Notwithstanding Teddi Pappas’s insistence that the Shroud speaks for itself and needs no provenance, she is nevertheless keen to establish that the Sermon of Gregory Referendarius gives it one. Shortly after the arrival of the Image of Edessa in Constantinople in 944AD, to the great acclaim of kings, priests and commoners alike, one of the team responsible for receiving and subsequently caring for it, called Gregory the Referendary, prepared a sermon on it, which was thought to be lost until Gino Zaninotto found a copy in the Vatican Archives in 1987. It is written in Greek, but was transcribed, translated into French and interpreted by André-Marie Dubarle in 1997,1 and translated into English, with a few corrections, by Mark Guscin in 2004.2 For some authenticists, such as Theodora Pappas, it is as close to a ‘smoking gun’ identifying the Image of Edessa with the Shroud of Turin as you can get; for others, such as Jack Markwardt and Andrea Nicolotti,3 it isn’t. Let’s see, shall we?
It is quite difficult to assess impartially. From the moment of its discovery, the sermon has been claimed as evidence of the Shroud, by Zaninotto, Dubarle and Guscin successively, among others, who have attempted to derive a full body image, and in some cases even a burial cloth, from the rather opaque classical references to ‘form’ and the focus on Christ’s blood. In fact the sermon is extremely abstruse and so packed with allusion that it is very difficult to sort out actual observation from legend and theological comment, especially with regard to an extended comparison between the cloth, enhanced by Jesus’s sweat in Gethsemane, and Jesus’s own body, enhanced by blood trickling from his side. One important passage is (underlining mine):
Το δε, – πας ένθεασθήτω τω διηγήματι – μόνοις έναγωνίοις ίδρώσι προσώπου ζωαρχικοϋ τοις ώσει θρόμβοι κατασταλάξασιν αίματος έντετύπωται και δακτύλω θεοϋ. Αύται το έκμαγείον όντως Χρίστου αϊ χρωματουργήσασαι ώραιότητες, δτι και το άφ’ού κατεσταλάχθησαν ρανίσι πλευράς ιδίας έγκεκαλλώπισται.
Dubarle translated this as “Le (resplendissement) [the image referred to in the previous paragraph], d’autre part, – que chacun s’enthousiasme du récit – a été empreint par les seules sueurs d’agonie du visage du prince de la vie, qui ont coulé comme des caillots de sang et par le doigt de Dieu. Ce sont elles les ornements qui ont coloré la réelle empreinte du Christ, car l'(empreinte), depuis qu’elles ont coulé, a été embellie par les gouttes de son propre côté.”
Guscin rendered it in English as: “This reflection, however – let everyone be inspired with the explanation – has been imprinted only by the sweat from the face of the originator of life, falling like drops of blood, and by the finger of God. For these are the beauties that have made up the true imprint of Christ, since after the drops fell, it was embellished by drops from his own side.”
There’s a contradiction between the first and second sentences. In the first, the image is made only by drops of sweat from Jesus’s face (albeit similar to drops of blood), but in the second, the image has been embellished by actual drops of blood from Jesus’s side. Irked by the inconsistency, Guscin later wrote: “I now think this interpretation cannot be defended either from the Greek text or from the internal logic of the text. If the Image had indeed been embellished with blood from Christ’s side, this could only have taken place after his death on the cross, whereas Gregory’s text clearly states that the Image was formed before the crucifixion and the resulting contradictions are excessive even for a Byzantine mentality.” The Greek phrase “το άφ’ού” it seems, that had been mistranslated “depuis” by Duparle and “after” by Guscin, actually means something like “from whom.” Nicolotti translates the passage as: “These are the beauties that have colored the actual imprint of Christ, because also that from which they were shed was embellished by the droplets from his own side.”
In the next sentence Gregory makes an even clearer distinction between the flow from Christ’s side and the sweat forming the Image. “αίμα και ΰ’δωρ έκεϊ, ενταύθα ίδρώς και μορφή”: “blood and water there, sweat and form here.”
Pappas sets more store on the actual nature of the blood, which the Greek calls “θρόμβοι,” Dubarle translates as “caillots” and Guscin calls “drops.” A thrombus is a bit of a lump, almost exclusively a lump of blood or milk, and for Pappas to insist on “clot” rather than “drop” is completely fair. However, to suppose that this means Gregory was somehow aware not only of the blood on the Shroud, but also that it had got there by some kind of clot transfer, lacks justification. It’s not even his word: he is quoting from St Luke (Lk 22:44). We can’t know exactly what Gregory saw on the Image of Edessa, if anything, but I think we can say that the rivulets of blood all over the Shroud, however they got there, actually look like liquid flows, and don’t look like clots at all.
Elsewhere, the sermon consistently refers to the face rather than the whole body, and never mentions funerary cloths at all. I think Pappas misses a semantic point when she claims that the word “form,” rather than “face,” indicates that the Image was not just the face but the whole body, in the expression, “οτι τη απλώς προς πρόσωπον προσψαύσει Χρίστου είδοποίηται εις μορφήν αύτοΰ.” The subtlety is that “πρόσωπον” means rather more than just “face,” but includes meanings such as “person” and “character.” Although the cloth touched the living personality of Jesus, only the “form,” “μορφήν,” was transferred to the cloth. It had nothing to do with the extent of the bodily image. As far as Gregory was concerned, the image was entirely derived from Jesus wiping his face during the agony in the garden of Gethsamane. From there, according to Gregory’s account, Christ gave it to Thomas, who passed it to Thaddeus, who brought it to Edessa. There is no suggestion that it was present at the crucifixion, burial or resurrection.
Another interesting little mistranslation comes from the story of the Persian siege of Edessa, which was repelled by Bishop Eulalios and the Image. The Greek says: “Ό δέ τότε μητροπολίτης Εύλάλιος, έπιθείς ταίς παλάμαις εαυτού την έν ή όθόνην ή άχειροποίητος είκών έμεμόρφωτο, όρώντων τών πολιτών, άνω τά τείχη διώδευεν.
Dubarle: “Mais le métropolite d’alors, Eulalios, mettant sur ses paumes le linge sur lequel l’image non faite de main d’homme avait été formée, à la vue des habitants, parcourut le sommet des remparts.”
Guscin: “The bishop at the time, Eulalios, placed his hands on the linen where the image not made by human hands had been
formed and went round the top of the city walls so that everybody could see him.”
Nicolotti: “Eulalios, then the metropolitan, holding in his palms the cloth wherein the image not made by hands had formed, marched on top of the city wall while the citizens watched.”
For Dubarle and Nicolotti (and in the Greek original), Eulalios held the Image on, or in, the palms of his hands; for Guscin, thinking the Image to be the folded Shroud packed in a box, the bishop simply placed his hands on it.
Another ‘clue’ Pappas thinks she has found lies in a comparison between the recovery of the Arc of the Covenant by the Jews from the Philistines, and the recovery of the Image of Edessa by the Byzantines from the Moslems. Something in the text and the context makes her think that the Image must have been known to be composed of Christ’s actual sweat/blood, rather than created by it. I don’t think this can be justified. The key word is “glory,” as Mark Guscin translates it, which perhaps could carry connotations of the divine, but unfortunately the Greek word doesn’t. Dubarle’s “resplendissement” and Nicolotti’s “effulgence” capture it better, and imply that the image appeared to be glowing with light, but not necessarily that it was actually a piece of Christ himself.
Greek: “Ετεσι πλείστοις παρ’άλλοφύλοις ή πάλαι σου κιβωτός έκεκράτητο, πρόνοια σου άνασωζεται, και πρόσθεν χορεύει βασιλεύς ήγαπημένος σοι ό παις σου Δαυίδ, και άγαλλιάται τη ταύτης καταπαύσει ό πας ‘Ισραήλ. Ένιαυτοΐς πλείοσι παρ’ίος έδόκει σοι άνεκτόν παρωκει σου το απαύγασμα, ηνωται νυν τοις παρά του εκλεκτού σου τιμωμένοις λαοϋ, τω καλάμω, τοις ηλοις σου, τω σταυρω, τοις άλλοις οίς ήλεήθημεν, οίς άει κραταιούμεθα, και προπορεύεται ωραίος σοι βασιλεύς τη πεζοπορία μάλλον η τοις του κράτους στέφεσι καλλυνόμενος.
Dubarle: “Pendant de très nombreuses années ton ancienne arche (d’alliance) avait été détenue chez les Philistins. Par ta providence elle est sauvée. En avant danse le roi, ton bien aimé, ton serviteur David, et tout Israël se réjouit du repos de cette (arche). Pendant des ans plus nombreux ton resplendissement a séjourné chez ceux qu’il te semblait tolerable. Il a été réuni maintenant aux (reliques) vénérées par ton peuple élu : le roseau, tes clous, la croix, les autres par lesquelles nous avons reçu miséricorde, par lesquelles nous sommes toujours fortifiés. Et en avant marche l’empereur, allant à pied, ce qui convient
mieux pour toi que (s’il était) orné des couronnes du pouvoir.
Guscin: “For many years your ancient ark was in the hands of the Philistines, but it was saved by your providence. Your beloved king, your servant David danced in front of it and all Israel rejoiced in its resting place. For many years your glory resided with those you considered worthy, now it has been united to those things held in honour by your chosen people – the cane, your nails, the cross and the other objects through which we receive mercy and in which we are always strengthened. The Emperor marches on foot in front, more acceptable to you than if he were adorned with crowns of power.”
