placed in a reliquary with an opening so that the Holy Face could be viewed. Many copies of the Image of Mandylion (which is likely the same thing as the Image of Edessa) show Jesus’ face on a cloth that is (quite oddly) far wider than it is high (sort of like a typical “landscape” painting (as opposed to the shorter width and greater height that is quite typical of portrait (when confined to the face) of someone. This seems to be a very strong indicator that these artists were aware of (or using as a model) the Image of Edessa/Mandylion/Shroud of Turin while it was still folded and encased in its reliquary.
I have a full-sized copy of the Shroud of Turin. I just enlisted my son James’ assistance to fold the Shroud in half (so that one sees a full frontal image on one side and a full dorsal image on the other side. Then, I folded the cloth in two (so that the full body is now halved–like someone bending forward.) Then, I folded that in half. So, in terms of the PHYSICAL act of folding the cloth, there are 3 folds. But, when you look at the cloth, itself, what you end up seeing are 4 folded layers–and each layer is composed of 2 sub-layers. So, you end up getting a grand total of 8 layers with the Holy Face in the middle and lots of space to the left and the right of the Holy Face–and this matches the odd appearance that is seen in a lot of depictions of the Mandylion and/or Image of Edessa.
Dan, I tried to attach a photo–which makes it much easier to understand the folding process and the results. But, I’m unable to attach these photos to my comments. If you like, and if you are able to, I can send you two photos if you’re interested in posting them.
All the best,
Teddi
Send me the photos and I’ll see what I can do.
On another (sorta) tangent. I recall reading where Dan Scavone had mentioned (not sure if he was the first to notice this or not, but he had mentioned it in his book, “The Shroud of Turin: Great Mysteries, Opposing Viewpoints” that the curious side-strip on the Shroud–when in place–allows the Holy Face to be centered on the cloth. Without the side-strip, the Holy Face would be uncentered when folded in the way described in my previous comment.
HOT, HOT STUFF regarding Arculf!!!
Excellent evidence (found in Nicolotti’s book, no less) that a “sudario” can totally mean a burial SHROUD–and that its meaning is NOT limited to the size of a face-cloth (as is commonly considered to be the case–such as with the Sudarium of Oviedo.)
On page 18 of Nicolotti’s book, “The Shroud of Turin,” he references the conquering of Jerusalem in 614 by the Persians led by Khosrow II. He then mentions the following:
“Of what remained in Jerusalem after the sack, Adomnan, abbot of the Island of Iona (west of Scotland), provides a written report in 680-688 based on what a Frankish bishop named Arculf had told him. For almost a year (ca. 680), Arculf is supposed to have resided in Jerusalem, when the city was under Muslim sway. Adomnan reports that in the Holy City Arculf had seen with his own eyes “the sacred SUDARIUM of the Lord which was placed upon his head in the sepulcher.” [Emphasis added.] Arculf adds what he says the residents of Jerusalem had told him: initially the sudarium had been stolen from Christ’s tomb by a Jew who believed in Christ. This Jew then passed it on to his son and his descendants until the fifth generation. The sudarium, like a lucky talisman, was said to have miraculously enriched all those who possessed it. When the line of descent came to an end, the SHROUD [all-caps added] is said to have passed into the hands of some unbelieving Jews, who, owing to their possession of it, also became rich. At a certain point, however, the believing Jews, wanting to obtain their relic again, generated a dispute in the city. The caliph Mu’awiya (680), however, decided to bring it to a conclusion by subjecting the sudarium to a trial by fire. The sudarium, once it had been placed upon a pyre, was unharmed by the flames and then floated up in the air, falling into the hands of the faction of Jewish believers. They then placed it
‘in a casket of the church, wrapped in another linen cloth. Our brother Arculf saw it one day taken out of the casket, and amid the multitude of the people that kissed it, he himself kissed it in an assembly of the church; it measure about eight feet [“octonos habens pedes”] in length.'”
