The Antioch Hypothesis (3)

We left Jack Markwardt’s masterly review of just about every reference to every image of Jesus in Christendom up to the year 900 with the Tarragona Manuscript, which specifically refers to the Image of Edessa being locked away after an earthquake in Constantinople (and therefore a post-944 date), but which Markwardt thinks actually refers to the Image of God Incarnate, and an earthquake in about 740. In yet another four-hour marathon,1 Markwardt continues the story for another hundred years, although, as before, he devotes the majority of his presentation to a comprehensive demolition of the idea that the Shroud of Turin was the Image of Edessa, devoting barely half an hour to his evidence that in fact it was the Image of God Incarnate. The Tarragona Manuscript was written, in the present tense, in about 1090, and says that the image is still locked away.

Markwardt’s next piece of evidence is in the Emperor Constantine VII’s “harangue” to his army in 958, the second of two recorded exhortations delivered by the emperor after significant military victories, with a view to inspiring further success.3 Although unable to be with his troops himself, Constantine assured them of his devotion to their welfare by sending them some Holy Water “drawn from” a collection of passion relics kept in Constantinople, including pieces of the true cross, the lance, the “life giving blood which flowed from his precious rib,” the tunic, the holy swaddling clothes (though what these had to do with the passion is a bit of a stretch), the God-bearing winding-sheet (‘theophoron sindonos”) and various “other relics.” Although this is quite an early attestation of the existence of a burial garment as a relic in Constantinople, it is not given any particular prominence, and is not described as any kind of image, let alone the Image of God Incarnate or the Image of Edessa. Quite how Holy Water was “drawn from” these relics is unknown.

The only other piece of evidence Markwardt includes in this section (up to the year 1000 AD) is the “Latin Sermon” found in the Codex Vossianus Q69, one of thousands of documents, books, manuscripts, atlases and maps, collected by Gerrit and Isaac Vossius in the latter half of the 17th century. Almost nothing is known about its provenance, although it has been dated on handwriting grounds to the turn of the 10th/11th century. It takes the form of a story, perhaps originally in Greek or Syrian, “translated into Latin by lord Smira, archiatrali, about a certain divinely transformed linen, which is very appropriate for this festival.” From the words of this single sentence, Markwardt deduces, not unreasonably, that the “archiatralus,” or “chief doctor,” was actually Jan Smera, chief doctor to Grand Duke Vladimir the Great of Russia, and that the “festival” was the marriage of the Grand Duke to Anna, the sister of the Byzantine Emperor, in 988, which was 44 years after the Image of Edessa was transferred to Constantinople. The story is essentially the Abgar legend, but embellished by the information that what Abgar received was not just an image of Christ’s face, but of his whole body.

The story is confused, so to make sense of it some parts have to be ignored and others altered. What, exactly, these parts are depends on the interpretation selected, and however reasonable, Markwardt’s selection is no more objective than anybody else’s. The story, for a start, is clearly about Abgar and Edessa, and not at all about the putative “Image of God Incarnate.” On the other hand, if the Image was thus boldly pronounced to be full length, it seems strange that it has never been so described or illustrated. The Image is a very prominent Russian icon, and there has never been any suggestion (outside sindonological circles) that it could have been full length. It also seems strange that the image, “on a sheet” (“linteum”) is clearly described as still in Edessa, although surely Princess Anna would have known that it was no longer there. She must also have known about the “God-bearing winding sheet,” and other passion relics, then in Constantinople, from which water had been drawn thirty years earlier. An interpretation of the Latin sermon which dates it before 944 is therefore equally sensible, but also requires alterations and omissions, just different ones. This version of the story includes the information that far from being completely inaccessible, the cloth was paraded once a year, out of its golden chest, with hymns and psalms. What’s more, to those privileged to observe it throughout the day, it changed form from representing a baby in the early morning (the first hour) through childhood and adolescence, to the adult Jesus awaiting his passion at the ninth hour. None of this relates to any cloth, image or miracle of which we know anything else, so it all has to be abandoned to fit either the Image of Edessa or the Image of God Incarnate as we know them.