Nevertheless, whether the Image was seen as actually carrying drops of Jesus’s sweat or was miraculously stimulated into existence by Jesus’s sweat, it was clearly sufficiently near godhead to be worshipped. Obviously it wasn’t thought of as ‘just a painting,’ it was acheiropoietos, but that doesn’t mean it had to be the Shroud. Apart from vague coincidences there is no evidence to suggest that it was, and too much, in terms of all the versions of the legends of its origins, and all the descriptions by pilgrims to Constantinople, to suggest that it wasn’t. No Byzantine scholars have adopted the idea, unless they happened to be convinced Shroud authenticists first.
[Addendum, several weeks later… Few of my posts attract either much readership or much comment, but this ‘Sermon of Gregory Referendarius’ has stimulated a staunch defence of her position by Teddi Pappas, and a battery of new re-translations, in the face of a fairly solid phalanx of more othodox scholarship, with which she hopes to substantiate her case. As the 20-day comment window for the previous post came to an end, Teddi jumped to Shroudstory.com to continue disseminating her ideas, almost without drawing breath, popping up cod references by the dozen, none of which inspire any credibility. As her flickering torch has moved on into another part of the cave, here is a summary of what has been claimed so far.
It is Pappas’s contention that the Image of Edessa was the Shroud of Turin, and that Gregory Referendarius, its greeter and keeper, knew not only that it was the burial shroud of Christ, but also that it carried the two-fold full-length image that we know so well. In support of this idea, she has put forward a number of textual observations, sometimes under the apparent illusion that she has discovered something unrecognised by previous Greek scholars.
Does ‘θρόμβοι’ show that Gregory knew there were clots of blood on the Image? – No.
Does ‘απαύγασμα’ mean that the Image was literally shining? – No.
Does ‘μορφήν’ show Gregory must have seen a full-length 3-D image? – No.
Does ‘προσκυνείσθαι’ refer exclusively to the divine? – No.
Does ‘ήπλωμένην’ mean that the cloth must have been 4 metres long? – No.
Does ‘καλλεσι’ mean that there were more than one image on the Image? – No.
Does ‘ιστορηται’ only refer to sacred images? – No.
Does ‘τετραδιπλοῦν’ mean that the cloth must have been 4 metres long? – No.
Does ‘στεφανον’ (or maybe ‘διαδήμασι’) refer to a circular opening in a grill covering the Image? – No.
Does ‘οψει’ mean ‘presence’? – No.
But in the face of Zaninotto, Dubarle, Guscin. Nicolotti, Corvaglia and even myself, Pappas determinedly ploughs her own furrow, astonishing herself with her discoveries (“WOW, WOW, WOW!!!”), but nobody else. I wish her every joy, but this is a horse that won’t run, and flogging it to death in the hope of seeing it stagger to its feet only serves to emphasise the paucity of the authenticist cause.]
1). ‘L’Homélie de Grégoire le Référendaire pour la Réception de l’Image d’Édesse,’ André-Maria Dubarle, Revue des Études Byzantines, Vol 55, 1997.
2). ‘The Sermon of Gregory Referendarius,’ Mark Guscin, 2004 (at shroud.com)
3). From the Mandylion of Edessa to the Shroud of Turin. The Metamorphosis and Manipulation of a Legend, Andrea Nicolotti, 2014
Hi, Everybody,
This is my slightly different translation from Guscin’s with Section 25 of Dubarle’s translation and section 21 of Guscin’s.
The Greek: “Ο και νυν θελησασιν αυτικά καταρτισθησεται, ει το υπερφυεσ απαύγασμα οιοισ ιστορηται καλλεσι οπτρισομεθα.”
Guscin’s translation: “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.”
Teddi’s translation: And that thing which has now been willed shall be immediately brought to completion, if we shall behold the supernatural, radiant reflection in the beautiful forms [NOTE: “καλλεσι” is plural–and indicates “beautiful forms.” What’s on the Shroud of Turin? DOUBLE BODY IMAGES. (!!!)
Also, the word that is used for “depicted” is “ιστορηται” which, in Byzantine Greek, is used to refer to the depiction of a sacred image.
WOW, WOW, WOW!!!
(More to come . . .)
Cheers,
Teddi
Oops . . . sorry for the disconnected text (I was adding some text and couldn’t see the text, below, in the little box that I’m writing in–and, it doesn’t help that I’m about to fall asleep . . .
Hi, again, Everybody,
Tomorrow, I will be getting to some additional portions of the text which will take me longer to figure out, so, I jumped to the last (but very important) part of the Greek text that I wanted to cross-reference with Mark Guscin’s translation. This is towards the closing of Gregory’s sermon which is Section 28, Dubarle and Section 23, Guscin.
Guscin’s translation of three key words which appear in succession: image, imprint, reflection[.]”
My translation of these three words in the same order is more or less the same: image, imprint, [radiant] reflection. However, I do want to specify that I have learned that the word “εκμαγειον” is often translated as a “mold,” but I, also, see where it can be something that catches or absorbs a physical trace of something else–and a cloth is given as an example–or a substance that absorbs a stamp. In this sense, it seems to be different from the imprint, itself–which would seem to me to be the “icon” (image.)
Best regards,
Teddi
What’s of particular importance about these three words–and their appearance in succession of one another–is that it shows us the following:
When Gregory is wanting to describe an “image” he uses the word “εικων”/icon.
When Gregory is wanting to describe an “imprint,” he uses the word “εκμαγειον.”
And, when Gregory wants to describe a reflection/radiant reflection, he uses the word “απαυγασμα.”
In light of these three words being put together, I’ll need to (later on) go back to some of the key phrases that I have highlighted–where these words are contained–and look to see about giving consistent definitions (unless the context indicates otherwise.)
Hi, Everybody,
Here is a comparison of my translation with Mark Guscin’s in another area that was of interest to me in Gregory’s sermon–where I was trying to better understand the text. My translation in many ways goes more to the literal meaning, but I actually think that Gregory was wanting to express this more literal meaning as it is far more poetic–and Gregory’s quite poetic–and the poetry of it and some of the more literal interpretations seem to really say a lot. Judge for yourselves. And, these are not fast translations that are being arrived at by me–I’m examining lots of different translations for particular words including the etymology of various key words. I’ve put thought into the words and putting together the translations that seem to make the most sense to me. Am I cherry-picking things? One could argue that, but am I getting at the translation that I think Gregory intended? Yes, I think so–at least in its substance. Perhaps some of my tenses are incorrect, but please look at the word choice and the substance of what is being conveyed.
From Dubarle, section 20, Guscin, section 17:
Teddi’s translation: What of the other things? To possess the written report of the event, we take pure delight in its singing in harmony with tradition, and by the unexpected nature of the form [μορφη—Guscin translates as “image”] by the spirit”, they [I think “they” is the “event” and the image of Jesus’ form] flash together in unison like lightning.
Note: in Phillipians 2:6-7 (particularly in verse 7), Jesus is said to have two forms—one of which was the form of a servant. There is, however, also a reference to “likeness,” but the word used for that is “ομοιωματι.”
Guscin’s translation: “What else? You will now agree that our story fits in with tradition, and we are joined in the spirit to the paradox of the image.”
Best regards,
Teddi
Hi, Everybody,
So, I wanted more specificity on what Guscin translates as “your glory” in Section 15 of Guscin’s translation and Section 18 of Dubarle’s translation.
So, the context is that the Edessan manuscript is referring here to the Image of Edessa. The manuscript states that “[f]or many years your glory resided with those you considered worthy, now it has been united to those things held in honor by your chosen people–the cane, your nails, the cross and the other objects through which we receive mercy and in which we are always strengthened.” (It is important to note that this in reference to the Image of Edessa–NOT the ancient ark that is mentioned in the prior sentence [there is a SHIFT in what’s being discussed.])
So, what is meant by “your glory?” First, the word that is used here is “απαυγασμα” which means “emitted radiance” (that is, beaming from a source of light–and God is light (Psalm 104:2, 1 John 1:5, John 8:12.) Now, what do we have with regard to the body images on the Shroud of Turin? God Incarnate’s EMITTED RADIANCE from His resurrection!
WOW.
WOW.
WOW.
What a perfect word to use!
Now that I am examining Hebrews 1:3 more closely, it states: “απαυγασμα τησ δοξησ.” So, the word that really is meaning “glory” is “δοξα,” and the “απαυγασμα” is the radiant aspect of God’s glory–and all this is describing Jesus as the “radiance of God’s glory.” So, I am probably somewhat “splitting hairs” here, but I think that what is specifically being mentioned is the cloth with Jesus’ emitted radiance on it (forming the body images on the Shroud of Turin.) I’m not sure that I’m willing to, technically, say that this is, actually, God’s glory–as that is Jesus, Himself.
Anyhow, just trying to gain more understanding of some key phrases in Gregory’s sermon.
All the best,
Teddi
Here, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%201%3A3&version=MOUNCE, “χαρακτηρ” is given the definition of “exact representation” and it is then referring to his “nature” (hypostasis.) I think that’s probably the best translation of those two words: “exact representation” in that while a representation is not identical to that which is making it, there can be no more of an exact representation of something than having the representation being created by an actual imprint of the thing, itself.