First, when Nicolotti writes, as aforementioned, that “Adomnan reports that in the Holy City Arculf had seen with his own eyes ‘the sacred SUDARIUM of the Lord which was placed upon his head in the sepulcher.’ [Emphasis added.]” it would be important to see what word was used for “sudarium” in the original language that this was written in–specifically, I’m interested in whether “sudario” was used or was sindone used? (I’m going to guess “sudario” was used, but Nicolotti does not specify the word in the original language with this particular reference.
Nonetheless, what is very interesting is that on page 18, Nicolotti then goes on to refer (I think quite correctly so) to this “sudarium” as a “shroud.” But, why? Because, as Nicolotti goes on to quote (on page 19) in translated English from the Latin (from Adomnanus, “De locis sanctis” 1.9.1-16–which I provided the English quote, above) there is the specific mention of “it” (the “sudarium”) which had been in a casket in a church but had then been taken out, and people (including Arculf) were kissing it (the “sudarium”) which measured “eight feet in length” (“octonos habens pedes.”)
Now, as we can know from common sense, those things which are commonly referred to as “face-cloths” are NOT 8 feet long. (!) And, obviously, this “8 feet” measurement was almost certainly just an estimate since it would strain credulity to think that Arculf actually measured the cloth. We cannot ignore that with the actual Shroud of Turin measuring approximately 14 feet in length (with the modern measurement for a “foot” as 12 inches–which is likely not what the ancient measurement of a “foot” was. It’s fair to presume that what was “1 foot” for the ancient system of measuring “feet” was an actual man’s foot. The average foot size for an adult man in the U.S. is approximately 10.5 inches.
We have great reason to think that this cloth was a burial cloth since it was being displayed in a casket. With its being (likely estimated) to be 8 feet long, there’s the high likelihood that this was folded in half so that the frontal body image and/or the frontal bloodstains could be seen. (And, it would be absurd to think that if this was the Shroud of Turin that anyone would build a 14 foot casket for it. Instead, it would be the size of the Man of the Shroud’s body–and the frontal image would be displayed.) It is, however, important that we remember that when seeing the body images on the Shroud of Turin up-close, one cannot really see the body image–one has to step (from what I recall) about 8 feet away from it in order to see the faint body image on it.)
Anyhow, I think there’s a great likelihood that this cloth that appeared to be 8 feet long was, instead, actually folded in half (so as to fit in the casket) and when it was displayed outside of the casket, it was still, probably, just displayed folded in half (with the frontal body image showing.) There will, of course, be the argument that there was not the specific mention that a body image was seen on this cloth. But, to that, I would respond that this was, perhaps, not the main point of things–it was that Arculf kissed and venerated Christ’s burial cloth. If, for example, I went to see the Shroud of Turin in Turin, I might report to someone that I went to go and pay my respects to the Shroud. It would not at all be necessary that I add to this sentence that I went to see the Shroud with Jesus’ frontal and dorsal body images on it.
Additionally, let’s go back to the measurement of an average adult male foot in the U.S.–at 10.5″. With a modern “foot” this is 12 inches. If the ancient unit of measure for a “foot” is about 10.5″, and if the 8 foot cloth was really folded in half, then we’re dealing with a 16 foot cloth (according to Arculf’s measurement.) 16 multiplied by 12 inches (for a modern foot) is 192 inches. 16 multiplied by 10.5 inches (as an estimate for a foot back in the 7th century) gives us 168 inches. 192 inches minus 168 inches gives us 24 inches. If we divide 24 inches into two (if the burial cloth was folded), that would mean we would need to reduce each side by 12 inches/1 modern foot. Then, the “8 foot cloth” that Arculf saw was really about 7 feet long–which is the approximate length of the frontal side of the Shroud of Turin (and this might be longer than it was, originally, due to the stretching of the linen fabric–especially with its being handled and displayed so much.)