As a story, it owes much to the alleged letter from Jesus kept in Edessa, which had been variously quoted from before, from the fourth century onwards, but never with any clear reference to a whole body image, which seems to be an example of the sort of gradual enhancement legends often enjoy over their lifetime.

Rather like a photon approaching a black hole, this series of presentations, all of them well worth listening to, is taking longer and longer to cover a shorter and shorter period (nd attracting fewer and fewer viewers), so it may be that they reach a metaphorical event horizon, frozen in time, well before we reach Lirey. We must enjoy Jack Makwardt’s scholarship while we can.

1 ‘Shroud Wars: Panel Review (Part 15)- Shroud History from 901-1000 A.D.,’ Real Seekers, youtube.com/watch?v=5j5rZbmPPd0&t=14914s

2 These “harangues” are discussed at length in ‘Two Military Orations of Constantine VII,’ by Eric McGee, which is Chapter 7 of Byzantine Authors: Literary Activities and Preoccupations, ed. John W. Nesbitt, 2003.

3 The text of the “Latin Sermon” can be found in Christusbilder: Untersuchungen zur christlichen Legende, by Ernst von Dobschütz, in a chapter called “Der ältere lateinische Abgartext.”

Comments

  2. Ciao Marco,

    Please notice that the Shroud route theory or evidence I’ve proposed (I’ve never read anyone propose it before, though someone may have, somewhere) is a general one and also limited to a probability. But that seems “enough,” for me anyway. And yes, there are other “clues” to support it. Many.

    Over the decades many proposals have been made for the exact route and the exact persons involved in the transport of the Shroud to the West. I sympathize with the researchers who have made such proposals, but have no favorite among them. They seem too specific, because the meager documents of the 13th and 14th centuries do not permit such certainty. Maybe that will change in the future, maybe not. For now I’m happy enough seeing only a general or vague solution and limiting its validity to only a probability, though perhaps a strong probability. The Fourth Crusade crusaders (but for the Venetian sailors) were largely French, and their original leadership was certainly French. Now, there were dozens of other Christian nations and kingdoms and principalities in the West, altogether having many times the population of France. But no shroud relic with an image of Jesus on it ever appeared in any of them. Only in France, indeed in northeast France in the 1350s, whence so many of those crusaders originated around 1200 and whither they later returned home.

    Your marble slab example is an interesting one, Marco, but please consider that the slab must have been enormously heavy and therefore extremely difficult to transport. It also had no identifying marks clearly tracing it back to Palestine in the 1st century. It may well still exist somewhere in Istanbul (formerly Constantinople) today, perhaps used for a wall or a floor, or broken into pieces. Anyway, do you really think that the marble slab compares with the Turin Shroud in its mystique, emotional power, and therefore value and preciousness? Let’s also not forget that after the Sack of 1204 the Latin Emperor, that is, the Western successor to the Eastern, Byzantine Greek Emperor there in Constantinople, definitely had in his possession more than a dozen of the most precious Christian relics (or “relics,” since I assume most were bogus). They were saved from all the chaos. Hundreds more such relics, from the numerous churches in Constantinople, were carried back home by the French (and other) nobles. Venetians too. And even centuries later they could still be traced in France. If all of those relics survived, doesn’t it seem statistically probable that the Shroud also survived, and was taken to France? To me, that probability sufficiently plugs the 150-year “gap” in Shroud history, at least for now. It’s not ideal, of course, but enough. Besides that, I know of no medieval artistic depictions of Jesus that are as perfect anatomically as is the image on the Shroud. Please search Google Images for “Jesus medieval art” and you may see that yourself.