The phrase “απαραλλακτοσ χαρακτηρ” (from Dubarle, section 16, Guscin #13 lines 11-13) is important as it is describing what the sweat which has been wiped away from Jesus’ incarnate form and has formed/created (μεμορφωται) the “απαραλλακτοσ χαρακτηρ” on the cloth. So, what can “απαραλλακτοσ” be translated as? It can be translated as unchanging, identical, unchanged or PRECISELY SIMILAR.
https://outils.biblissima.fr/fr/eulexis-web/?lemma=απαραλλακτοσ&dict=LSJ. Moreover, while the word “χαρατηρ” can mean “character,” it can, also, mean “exact imprint,” “imprint” or “representation.” Therefore, one of the possible translations of “”απαραλλακτοσ χαρακτηρ” is “precisely similar imprint”–and this makes a lot of sense in terms of the body images on the Shroud of Turin.
All the best,
Teddi
Hi, Marco,
At your convenience. Have a wonderful (and I’m sure, well-deserved–vacation!
Cheers,
Teddi
Hi, Teddi,
I’m away on a short vacation. I’ll be able to look into the matter properly when I return, in just a few days.
Cheers,
Marco
Hi, Marco and Everybody,
I’ve finally gotten a chance to get back to examining some more of the original Greek in Gregory’s sermon. I would be interested in thoughts about the following: Guscins’s section 13, lines 11-13 (which corresponds with Dubarle’s section 16.)
Guscin’s translation is: “You wiped clean the sweat of the nature you had taken on and what was wiped clean was transformed into an image of your unchanging form, just like Adam’s form was drawn out of the ground, like the eyes of nature in the folds of the kneaded earth.”
Teddi’s translation: You wiped away the sweat of the form [“μορφη”– Jesus’ incarnate body] which you had put on, and that which has been wiped off has been formed into your own identical imprint [απαραλλακτοσ χαρακτηρ–and, yes, “απαραλλακτοσ” can mean “unchangeable,” but it can, also mean “identical,” and “χαρακτηρ” can mean exact imprint, representation or character], just like the dust of Adam that was drawn up, and just like the natural eyes [“οφθαλμοι”] that were healed by the clay mixed with your spittle.
I think that my translation makes more sense in that it is referencing Genesis 2:7 and John 9:1-7. It is, I think, important to think about how when Adam was formed from dust, Adam’s “μορφη” was not Adam’s face but Adam’s entire body. So, this can be seen as an indication that the image on the cloth was of a full body–not just a face.
All the best,
Teddi
Obviously, the noun “face” is inferred from the context, but ἐπίκειμαι confirms that Thaddeus is referring to the linen cloth lying over him
Teddi, it has been a pleasure. In any case, to conclude, Thaddeus also says that the light seen by Abgar was attributable μὴ τῷ ἐμῷ, τῷ δὲ ἐπικειμένῳ, that is, “not to my face, but to the one laid over it.” The text is unequivocal, both in its syntax and in its context. Best wishes for your show tomorrow.
And, I want to be sure that I bring up for discussion the latter portion of the text that we have been discussing. I will include the full sentence for proper context:
“Εγώ δε τούτο εθεμην εν τη όψει μου και προ ρημάτων δεικνυσ ου επεζητεισ προσώπου ειναι απαύγασμα, και ότι μάλλον αυτό σόι οπτανεται ήπαρ εγώ, και ωσ μέγιστον υπερωω τω του σώματος μου τιμών -ου γαρ επί μασχάλης αλλ επί μετώπω τα κάλλιστα–και άμα μη τω εμώ, τω δε επικείμενω λογισασθαι το εκπεμπομενον φωσ.”
This text is of obvious interest, because it mentions the armpits.
I have only attempted a partial translation of this, so far, but I need to get to prepare for a response show to a Shroud skeptic that is scheduled for tomorrow. So, I will get back to this important part of the text some time tomorrow.
All the best,
Teddi
Well, I can’t blame a late hour like 4 am for my convoluted sentence, below–I’ll just have to admit that my convoluted sentence confused even me!😂😂😂😂 Here’s what I said:
So, I am not saying that “οψει” is an impossible translation–but, because people are often trying to turn this into an argument that this cloth was merely a face cloth, this is why it is important to explore whether the text, itself, forecloses this as a likelihood by the text’s NOT specifying that the cloth was put over his face. (Sorry, I know that’s quite a convoluted sentence–but, hopefully, it makes sense.)
Now, below, is what I meant to say:
So, I am not saying that “οψει” is an impossible translation. However, we know that many people say that the Image of Edessa cannot be the Shroud of Turin, because they interpret Guscin’s translation as meaning that the cloth was put on Thomas’ face was only a face-sized cloth/sudarium.
Then, I go on to explain that this assumption is not warranted as I further describe in my prior comment.
Hi, Marco,
I won’t say that it’s impossible that someone could use two different words for the same thing in a sentence–but, it is, indeed, valid to be suspicious that two different meanings might be meant–particularly when a word like “οψει” can mean (primarily) eyes and “προσωπου” (particularly in this context) definitely means “face.” Additionally, this sentence is demonstrating that at the time that text was written, the word “προσωπου” existed to communicate “face”–so, you cannot argue that (at that point in time) that “οψει” was the only word that was being used for “face.” I don’t think that we can know for certain, but I think that the evidence is such that “οψει” can mean something other than “face.”
I will remind you of what my translation was that I had, previously, mentioned (in my June 19th comment at 9:04 am–Hugh’s time): “I did this: Putting before my eyes and before my words, I showed you the reflection of the face you were seeking, and that was, indeed, more noticeable to you than me[.]”
So, by saying “putting before my eyes,” this means that he was displaying the cloth before his very eyes–as he, simultaneously, was displaying it to Abgar. This makes a lot of sense to me.
Again, however, I would argue in the alternative that even if “οψει” means “face” that this does NOT equate to the cloth’s being relegated to being a facecloth. This would be in error as an excellent way to display a full sized Shroud with Jesus’ image on it would be to put the cloth over one’s head and have the facial image on the cloth be over the person’s face (who is underneath the cloth.) This would provide such a stunning presentation of the cloth–as if Jesus, Himself, is standing!
So, I am not saying that “οψει” is an impossible translation–but, because people are often trying to turn this into an argument that this cloth was merely a face cloth, this is why it is important to explore whether the text, itself, forecloses this as a likelihood by the text’s NOT specifying that the cloth was put over his face. (Sorry, I know that’s quite a convoluted sentence–but, hopefully, it makes sense.)
Anyhow, because these key phrases in Gregory’s sermon are so important, I think that it is really great that we are “cross-examining” it very thoroughly. I might be right or I might be wrong–but, regardless, I believe that it is exceedingly good that I am asking these questions and that we are having what I think is a very interesting discussion about it. So, THANK YOU very much for your participation in this endeavor!
Cheers,
Teddi
I apologize; there is also an Italian translation by Zaninotto
Hi, Teddi,
Every language (Italian, French, English, Greek, and so on) has different terms for expressing the concept of a face, with nuances that are not always easy to identify. If one were to translate Taddeus’s sentence into Italian, for example, it would be perfectly natural to alternate between “volto” and “viso”, both for stylistic reasons (to avoid repetition) and for rhetorical ones (to highlight the distinction between the two entities). So natural, in fact, that in the only Italian translation that has been published (Nicolotti, 2015), a contrast is drawn between “il mio viso” (my face) and “lo splendore del volto”.
Hi, Marco,
I will continue to think about your comment and re-examine the text, but my initial response is that you are being too literal when, quite likely, an idiom is being used. You continue to avoid addressing what is “the elephant in the room”—which is, as I keep mentioning, that if your translation of opsei is “face” then, in the same sentence, there is the use of two different words for face. That is bizarre and needs to be both discussed and explained. Do you have any viable and reasonable explanations for that? Additionally, this demonstrates that, at minimum, at the time of the writing that there was another word in use for “face” that is not “opsei.”
Cheers,
Teddi
… but it’s also literally impossible for ἐν τῇ ὄψει μου here to mean ‘in my presence’, because the subject of the clause is I (ἐγὼ ἐθέμην). I can’t say that I did something in my own presence.
Syntax matters, Teddi…
Hi, Marco,
During the Cold War, President Ronald Reagan always used to say, “Trust but verify.” You mentioned that you suspect that if someone told me to stay away from a minefield, that I would head straight for it.😆 Well, my response is that IT DEPENDS UPON WHO’S GIVING ME THE WARNING. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Okay, so after your response and explanation (and my doing some quick, additional “trusting but verifying,” I will agree with you that we’re not dealing with “οψει” as a poetic dual in the form that we see it in and that it is . However, yet again—and in looking at definitions for both ancient and Biblical Greek, I am finding that the word is singular AND that the translation of “εν τη οψει μου” continues to be defined as “in my sight” or “in my view” or “in my presence.”I do, however, see where it can, also, be defined as “face.” But, my point in all of this is that there is an additional understanding of what the phrase can mean and it certainly appears to my the translation that I am espousing has at least an equal chance of being the correct translation—and, perhaps even better than that.
And, again, the point that I made that in the SAME sentence where “εν τη οψει μου” appears, we, ALSO, have the word “προσωπου.” I think that this tips the scales in favor of my translation of “οψει” as NOT meaning face since (in the same sentence) a different word for “face” is used. (Guscin translates both words as “face”—and that is where I am challenging that translation of “οψει” as “face.” Guscin translates that important sentence as “I have put it on my face and have shown in silence that this is the reflection of the face you were seeking.” Clearly, in the second situation, “προσωπου” is meant to mean the physical “face” of Jesus.