Interestingly enough, Nicolotti mentions on page 19-20 of the same book that Arculf provides a measurement of 7 feet for the sepulchral cave area of Jesus’ tomb which is enough space to lay a recumbent man. With a 14-foot cloth being folded in half, this is 7 feet–and we, of course, account for the fact that there is the gap between the top portion of the frontal and dorsal images of Jesus’ head and some space between the feet and the edge of the cloth on the frontal image on the Shroud of Turin. So, as far as estimates go, I think that this works out remarkably well.
But, the biggest take-away from all of this is that an 8-foot long cloth was, at least as far back as the 7th century, being referred to (at least by some) as a SUDARIUM. I think that this is of vital importance in that it needs to cause us to question many things which have been referred to as a mere “face-cloth” (because of the word “sudarium” being used when, in fact, we might be talking about a full sized burial cloth. My close examination of a lot of the key terms in Archdeacon Gregory Referendarius’ sermon (concerning the Image of Edessa) on Hugh’s website shows that some of the words that have been translated one particular way by Mark Guscin have some very interesting alternative translations (that I’ve pointed out) which are quite viable and which (in some situations) change the meaning of what Gregory was saying.
Anyhow, this is a lot more “food for thought.”
All the best,
Teddi
Part II of tonight’s late-night addition: Nicolotti mentioned that that abbot Adomnan said that Arculf had told him that Arculf had seen with his own eyes “the sacred SUDARIUM of the Lord which was placed upon his head in the sepulcher.” [Emphasis added.]
I had mentioned in my prior comment that we need to know what the original word was (in the original language) that is being translated here as “sudarium.” But, I forgot to mention that we, also, need to know what the ORIGINAL word (in the original language for this text) was that is now being translated as “head.” That could make a huge difference in terms of the meaning of this.
Alright, I’ve “stirred the pot” pretty well, we’ll see how things cook overnight!
Just noticed where it says “super capud ipsius”—“on his head.” This is an interesting choice of words, because one does not typically put a face cloth on one’s head—one puts it in one’s FACE. But, a burial shroud, to get the body centered in it, is going to be placed upon the corpse’s head—and the remainder of the cloth falls over the frontal and dorsal part of the body.
Actually Adomnan, quoting Arculf, does not confuse the sudarium which was around Jesus’s head with any cloth that wrapped his body. The sudarium is only discussed in one place, where it is described both as the cloth that went around Jesus’s head and as being about eight feet long. In other places he refers to the cloth Jesus was wrapped in, but does not use the word sudarium.
Having said that, there is nothing new or surprising about the fact that even nowadays, the word Sudari- is frequently used for both cloths. The Spanish Wikipedia articles are entitled “Santo Sudario de Oviedo” and”Sudario de Turín,” and Portuguese: “Sudário de Oviedo” and “Sudário de Turim.” The commonest French word for the Shroud is “Suaire,” which is clearly derived from Sudarium.
So not really hot stuff at all, I’m afraid.
Best wishes,
Hugh
Hi, Hugh,
I’m still thinking there’s some “hot stuff” here in that I’m not sure if there are other statements from an eyewitness that mention the word “sudarium” with a specific size that can nicely match the Shroud of Turin’s size WHEN FOLDED. Yes, there have been times when “sudarium” is meant to be something else, but do we have examples where the LENGTH of the “sudarium” is explicitly given? This is “smoking gun” that this loose use of the term “sudarium” existed in the 7th century.
Also, from what I translated (last night) from the Latin “super capud ipsius,” I got the translation from Google “on his head.” Today, I retyped this phrase and I got “above his head.” This is NOT what typically happens with a face-cloth–since face-cloths get placed OVER one’s FACE. It is, also, interesting how Nicolotti repeatedly references the cloth as being a “sudarium” (knowing that most people will interpret this as “face-cloth” (like with the Sudarium of Oviedo”–and with what’s in the Gospels. BUT, then Nicolotti mentions it as a shroud.