    Regarding your final sentence, Marco, please remember that there are two claims usually made about the Turin Shroud and that they are really separate: 1) that it is authentic, deriving from Jesus in the 1st century, and 2) that its image of him is miraculous, supernatural, and even due to a resurrection. Not all believers in its authenticity are also believers in a supernatural origin, though yes, most are. But me, I’ve been an agnostic for 40 years and a student of history for even longer, and when I look at the evidence for authenticity, both historical and scientific, it seems to me fairly persuasive. I think the image formed naturally in the tomb. Several other non-religious or non-Christian Shroud researchers have held the same view, including eminent experts. Most prominent among them was Barrie Schwortz, who sadly passed away just last June. Please watch on YouTube a few of the many fine video interviews he gave over the years. Grazie.

    John L.

  3. John, the fact that many crusaders were French is a good starting point to support the thesis that the Shroud of Constantinople (Robert de Clari), if it ever existed, was brought to France (and therefore not destroyed). But this is not enough. A convergence of multiple clues would be needed. And if there are conflicting clues they cancel each other out, and what remains is a conjecture.
    You mention the supposed relics brought to France. That’s right. But each relic has its own story. Robert de Clary also mentions “”the marble slab on which Our Lord was laid when He was taken ​down from the Cross, and there could still be seen there the tears which Our Lady had let fall upon it”. Where is it?
    Professor Nicolotti’s thesis is that the shroud at issue never existed at all.
    Finally, we all know that the Shroud of Turin is a unique object, but, in my view, this is far from being sufficient to hypothesize a supernatural hypothesis.
    Sincerely

  4. Hi Hugh,

    Yes, Jack Markwardt might clarify some things about Robert de Clari’s witness of the Shroud in Constantinople, but if I recall right, he insists in his 2021 book that the specific church location for the presence of the Shroud in the city was correct, denying Nicolotti’s claims and evidence, a position which seems to me risky and unnecessary. Let’s also admit that de Clari does speaks of a “sydoine,” a shroud, not just any cloth or other support material.

    You mention that there is some doubt whether de Clari saw the event he described. Yes, that’s true. Yet he clearly writes about the shroud with Jesus’ image on it as a commonly known fact, known by many crusaders and others. Should we believe they were all, all “mistaken,” as you say?

    Your reference to de Clari’s own “numerous relics” from Constantinople seems a bit of a tangent. Anyway, Edgar Holmes McNeal translated and edited de Clari’s “Conquest of Constantinople” in 1936 (reprinted a few times since then), and wrote in his Introduction, pages 5-6, that there is considerable ambiguity about that relics question. De Clari’s Constantinople relics were apparently few and small (just slivers of relics, including that “del Suaire Nostre Seigneur” you mention, which must have been bogus anyway). He was no major relics robber. See https://archive.org/details/mc-neal-clari-the-conquest-of-constantinople/page/6/mode/2up

    John L.

  5. Marco, it’s good to hear back from you and so quickly. But there may be some flaws in your latest comments. If I may …

    Your phrase “not possible to rule out the hypothesis,” referring to my Shroud route scenario, seems only to lend it rather minimal credibility, perhaps a 1% chance. But my questions to you were on the order of probabilities, not minor possibilities. For example: Do you believe it is probable that the shroud which Robert de Clari wrote about, with a body image of Jesus on it (let’s assume for the moment he was correct), went lost or was destroyed during the Sack of Constantinople, when so many other precious relics (or “relics”) kept in the royal palaces were preserved by the crusaders, that is, carried home back west with them? And when you write “no evidence to confirm this hypothesis” you seem to suggest that proof, 100% certain evidence, is required for any serious consideration to be given. I would suggest that probability is satisfactory and respectable enough to keep the door to authenticity open. You then mention Nicolotti’s suggestion that de Clari’s “shroud” never existed, but if I recall right Nicolotti focused his attention on the location of that alleged shroud, in the Church of St. Mary Blachernae. He may or may not be correct in his skepticism about that particular church location, but de Clari’s statement about the presence of a shroud with a body image of Jesus on it in Constantinople is not dependent on that specific detail for its general validity.