Cheers,
Teddi
Teddi, Teddi, no, it absolutely cannot be a dual form, because ὄψει, in the dual, could only be nominative, accusative or vocative, but in our sentence it is dative, and moreover it is accompanied by the definite article. The dual dative, with the article, would be τοῖν (or ταῖν) ὀψέοιν, not τῇ ὄψει. Morphology matters, Teddi…
Something tells me that, if someone told you to stay away from a minefield, you would head straight for it… 🙂
Hi, Marco,
Thank you very much for your kind words and your well wishes which I reciprocate to you, as well. And, yes, I agree that in life one cannot deal with everything. However, through typically intense and prolonged effort, sometimes very motivated non-experts (exploring issues in a particular miss—sometimes (if you’ll pardon the pun, what’s needed is a fresh set of “οψει.”
Regarding the word “οψει,” while I agree that this can, indeed, be used to mean “face,” the etymology of the word is that concerning eyes—therefore, “eyes” is the most ancient of the Greek definitions. From what I have read, the Byzantines did not typically communicate in ancient Greek unless the communication was of a legal or formal (which likely includes theological) nature. So, it seems to me like one cannot preclude the “οψει” translation.
In this regard, I notice that the singular word “οψις” has “οψεις” as its plural. However, I read that “οψει” is the poetic dual form of the word. The words in Gregory’s sermon and the words in the Greek translation of the Edessan manuscript which are at issue are quite poetic, and I have read that where “οψει” is written that it is referring to the physical eyes, I think that this makes “eyes” a viable translation—or to use the phrase “εν τη οψει μου” to mean “in my presence”—and that the cloth was PUT “in my presence.”
Also, sure, words that are commonly used can change over time–such as the very old use of “oπθαλμουσ” for eyes which, in modern Greek, is typically replaced with the word “ματια.” Additionally, as I know that you are aware, one must also consider that idioms are being used.
But, I shall do what lawyers love to do and that is to “argue in the alternative.” Let us assume that Guscin’s and your translation of this key portion of the text is, indeed, “I have put it [the linen cloth] on my face[.]” For many people reading this, they have come away with the notion that the linen cloth must have been a mere facecloth—not a full-length burial shroud (that could correspond to the dimensions of the Shroud of Turin.) However, this is not necessarily the situation as Thaddaios could have placed the Shroud (at its midpoint) on top of his head—to where the frontal portion of the image of Jesus’ face would be on top of his (Thaddaios’) face—and this would be a rather convenient and quite interesting way of displaying the Shroud is quite a dramatic way (where it somewhat appears that the body of Christ is standing upright.)
Anyhow, my point in all of this is to demonstrate that the claim that the image of Jesus on the Image of Edessa is only of His face (and that, therefore, this cloth cannot be the same as the Shroud of Turin) is a claim that is riddled with both questions and problems.
It is, also, important to note that in the text at issue (concerning the word “οψει” one must ask: if “οψει” is the preferred word for “face” at the time that this manuscript was written, why is it that—in the same sentence—there is the mention of the “reflection of the face [“προσωπου”] you were seeking.” This is quite interesting, yes?
With regard to the word “εθεμην,” in my translation, my translation did, in fact, incorporate the use of the translation “put” in that I wrote: “Putting before my eyes and before my words.”
If nothing else, I think that it’s good that we have been closely examining and exploring the various potential meanings of this text—and not just accepting what has been just because it’s there. Thank you very much for your very active participation with me in this process!
All the best,
Teddi
Teddy, I speak with respect and, if you allow me, with friendship: you deal with other matters, you are — I am sure — an excellent lawyer, but in life one cannot deal with everything. You cannot take the meanings of words from a language whose morphosyntax you do not know and combine them freely. The translation, in its elementary form, is:
ἐγὼ: I;
ἐθέμην (first person indicative aorist middle III of τίθημι): put;
τοῦτο (direct object, neuter singular accusative): this;
ἐν (a preposition that governs the dative, in this case τῇ ὄψει, meaning “in” or “on”): on…
The preposition ἐν governed by the verb τίθημι clearly indicates the point of contact.
You thought it could be translated as “before” because in the dictionary you consult (https://outils.biblissima.fr/en/eulexis-web/index.php) you read: “also ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖσιν or ἐν ὄμμασιν ὁρᾶσθαι, ἰδέσθαι, to see with or before one’s eyes, i.e. have the object in one’s eye, Il. 3.306, Od. 10.385.” But there the verb is ὁράω (to see): literally it means seeing something “in the eyes”, but if I see something “in my eyes,” it is because I have it “in front of” my eyes.
However, with the verb τίθημι, i.e. “to put,” there is no such equivalence at all, in any way. That is why I say one cannot understand a language whose morphosyntax one does not know.
It seems to me that we are not able to understand each other, Teddi.
In any case, I would like to offer you my very best wishes for your studies on the Shroud, which I know you will continue to pursue with great and admirable passion.
All the best,
Marco
Hi Hugh,
Few people would have predicted that this post would break the record of comments on your distinguished website. Expect the unexpected.
Hi, again, Marco,
Additionally, I’ll go ahead and post the translation that I was working on earlier that deals, precisely, with the line that you just mentioned (which is in section 13 of Dubarle’s paper and section 10 of Guscin’s.) I am not, however, finished with yet another tricky portion (but I am about to go to sleep as it is 4:00 am where I am.
Guscin’s translation is: “I have put it on my face and have shown in silence that this is the reflection of the face you were seeking. It has made itself more visible to you than I have.”
My own translation of this (from the Greek)–and after examining numerous translations for key words and trying to put the information in context is as follows: “I did this: Putting before my eyes and before my words, I showed you the reflection of the face you were seeking, and that was, indeed, more noticeable to you than me[.]
I am still doing some thinking about the complicated text that follows this–which might include an idiom–but I’m going to get some sleep now. So, I’ll delve into that later.
All the best,
Teddi
Hi, Marco,
You mention that “ἐν τῇ ὄψει μου” must mean that the image was of the face, alone. I strongly disagree with your conclusion here. While “face” is a contender for the translation, it is not exclusive as the word “οψει” originally concerned EYES, and there is absolutely no reason why, although the definition had expanded to include face, that it must, therefore, now, only include face. Additionally, when paired with the phrase “εν τη οψει μου” this can mean “before my eyes” or “in my presence.”
All the best,
Teddi
And, well, there is, also, how this ties into Galatians 3:1: “Oh, foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.” Further down, it mentions, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us. For it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree [wood.]” As an unnecessary reminder, the Shroud of Turin depicts a crucified man that would have been hung on a tree/wood.
Oh, I forgot to mention the commentary that I had wanted to add to the following comment that I made in my last comment:
” Therefore NOT ONLY WOULD YOU BE SAVED BUT ALSO EVERYONE WHO COMES FORWARD TO SEE THIS MIRACLE AFTER YOU.”
Now, let’s think about what this means. It clearly states that Jesus’ image on the cloth was performed through a miracle (not the sweat, itself.) Moreover, there is, also, a strong indication that the images on the linen cloth depict a crucified Jesus at the moment of His resurrection. There is the implication that to see the image is to bear witness to Jesus’ resurrection–which would make Him a Truth Teller and that it is through Him that we can be saved from Death and receive eternal life.
All the best,
Teddi
Hi Teddi,
What you wrote just now prompted me to re-examine that portion of the text, and I noticed an expression I didn’t remember: Thaddeus explicitly and unequivocally says that he placed the linen cloth on his own face: ἐγὼ δὲ τοῦτο ἐθέμην ἐν τῇ ὄψει μου (“I have put it on my face”), using the same expression that Abgar uses when addressing Thaddeus himself, which we discussed earlier: ἐν τῇ ὄψει σου. Therefore, your interpretation—which I had found linguistically valid—is definitively disproved by the context. This confirms in the clearest, most unequivocal and definitive way that the text was referring to an image of the face alone.
Cheers,
Marco
Hi, Marco,
Thank you for your response, and I intend to get to it, but not right at this moment (as I am in the midst of examining some translations.) But, I just came across something in Gregory’s sermon (where Gregory is referencing a manuscript from the Edessan archive) that is very interesting to emphasize. In this manuscript, Thaddaios tells Abgar that Ananias had stated (presumably to Thaddaios) that King Abgar wished to look upon the likeness of Jesus’ FACE (and the word “προσωπου” is used–not “μορφη.”) Then, (in section 9 of Guscin’s English translation), it says that “Jesus, undergoing the passion of his own free will . . . taking this linen cloth he wiped the sweat that was falling down his face like drops of blood in his agony. And miraculously, just as he made everything from nothing in his divine strength, he imprinted the reflection of his form (‘μορφη”) on the linen.”
* * * Then, there is the mention (section 10 of Guscin’s translation) that “it is not that the form requested came into being on it[.]”
Also, we have the situation where (according to the aforementioned manuscript) that after Jesus’ “reflection of his form” is “imprinted” on the linen, and Jesus, having come down the mountain after praying, gives the linen to Thomas. (I think that it is unclear whether the image was imprinted while Jesus was on the mountain or not–because the phrasing is such that Jesus could have taken the already imprinted linen cloth up to the mountain with Him as He went to pray. Regardless, I think that there are some errors in the story, but I think that there are many Truths in it, as well.
But, what follows (section 10, Guscin) is where things get especially interesting–I’m going to repeat a portion mentioned, above, for the proper context: “You can therefore see that it is not that the form requested came into being on it, as this did not seem right, neither what you thought worthy to be, but what you did not hope for, so that not only in this nature but together with it are all things given life. Therefore NOT ONLY WOULD YOU BE SAVED BUT ALSO EVERYONE WHO COMES FORWARD TO SEE THIS MIRACLE AFTER YOU.”
What follows in this paragraph is some text that I have been working on–but I am not quite finished with it. But, I’ll post that once I’ve completed it. But, for now, this is something more for people to consider.