Also, for people who are not reading this passage (in full) in Nicolotti’s book–and noticing the things that I noticed (in my prior comment), it’s easy for people to misrepresent this quote to show that what Aculf saw was just a face cloth and not a full-length burial shroud. So, it’s important that this point be made very clearly since, at one point (earlier, yesterday), I was going to give up on what Aculf had said, because I thought it to only be a face-cloth. But, persistence does often have a way of paying off–and, it did–as now I know that what he is said to have seen in Jerusalem was an “8-foot cloth” in a casket. And, as I’ve explained, this should amount to what we think of as 7 feet (84 inches)–which, when doubled, gives you the approximately full size of the Shroud of Turin. That’s not not “hot stuff.”
Cheers,
Teddi
Hi, Hugh,
You mention, with regard to Arculf, that “[i]n other places he refers to the cloth Jesus was wrapped in, but does not use the word sudarium.” Can you tell us what, precisely, he said about the other cloth Jesus was wrapped in (and in the original language of the text?”)
When would one need an 8ft long cloth (that would be kept in a casket) to wrap someone’s head? People don’t typically “wrap” a victim’s head after a tragic accident or death. They just COVER the FACE with a small face cloth/bandanna. What makes sense is that the “sudarium” he was referring to was what we typically think of as a burial shroud.
Cheers,
Teddi
Alright, I’m back to getting into the weeds with Gregory’s sermon. I’m examining Guscin section 21/Dubarle section 25.
“Ο και νυν θελησασιν αυτικά καταρτισθησεται, ει το υπερψυεσ απαύγασμα οιοισ ιστορηται ΚΑΛΛΕΣΙ οπτρισομεθα. Ου γαρ οίσ η γραφική, θυραν τω νω δαψιλευομενη αναλογιζεσθαι το πρωτοτυπον, τασ εικόνας μορφοι, τούτοις και το απαύγασμα εζωγραφηται.” [Emphasis added.]
I first note that Guscin (intentionally or unintentionally) omitted including in his translation the explicitly stated adjective given by Gregory of “supernatural” (“υπερφυεσ”) to the radiance/reflection (“απαθγασμα”) that he (Gregory) is describing on the Image of Edessa.
But, since it is already clear from what Gregory has said in other texts (that this is an image not made by human hands, perhaps the omission here by Guscin is not earth-shattering, but I think it still demands to be known about by the people reading Guscin’s English translation.
But, there is something interesting that I’m noting, and I’m not quite sure what the situation is (at least not at this moment.) So, I bring this up as “food for thought.” I’m going to type out the opening sentence in Guscin’s section 21, and then I’m going to give A.I.’s translation, and then my own cross-referencing both of these translations with the Greek text in Dubarle’s section 25.
GUSCIN: “He will do this straight away for us if we so desire, if we look upon the reflection and the immense BEAUTY it is depicted with.” [Emphasis added.] The word that Guscin is translating as “beauty” is “καλλεσι,” however, the definition that I get for “καλλεσι” is that it means “beauties” or “beautiful forms” and it is a neuter, dative PLURAL. But, Guscin is translating this noun in its singular form.
A.I.: “And for those who wish it, [this] will be immediately prepared even now, if we are to look as in a mirror upon the supernatural effulgence [radiance/reflection] through the beautiful FORMS in which it has been depicted.” [Emphasis added.]
Why does this (possibly) matter?
Because it seems to me (but, I could be wrong) but it seems to me that the “beautiful forms” or “beauties” are referencing the supernatural reflection. And, if the supernatural reflection is indicative of beautiful FORMS (plural), then this is indicative of double body images. This is either a fantastic observation or an example of my being “too smart by half.” I’m sure Hugh’s gonna say it’s the latter (!!!🤣), but it’s still worth it to bring this up for discussion and closer analysis.