    You also write that “artists may copy, but they may also reinterpret and be freely inspired.” Yes, but if so in this case, it is extremely odd that the artist never again produced anything like the Shroud of Lirey/Turin. In fact, his name was never even named. He founded no school like all the other great masters did. And that “freely inspired” version was, to my mind, certainly extreme in its weird and unnecessary double image of Jesus. Do you know of any such double image of Jesus in medieval art? Life-sized and anatomically perfect too? I don’t.

    Thank you, finally, for expressing some doubts about Prof. Cardini’s skeptical hypothesis about the Shroud. There are two sides to many of these Shroud questions.

    Tanti auguri.

    John L.

  6. Hi Marco, and John,

    Thank you for your comments. I don’t know how long it will take, but I look forward to Jack Markwardt’s next 200 years or so, which might cover the adventures of Robert de Clari. In the meanwhile, let us remember that there is some doubt as to whether de Clari actually saw the event he described, and some doubt about whether he didn’t mistake an image of Jesus (for which he is the only describer) with one of the Virgin Mary in the same place (for which there are three). We must also note that he managed to take home numerous relics “liberated” by himself, which included, according to Paul Riant’s monumental ‘Exuviae sacrae Constantinopolitanae,’ “del Suaire Nostre Seigneur.”

  7. Hi, John and thank you for appreciating my work!
    In principle, it is not possible to rule out the hypothesis you have expressed. However, the fact remains that in the 150 years following the sack of Constantinople there is no evidence to confirm this hypothesis (by the way, as you may know, although I didn’t mention it in my article, there are also reasons to hypothesize that the shroud mentioned by Robert de Clari never existed: this is the thesis argued by Professor Andrea Nicolotti, University of Turin, in his excellent book published in English, too).
    Regarding your second question, I could say that artists may copy, but they may also reinterpret and be freely inspired. However, I have no difficulty in admitting that Professor Cardini’s hypothesis (to which you refer) cannot be demonstrated.

  8. Hi Marco,

    It’s nice to see your comment. You make some good points in that article you linked to.

    But I’d be grateful if you could answer a question:

    1) Robert de Clari not only described a shroud with the body image of Jesus on it in Constantinople (whether it was in the church where he said it was or was located elsewhere does not matter), but also wrote that it mysteriously disappeared in 1204. Since the original leaders of the errant Fourth Crusade which sacked the city that year were mostly French, indeed mostly from north central or northeastern France, and they comprised the largest unit of the crusader force after the Venetians, who were latecomers and were mostly sailors/oarsmen, doesn’t it make good sense, comprise a probability even, that in disappearing from Constantinople the Shroud was taken to France and indeed to northcentral/northeast France? In fact, the only other, non-French units of the crusader force were from regions directly bordering eastern France: Flanders, southwest Germany, and northwest Italy (Montferrat), and their leaders all had close family ties to the French leaders of the crusade. So again, doesn’t it seem numerically probable that, if the Constantinople Shroud survived the chaos of 1204, it would go to France and even north central or eastern France? Moreover, does it seem probable to you that such a valuable and cherished relic would have been destroyed in 1204, not saved? Besides, if de Clari’s description of Jesus’ shroud and image were the origin of a “fake” shroud in Lirey, France, why does that shroud, today’s Turin Shroud, have a double body image on it and a naked one too? De Clari did not describe it so (for reasons of discretion, I believe, if he or other crusaders even saw the other side of it). Your thoughts?

    John Loken

  9. Just over the past few months (after the WAX paper blew up in the media) I started diving into the Shroud. Been reading through your blog and just wanted to say – good work you do Hugh! It’s so hard to find a good skeptical eye on the Shroud, most people take the C14 date and call it a day without even addressing the other key issues. Also good to check the people on the authenticist side that seem to just believe what they’re told without considering it (like WAX, pollen, limestone, AB blood, etc).