All the best,
Teddi
Hi, Teddi,
As I have already written, I have given you detailed replies every time I understood what you meant. Indeed, in my message of June 17, 2026, at 9:13 am, I asked you to explain again your arguments concerning εἰδοποίηται and πρὸς πρόσωπον. You did so, but I still failed to understand your arguments at the linguistic level.
Since, however, as I said, the Greek text at that point is transparent, I invited you (June 17, 2026, at 11:56 am) to refer to the work of Guscin and Dubarle, authors toward whom you have no reason to be suspicious and who possess the necessary knowledge of Greek. In your subsequent message of June 17, 2026, at 4:34 pm, you wrote: “If I am incorrect, please show me, precisely, where I am.”
Accordingly, I reread your arguments for a third time. The only additional point that I think I may have understood, compared with my previous readings (although I am by no means certain), is that, in your view, πρὸς πρόσωπον would refer to the physical body because it could also occur in the expression πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον (which does not appear in the Greek text), and that expression would be equivalent to the English phrase “face-to-face,” which denotes an encounter between two persons. If that is indeed your reasoning, Teddi, then it is, as we say in Italy, “neither in heaven nor on earth.” However, believing that I had finally understood your argument, I provided explanations on this point as well.
You say that you do not know what your “seriously unfounded hypotheses” are. I am referring to what you wrote about πρὸς πρόσωπον (I will not comment on εἰδοποίηται because I did not understand your argument, as I said); to what you wrote concerning the passage ἐκεῖνο δίδαξον…; and to your thesis that μορφή necessarily carries a three-dimensional meaning. In some cases you have acknowledged your error; in others it remains unclear to what extent your position has changed.
That said, you are not someone who studies the Shroud merely out of personal interest; you do so with the intention of contributing to the ongoing public debate. It seems entirely normal to me that, in a specialist field, discussions should be conducted by and among specialists. If, within Sindonology, there is no qualified Greek philologist capable of carrying out the type of review that you are attempting, that fact is itself significant, in my view.
Let me give you another example, Teddi. Can you name two or three professional historians anywhere in the world who today—today, I repeat—support the thesis that the Mandylion and the Shroud were one and the same?
At the last two International Shroud Conferences, in 2017 and 2025, that thesis was indeed defended. But the problem arises precisely here: can you name a single professional historian who, at either of those two world conferences, was invited to defend that thesis?
Finally, let us turn to the exact sciences, Teddi. For a claim to be scientific it is not sufficient that it be supported by a number of credentialed individuals. We know that a vaccine works not because a group of physicians who are enthusiastic about vaccines say that they work. But those who believe that the authenticity of the Shroud has been scientifically proven do exactly this: they rely on a group of scientists who have become deeply interested in the subject (whether there are 1, 10, or 100 of them makes no difference).
There is no academic debate; there is a debate among enthusiasts, sometimes qualified and sometimes less so, on both sides. Why the academic debate does not exist is irrelevant. The fact remains that it does not exist. And if there is no academic debate, there can be no valid conclusions.
This is acknowledged even by an outspoken supporter of the Shroud, namely the most famous advocate of the radiation theory, physicist Paolo Di Lazzaro, co-deputy director of CISS, who wrote in 2021:
“Taking into consideration the whole of the results of scientific analyses, at the moment, the scholars have more questions than answers on the origin of the Shroud of Turin. We have to admit that we still have no sufficient data to determine whether this is an authentic relic or if it is a fake, and to be content with probabilities.”
https://www.calameo.com/read/0003143267529da34612a (p. 75)
As I have written elsewhere, if we admit the possibility of a non-miraculous origin, then such an origin is, by definition, more probable than a miraculous one.
Therefore, everyone is perfectly free to hold whatever opinion they wish. What no one can legitimately claim is that there is proof.
All the best,
Marco
Hi, Marco,
No, in some situations you were just telling me that I was, basically, incorrect—without providing any evidence for this. You “appealed to authority” when you told me that my translations “aim to ‘read’ into Gregory’s text implicit references to the Shroud that no translator has ever seen so far, not even supporters of its authenticity.” First of all, seriously, how many people have bothered to translate Gregory’s sermon (in full or in part?) A very, very small handful of people—and, most of which only are translating key parts—so, there would be Dubarle, Guscin, you, Nicolotti, Hugh and me (translating some portions)—I’m not aware of anybody else bothering to translate this sermon from the Greek into English. So, let’s keep things in context—especially when it appears that it’s three people who are authenticists and three people who are Shroud skeptics.
While many of the words used in Gregory’s sermon are not of the sort that I am accustomed to, there are still many of these words which I do understand. And, with the ones that I don’t, I have been using several sources to check on the variety of definitions that the words have. So, it’s not as if I’m just imagining translations.
Also, with regard to reading Latin (and I have never had a class in Latin), as I have gone through numerous Latin texts for other matters, I am able to understand far more than you might think due to my knowledge of Greek, English (since English has borrowed so many Latin words) and some Spanish.
I’m really not sure what these “seriously unfounded hypotheses” are of mine. We have discussed “form” as being a word that connotes more of a three dimensionality to it (rather than a two-dimensionality.) This is not unfounded, and I submit that it is quite a valid statement. When we disagreed about whether an “icon” is different from an “image,” the definition of “icon” is in favor of what I was saying to you—as it means “image” or “likeness”—and it does not necessarily have to include the substrate that the image or likeness is on (although I certainly agree that there are images on, for example, wood which we call “icons.” But, that’s taking the meaning of the word and adapting it—not using it in its purer form.
Obviously, it would be great if I had an expert that would, at the snap of my fingers, be ready to translate things for me. But, while some of the tenses and precise phrasing that I am coming up with might not be precisely and technically perfect, I think that my finding alternative, legitimate translations for key words is quite sound. Key issues that are of particular interest to me (and others) is whether the words used in Gregory’s sermon are referring only to an image of a face on the cloth or a full body image/s. That is, most definitely, something that a non-expert can still manage to do as it involves cross-referencing the Greek text with the English and seeing which words are used and seeing the translation—and then looking to see what other words are within the realm of acceptable translations. “Drops of blood” versus “clots of blood”—I’m correct on this—it’s “clots.” Checking to see in certain areas what word is used which is translated as “face” is, also, fair game—especially since the word “προσωπον” was NOT the word that was used in the Greek.
You ask why it is (supposedly) so difficult to find academically trained people to support authenticist theses and bring them into the places where scientific knowledge is properly tested. What are you talking about? Sindonology is full of academics and professionals whose expertise has been highly pertinent to the findings which support the proposition that the Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial cloth of Christ and that its body image is the result of resurrection energy. We’ve got chemists, physicists, forensic medical examiners, medical doctors, historians, theologians and people from so many areas that have been (and are) involved in Sindonological matters—so, it’s not as if Sindonology is based upon pseudo-scientific evidence and fantasies. It’s based on a lot of scientific testing and microscopic analysis as well as forensic and medical analysis and examining historical documents, as well. Just because amateurs get excited about Sindonology is no different from amateurs getting involved in theology or science or history or whatever. But, it is typically not the work of amateurs that creates the foundation and the structure for arguments in favor of the Shroud’s authenticity. And, just because some people do work concerning Shroud matters outside of their professional areas of expertise does not mean that their work is inferior. It is unwise to underestimate what a motivated researcher can learn when they get laser-focused on answering a question that they have. For example, experts in the field of medicine had been trying to tell me (and others) that rigor mortis could not last long enough in a body for the timing of when Jesus was resurrected. I found a giant study (as well as other papers) that showed that this was totally false (as is detailed in my rigor mortis paper–if you type “Theodora Pappas rigor mortis” you can find my paper and read the details if you want to.) Many times, experts become quite lazy and rely upon old knowledge that gets repeated for decades–and they do not deeply study an issue. Researchers like me can end up finding unexpected things just through putting in a lot of time and effort to get answers–that’s not a deficit in Sindonology, because the evidence should always speak for itself.
All the best,
Teddi
Hi, Teddi,
Appeal to authority is a fallacy, of course. But in fact, when you suggested specific passages from Gregory’s text and when I understood what you meant, we always discussed the substance. In one case I agreed with you, against the “canonical” translations, as you well know. In the other cases I did not, providing you with detailed explanations. So where is the appeal to authority fallacy?
It remains the case that Ancient/Bizantine Greek and Modern Greek are very different, and it is well known that a speaker of Greek can understand isolated words or expressions from Ancient/Bizantine Greek. It is almost as if an Italian, a French speaker, or a Spanish speaker believed they could understand Latin simply because it is the language from which their own derives.
In conclusion, it is not impossible that you may propose a new and legitimate interpretation (you have done so), but there is a disproportion between the number of well-founded hypotheses you put forward and the number of completely and seriously unfounded hypotheses, which touch on basic aspects of Ancient Greek, especially at the morphosyntactic level.
Naturally, it is legitimate for you to make these attempts, because the topic clearly interests you, but I think you would agree that it would be better if the revision work you are doing were done by someone with your same convictions but with expertise in the field, also because this would be the only way in which a study of this kind could be accepted, examined, and discussed in a truly academic context.
The question I ask myself is: how is it that in the field of Sindonology it is so often necessary to rely on the studies of enthusiasts, and why is it so difficult to find academically trained people who support authentistic theses and, even more so, bring them into the places where scientific knowledge (in all its forms) is properly tested?
Hi, Marco,
I totally disagree with you that I am trying to read into Gregory’s text implicit references to the Shroud. Instead, I am actually looking at the different, quite legitimate meanings of the Greek words used that I am finding in both online dictionaries as well as some of my own lexicons and with the use of A.I. You can’t just “hand-wave” away the translations that I am coming up with, because I think that they are quite legitimate. This is not a scholarly approach which you suggest which is that I should just confinene myself to what other scholars have done in the past. I can think, and I can research for myself–and that’s what we should all do–since I keep coming across how lots of what pretends to be scholarly discourse just repeats what others have, in the past, stated. This ends up creating a fake “consensus,” because most everybody is just copying what one or a few people have stated (thus, elevating what the original person stated and making it seem like their statement is more likely to be true–when, in fact, it is just intellectual laziness that causes others to just repeat as “fact” what others have claimed.
It is fallacious thinking as it is an appeal to authority–and, it’s not uncommon for the authorities to be either totally or partially incorrect about something. Additionally, it’s fallacious thinking to go with what the consensus is about something–as just because an idea is popular does not make it correct.
Let’s forget about the homilies, let’s focus more on what was in the Syrian manuscripts in the (presumably state) archives of Edessa. It describes a REFLECTED image on the cloth that is not made with “ordinary paint” and that the image has “extraordinary power.” Additionally, from the Edessan manuscripts there is the mention of this image containing not just a face but (implicitly) a full body as there is the mention that the most beautiful part of the image is ABOVE THE ARMPITS.
But, we cannot be certain if what was written in the Syrian manuscripts from the Edessan archive was based on legend, partial legend or an accurate reporting of history. I’ll grant you that. Nonetheless, what must be focused on is what Gregory, himself, spoke about in such great detail and with such great enthusiasm–and, it is what Gregory mentioned that matters the most–and that Gregory references the liquid blood that flowed from Jesus’ wound on His side and that it, then, clotted.
Gregory was mentioning the features that were relevant–he didn’t even realize that it was Jesus’ burial cloth. He was just reported what I am convinced he must have seen with his own eyes (for the reasons I previously explained.)
All the best,
Teddi
Teddi, a final general reflection. The translations you are proposing all aim to “read” into Gregory’s text implicit references to the Shroud that no translator has ever seen so far, not even supporters of its authenticity. Well, if your interpretations were correct, the contradiction in which Sindonologists find themselves when confronted with Gregory’s text would become even more striking (a contradiction clearly highlighted by Professor Nicolotti in his From the Mandylion of Edessa to the Shroud of Turin).
Did Gregory discover that the Mandylion had characteristics different from those previously assumed? If so, why is the homily not explicitly centered on this sensational discovery? Must we assume that Gregory was unable to speak about it, for some hypothetical reason? And then why, as you think, was he referring to the distinctive features of the Shroud?
All the best,
Marco
Hi Teddi,
We discussed a first passage of Gregory’s text, and you correctly acknowledged the errors —mostly morpho-syntactic ones and therefore not solvable with a dictionary. On the other hand, I told you that your interpretation of ἐν τῇ ὄψει σου is “legitimate” and “interesting”. Now I would add that, in my view, it is the more persuasive one.
We also discussed μορφή. At first you maintained your position, but in the end, thanks to Gregory of Nyssa, I seem to understand that you accepted the possibility that the term does not imply three-dimensionality. Up to that point, the discussion seems to me to have been fruitful.
However, in your more recent messages you do invoke the idiom πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον which is not present in the text. I must confess that I really struggle to understand why you are bringing up that idiomatic expression. In the Greek text, the structure of the sentence is very clear: “through the contact” [τῇ προσψαύσει] “with the face” (or, in theory, “the person”) [πρὸς πρόσωπον]…. There is no πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον. The fact that the preposition πρὸς is used with the accusative implies an idea of movement, which we do not perceive in Italian or English, but which is implicit in the noun προσψαῦσις: in Greek it often happens that the mental image (and therefore the syntactic structure) differs from that of our modern languages. The idea is that contact occurs as a result of a movement. That is why the syntactic rendering of Dubarle and Guscin, in this passage, is indisputable.
Regarding the issue of εἰδoποίηται, you offered general considerations which, as I said, I still do not understand and on which, therefore, I cannot say anything beyond what I have just said: I really do not understand what you mean, I am sorry, Teddi.
Cheers,
Marco
Hi, Marco,
Well, you really haven’t convinced me as you are just coming up with opinions and conclusions. I don’t pretend to know all of these ancient Greek words, but, between the three of us, I’m the one that has actually lived the language my entire life—along with having had years of once a week Greek classes (as a child) and two years of Greek in college. I’m not good with specifying tenses unless I fully understand the sentence, and that can be challenging for me with ancient Greek—where I don’t recognize all of the words. But, there are, nonetheless, still many words that I do recognize—and I notice if they are left out of the translation and deserve to be included (like the word “holy” when describing the imprint—I think this was just an inadvertent oversight by Guscin.)
With words I both do and do not understand, I have been looking at the variety of meanings that one word can have—and this absolutely must be done. Look in any dictionary—one word does not just have one meaning. Additionally, idioms must be accounted for as well as the surrounding words. So, I think that I have explained and justified where I have veered from Guscin’s translation.
And, I agree—overall, Guscin has done a great job with this translation, and I have great respect for him and that he translated this sermon, and I am very cordially acquainted with him. His and Dubarle’s (and my) being an authenticist (and your being a skeptic concerning the Shroud’s authenticity as well as other miracles) is only relevant to the extent that people should be aware of our preexisting biases. But, as we all should know, biased people can, nonetheless, proclaim the Truth about something—particularly when the have intellectual honesty and ESPECIALLY when they want to be correct and they are confident that what they proffer as evidence or as a statement will be subjected to intense scrutiny by those with opposing views.
So, I’m examining other choices for the translations of very key portions of the text which have lead many to argue that the only image contained on the Image of Edessa is a face—and that is not justified by an analysis of those key portions of the text which pertain to such matters. There are other interpretations, and I think that these which I have offered are valid—if not better. If I am incorrect, please show me, precisely, where I am.
Best regards,
Teddi
Teddi, the translations by Guscin and Dubarle (both of whom believe in the authenticity of the Shroud, as you know) are of good quality, apart from the mistake Dubarle made regarding ἀφ’ οὗ. Trust me: it is not possible to translate a language one does not know by relying on a dictionary and applying to that language the structures and patterns of another (English).
In particular, for the passages you are currently referring to, your hypotheses are not supported by the Greek language (what you write about the use of πρὸς), or they continue to be unintelligible to me (what you write regarding εἰδoποίηται). In fact, both τῇ … πρὸς πρόσωπον προσψαύει and εἰδoποίηται εἰς μορφὴν αὐτοῦ are simple and transparent expressions, correctly translated by Dubarle and Guscin. But don’t worry: I know I haven’t convinced you. So be it.
Regards,
Marco
Oops–after I signed off my with my name (at the end of my last comment), I noticed that I did not notice Marco’s remarks afterwards which are as follows: “In any case, I think it has been sufficiently clarified and demonstrated that the noun μορφή in Greek denotes any kind of image, without any necessary implications regarding three-dimensionality or physical dimensions.”
Hi, Marco,
The “προσ” means “towards”–so, it’s not just the mention of the literal word for “face” (προσωπον.) As such, let’s think in terms of what the idiom “προσωπον προσ προσωπον” means–it’s an idiom that Americans know quite well as it means “face-to-face.” While a “face-to-face” meeting does involve two or more faces seeing each other, I think that we can agree that it, also, tends to mean something broader–it is an in-person meeting (and, I’ll specify that this explanation goes more towards before the time that we had virtual meetings with Zoom, etc.) It used to be that a “face-to-face” meeting involved the physical, bodily presence of two or more people occupying a reasonably confined space. As such, this opens up the possibility of the entire body being at issue–not just the face–and that Jesus’ body was facing the cloth whereby Jesus’ bodily form was imprinted onto the cloth.
With regard to the word “form” being used in two ways, I agree with you that “μορφη” can mean “image,” but it can also mean “form”–which is more three-dimensional (whereas an image is two-dimensional.) The word “form” (with its three-dimensional aspect) is quite interesting in that on the Shroud of Turin we have frontal and dorsal body images which somewhat give a more three-dimensional effect (and, of course, quite interestingly, we have the cloth-to-body distance issue (a type of 3-D encoding) from the VP-8 Image Analyzer.) But, additionally, the key word that is used in Greek in Gregory’s sermon is “ειδοποιηται” which I see a definition for this as being “conformed to a specific form”–and, in this respect, the word “form” does not really mean the literal form of a physical body (as the word “form” can sometime indicate.
And, yes, I reiterate that I think that “μορφη” can be a two-dimensional image, but I think that it can, also, mean a three-dimensional image AND that it can mean a person’s full body (as opposed to just a face.) If it is to just be the face, then there would need to be, I think, the specification that it is the “form of the face.”
Best regards,
Teddi
In any case, I think it has been sufficiently clarified and demonstrated that the noun μορφή in Greek denotes any kind of image, without any necessary implications regarding three-dimensionality or physical dimensions.
Sorry Teddi, but I am really having difficulty understanding the arguments you are currently putting forward. I don’t understand why the presence of the preposition πρός should lead to the translation “person” rather than “face,” nor what you mean when you write, “here, form [μορφή] is used in a different way than when it is used when deriving the meaning of ειδοποιηται.” Could you please clarify your thinking for me?
In any case, I think it has been sufficiently clarified and demonstrated that the noun μορφή in Greek denotes any kind of image, without any necessary implications regarding three-dimensionality or physical dimensions.
Hi, again,
While I think I somewhat touched on this in an earlier comment, I want to refer, again, to this phrase and an additional one that I don’t recall having previously mentioned.
I’m referring to section 10 of Dubarle and section 9 (1st paragraph) of Guscin’s translation.
Guscin writes: “But tell me how the image [“μορφη”] on the linen that cured me was made, since I can see it was not produced with ordinary paint, and explain its special strength, since when I saw it unfolded on your FACE [NOTE: there is no literal word for “face” here, instead, what is written in Greek is “εν τη οψει σου”], I was cured of my illness[.]” [Emphasis added.]
My translation is as follows: “But tell me how the holy form imprinted onto the linen was made, for I do not see it as having come into being with ordinary paint, and what about its extraordinary power, because as soon as I saw it unfolded/spread out in your presence [Guscin translates “εν τη οψει” as “face”], I was cured from my illness[.]”
This is yet another area where a translation of “face” is unduly restrictive and where the broader understanding of “in your presence” is a viable (and, I think, preferable) translation.
Best regards,
Teddi
Hi, Marco and Everybody,
Among the people who discount the argument that the Image of Edessa is the same cloth as the Shroud of Turin, it seems like the most important reason that has been given is that it is thought that Gregory and the Syrian manuscripts from Edessa’s archives that Gregory mentions in his sermon only refer to a face on the cloth in question.
My translation of a key sentence in Gregory aforementioned sermon diverges in an important way with Mark Guscin’s translation of this key sentence. Said sentence is found in Greek in section 3 of Dubarle’s text and, also, section 3 in Guscin’s text.
Guscin translates the Greek into English as such: “By the simple touching to the face of Christ, an image of his form was made[.]”
My translation of this same text is: “That by the simple contact with Christ’s person, it conformed into a specific form into His image/form (μορφη[.])”
An important Greek phrase involved in this sentence is: “προσ προσωπον.” Guscin defines this just as “the face.” However, I think that this disregards an important word that is mentioned in Greek: “προσ”–which means “towards.” “Προσ προσωπον” literally means “towards the face” but I submit that what this phrase really is trying to communicate is “Christ’s [physical] person.” The evidence for this is because the sentence goes on to specify that this contact resulted into a specific form into His image/form (here, “form”[μορφη”] is used in a different way than when it is used when deriving the meaning of “ειδοποιηται.”
My translation, therefore, does not restrict the contact with just Jesus’ face. I’m going to continue to examine other areas of the text, so this is a work in progress, but I’m just reporting this development.
Also, I’m going to retract my earlier agreement with Mario that “icon” is different from “image” or “form.” I keep finding translation of the word which have “icon” merely as an image–where it doesn’t need to include the foundation onto which the image appears.
Best regards,
Teddi
Hi, Everybody,
This issue with a supposed “halo” (or “halo effect”) is quite interesting and lends additional evidence to the Image of Edessa’s being one and the same as the Shroud of Turin. https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/soonspantxt.pdf. I had not come across this evidence before and just now read Peter Soons’ paper on it. It’s quite interesting and it would seem to fit the idea of how the Image of Edessa was stored in a reliquary with just Jesus’ face showing.
Best regards,
Teddi
I would add that, in all likelihood, in my view, the references to the “unusual colors” and to luminosity in Gregory’s oration are connected: the colors are unusual precisely because they impart an intense and supernatural radiance to the image. Why do I suggest this? I remembered having read an article by Herbert L. Kessler entitled *Christ’s Dazzling Dark Face*, published in a volume that appeared in Italy in 2007 (I have not checked whether it is also available online). There I read, with reference to the Lateran Acheropita, that around 1145 Nicholaus Maniacutius wrote that the legendary painter St. Luke “was able to render only the preliminary sketch’s form, which had to be enfleshed in full color by divine agency, which then caused the image to radiate.” This would seem to be one of the many legendary *loci communes* associated with such images. It is certainly a line of inquiry worth pursuing further.
Hi, Teddi,
I’m not sure whether the English terms “form” or “shape” can refer to visually two-dimensional images, but I can tell you that, for example, in Italian “forma” (which is the closest equivalent to the English “form” and “shape”) can be used both in reference to what has three-dimensional characteristics and to what has two-dimensional characteristics. In any case, Gregory was not speaking either Italian or English: he was speaking Greek. The question we must therefore ask is: did the word μορφή necessarily designate three-dimensional images or images perceived as such? The answer is: no, absolutely. Teddi, it is impossible to carry out a philological reading of a text merely using translations. The word μορφή in Greek did not necessarily imply three-dimensionality.
Another Gregory, namely Gregory of Nyssa (4th century AD), wrote (you can find the text at the end of this page: https://www.degruyterbrill.com/unauthorizedDownload/10.1515/9783111481944-022?action=Downloading+PDF&countDenial=true&download=true):
καὶ ὥσπερ ὁ ἐπὶ τοῦ πίνακος ἰδὼν τὴν γραφὴν δι’ ἀκριβείας πρός τι τῶν ἀρχετύπων μεμορφωμένην, μίαν ἀμφοτέρων εἶναι τὴν μορφὴν ἀποφαίνει…
The sentence means: “And just as one who, seeing on a painting the image formed with precision according to one of the archetypes, declares that the μορφὴν of both is one and the same…”
Gregory of Nyssa is saying that when a painter has made a painting, the model depicted and the painting (obviously two-dimensional) share the same μορφή.
As for the rest, I do not doubt that Gregory Referendarius intended to present the Mandylion as a truly acheiropoietic image, just as I know that Becerra Tanco and Miguel Cabrera, adhering to the traditional account, did the same with the tilma of Guadalupe. From a scientific point of view, the question is different: what do the judgments of Gregory Referendarius, Becerra Tanco, and Miguel Cabrera actually prove regarding the miraculous nature of the images they observed (Mandylyon and tilma)? Obviously, nothing (by the way, It is interesting to note, incidentally, that both in the case of the tilma and of the Mandylion, the narrative that later became traditional—namely that they are acheiropoietic—is a late one).
I have never said, Teddi, that all divinities are associated with light (certainly not, for example, in the case of chthonic deities). What I said is that their manifestations are associated with light: that is, when a divinity manifests itself to humans, it is typically accompanied by light. Obviously, what interests us most is the Jewish-Christian and Greco-Latin cultural context, since they form the basis of the Western worldview. And the examples are abundant.If you wish, I can provide them.
For this reason, I feel I can say that both Gregory Referendarius and those who formulated the scientific hypothesis of Sindonology related to light drew from the same cultural imagination. Therefore, Gregory’s words cannot constitute an independent confirmation of modern sindonological hypotheses regarding light (I repeat that I am not entering into the discussion on the intrinsic validity, from a scientific point of view, of those hypotheses, because I am remaining within my field of expertise).
Cheers,
Marco
Hi, Marco,
I think that you make a valid point about the difference between an icon and an image (or form.)
You question the possibility of a reference to a “holy shape” or I would prefer to say a “holy form.” And, well, it’s really an image of a form. When we examine the body images on the Shroud, I think it’s a very reasonable characterization to say that this is an image of the holy form of Jesus. (Also, I consider shape and form to be rather synonymous.)
With regard to “μορφή,” when I keep looking up the English translation for this word, the primary translation is “form” and the secondary is “shape”—the other translations that you and Hugh stray from the more fundamental meaning of this word. https://outils.biblissima.fr/fr/eulexis-web/?lemma=μορφή&dict=LSJ
Regarding the specific reference to “συνήθεσι χρώμασι,” yes, I agree, that this is not Gregory’s precise words here (in section 9 of Guscin’s translation.) However, I disagree with your characterization that it is written in the “legendary letter of Abgar to Thaddeus.” We must remember that Gregory says that this is what was the Greek translation of the state manuscripts in Syriac that were in the Edessan archives. Nonetheless, Gregory, himself, later states in his sermon that the Image of Edessa “is not the art of painting” and that it is a “reflection” that was “imprinted from a living original.” Then, he goes on to state that this reflection was imprinted by the sweat from the face of the originator of life. This doesn’t mean, however, that there is only a face on the cloth—it just means that the sweat that created the image on the cloth was derived from Jesus’ face. This is, of course, merely Gregory’s hypothesis—and, of course, he’s wrong, but he was quite brilliant to think that the image was sans paint and just a discoloration of the cloth—like cellulosic yellowing (as Heller and Adler later confirmed through their chemical tests.)
You mention that in all eras and across all civilizations, divine manifestations are associated with light. I’d have to disagree with this as, for example, in ancient Egypt, the god Kek was associated with darkness—as was the Hindu goddess Kali (who represented the deification of darkness) and the Aztec god Tezcatlipoca was the god of the night—which would be associated with darkness.
It is important to remember that the Greek text mentions an “απαθγασμα”—specifically: “Και παραδοξως ευθυς, ωσπερ εκ του μη οντος ουσιωσε θεοτητος ισχυι το παν, ουτως ανετυπωσατο εν τη οθονη το απαυγασμα της μορφης αυτου.” (Guscin translates this as: “And best of all, honouring the top part of my body—for the most beautiful part is the face, not that which is below the armpits—I attribute the light shining out not to my own face but rather to the face of the one on the cloth.”) But, here, I disagree with Guscin’s choice of the word “face” at the end—as the word is “μορφη”—which is FORM.
And, here, we have the mention (from the Edessan state manuscripts) of above and below the armpits (of the image on the cloth.) “Εγώ δε τούτο εθεμην εν τη όψει μου και προ ρημάτων δεικνυσ ου επεζητεισ προσώπου είναι απαυγασμα, και ότι μάλλον αυτο σοι οπτανεται ηπερ εγώ, και ωσ μέγιστον υπερωω τω του σώματος μου τιμων–ου γαρ επι μασχάλης αλλ επι μετωπω τα κάλλιστα–και άμα μη τω εμώ, τω δε επικείμενω λογισασθαι το εκπεμπομενον φωσ.” (Section 13, Dubarle, Section 10, paragraph 2, Guscin.)
For “απαθγασμα” (see section 11 of Dubarle’s work) primary translations that I have seen for this word from different sources give a translation as either “reflection” or “radiance” and another translation was “effulgence” (a radiant splendor or brilliance or light taken to an extreme degree—stemming from the Latin “effulgere” which is to shine brightly or be a flash of light.) https://outils.biblissima.fr/fr/eulexis-web/?lemma=απαύγασμα%20&dict=LSJ
You mention that there is no pre-existing scientific paradigm according to which a resurrected being should emit light. My response is that the other resurrections that have occurred in both the Old and New Testament were not creating “glorified bodies”—much less the glorified body of God Incarnate. I mean, c’mon, there’s got to be something distinctly special when God Incarnate is brought back from the dead—so as to separate His resurrection from the unglorified resurrection of mere men and women. There might be something to the idea that it is only that a resurrection into a glorified state would display a flash of light/energy that could dehydrate and oxidize linen so as to create (on an accelerated basis) cellulosic yellowing. God has His ways of putting a special flourish on things when He wants to.😉
All the best,
Teddi
Ok, Hugh!
Hi Marco,
Everytime you alter your commenter ‘identity’ my good friends at WordPress think you’re a new person and hold your post for approval. I guess you didn’t see your earlier comment (because I hadn’t either) and had another go, so I’ve deleted the duplicate. Stick to ‘Marco,’ or even ‘Marco Corvaglia,’ but not ‘marcocorvaglia.’
Best wishes,
Hugh
Hi, Teddi,
The difference between εἰκών and μορφή is that the former term refers to the object as a whole (both the material support and the represented image), while the latter refers to what is represented: its likeness.
Also its “shape”?
In theory yes, but in our case that would be an improper translation for several reasons.
We must not forget that the noun μορφή is accompanied by the adjective ἁγία (“holy”). Well, “holy image” is a perfectly normal concept; “holy shape” is not, and I think we all intuitively recognize that. The reason why the expression sounds strange (in English, I believe, as in Italian) is precisely that “shape” emphasizes the geometric aspect of the figure. What is holy, however, is the subject represented, not its “geometricity”, which, if present, would be an accidental attribute.
The possible meanings of μορφή I listed at the end of my previous message were intended to show, as a whole, that the term does not necessarily have a geometric connotation. “The outward appearance” : this is the most essential meaning of the term, as consistently given by all dictionaries (Bonazzi: “aspetto”; La Magna-Annaratone: “l’aspetto esteriore”, Rocci: “l’esteriore”, Montanari: “aspetto”).It could denote either facial or bodily appearance, but, in any case, simply refers to the subject as visually perceived.
Regarding the expression συνήθεσι χρώμασι, I am open to any translation, but (incidentally noting that Gregory is not describing what he himself sees but what is written in the legendary letter of Abgar to Thaddeus) the deeper meaning does not change: the image does not appear to have been made by human hands. However, it is perfectly obvious that, within the tradition, an image presented as acheiropoietos (such as the Mandylion of Edessa) is described as not appearing to have been made by human hands.
This also applies to the alleged acheiropoietic images that can still be seen today. In the seventeenth century, Becerra Tanco said the same thing about the tilma of Guadalupe, and in the eighteenth century the painter Miguel Cabrera said the same as well. Yet the image on the tilma is an aesthetically unremarkable representation
Everything that is obvious does not provide significant information, Teddi.
In my view, something similar applies to the references to light in Gregory’s text. In all eras and across all civilizations, divine manifestations are associated with light. Even the scientific hypothesis circulating in the field of Sindonology is indebted to this kind of conception.
Given that there was no pre-existing scientific paradigm according to which a resurrected being should emit light, what gave rise to the hypothesis that was later tested at Frascati (with controversial results that are irrelevant to the present discussion and fall outside my area of expertise)?
It arose from an atavic anthropological pattern according to which manifestations of the divine are accompanied by light.
This is why I do not believe that the references to light found in Gregory’s text can be regarded as providing useful information, Teddi.
All the best
Marco
Hi, Hugh,
We are in agreement that Gregory is making a clear distinction between the flow from Christ’s side and the sweat forming the Image—“blood and water there, sweat and form here.” This informs us that Gregory is telling everyone that the image formation process for the form of Christ depicted on the Image of Edessa was a distinct process from the transfers of the blood clots onto the cloth. This, of course, is a firm nod to “blood first, image second”–two distinct processes.
We should all be in awe of the brilliance of Gregory’s innate understanding of what he, undoubtedly, must have seen on the Image of Edessa the day before he gave his rousing sermon. Although, (at least to my knowledge) we do not have any explicit indication that Gregory was present when (per “The Narratio” as authored by future emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus) Emperor Romanos I Lekapenos, his two sons and the future emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus had a viewing of the Image of Edessa on the same day as its arrival in Constantinople on August 15, 944, we have an exceedingly strong indication that Gregory did, indeed, get to personally view the Image of Edessa up-close the day before he gave his great sermon in Hagia Sophia. Why? From the highly attuned details and observations and hypotheses that Gregory proclaims in his sermon which are highly indicative of and consistent with someone who had actually seen what he was describing.
Additionally, I will add that even with only Gregory’s written word, his “breathlessness,” exhilaration and awe with what is on the Image of Edessa is practically palpable—it is all but a certainty that he must have seen it. His comment in his sermon that the image was unlike any type of artistically created image that he had ever seen and not from some sort of colored artistic material is quite telling in light of STURP’s findings regarding the body images on the Shroud of Turin.
Additional evidence that he, himself, must have seen the Image of Edessa up-close is that he said that “[i]t is therefore enough to worship what it is[.]” This is an exceedingly bold statement—since, if he is wrong, he would have been encouraging people to wrongfully giving adoration to something which, at best, would only have been worthy of veneration (if it were only an image or even an acheiropoeita.) But, the Blood of Christ—being from Jesus’ body—is, of course, worthy of adoration, and it is the blood on the Image of Edessa that enables the Blood of Christ on it to be deserving of adoration. I think that the odds are extremely high that Gregory would not have made this proclamation unless he had personally seen the Image of Edessa and noticed the many qualities about its image which point to its being a (cellulosic) yellowing of the linen cloth which was quite strange.
As a side-note, given all that was done to recover the Image of Edessa from the Muslims (having the Roman Empire’s military besiege Edessa (with the threat of invading it if the Image of Edessa was not given to the Byzantines), releasing 200 Muslim prisoners and paying 12,000 pieces of silver), this demonstrates a high degree of confidence that the Byzantines knew exactly the importance of what the Muslims had and they wanted to retrieve it.
Furthermore, Archdeacon Gregory’s position as Referendarius instructs us that he would have been in close contact with the emperor and the emperor’s people as this position is that of a very important liason between the Church and the emperor. It would have only been natural for Romanos to have invited Gregory to, also, view the Image of Edessa with them. That Constantine did not specifically mention Gregory’s presence certainly does not preclude it. (For example, I could write that person “X” was at a party that I went to; however, that does not mean that other people were not, also, at that party.)
Regarding the issue of the clots, you say that it is “completely fair” for me to insist that the definition of “θρόμβοι” is “clots.” Well, I think it’s more than just “completely fair”—that word means clots, not drops, and that distinction is quite important as clots of blood—and not mere drops of blood—are that which yield serum halos on things like cloth that are in contact with the clots. We know that serum halos around the major bloodstains on the Shroud of Turin are visible with the naked eye—are we to think that the Byzantines could not have noticed that which so many others have? No, I don’t think so.
Also, I don’t see where Gregory is “quoting” Luke 22:44. There is, however, the shared aspect of the mention of clots of blood and sweat. Also, you claim that my supposing that Gregory was “somehow aware not only of the blood on the Shroud, but also that it had got there by some kind of clot transfer, lacks justification.” Yet, Gregory mentions clots on the Image of Edessa. Since linen doesn’t just magically sprout blood clots on itself, it stands to reason that the blood clots were transferred onto the cloth.
And, you mention that “we can’t know exactly what Gregory saw on the Image of Edessa, if anything, but I think we can say that the rivulets of blood all over the Shroud, however they got there, actually look like liquid flows, and don’t look like clots at all.”
While we can’t know “exactly” what anyone fully sees when they describe something, Gregory goes on and on about what was on the Image of Edessa (which, undoubtedly, he saw—based on the intimate way that he describes the image and blood on it.)
Moreover, with regard to the Shroud of Turin, how are you arriving at the conclusion that the blood looks like liquid flows and not clots? The major bloodstains have serum halos present that are visible with the naked eye—as people like Barbet and others had noticed with even their naked eyes in daylight. Moreover, Barbet and others noticed that that practically all of the bloodstains look like clots of blood—not blood that has been painted, dropped, dribbled or smeared onto the Shroud. The big exception is in the foot area—that’s a flow. Additionally, evidence of clots that were transferred onto the cloth (as opposed to blood that was painted, dropped, dribbled or smeared) is that while there is, indeed, capillarity with the bloodstains, the capillarity is not to as high of a degree as it would have been if the blood had been fully liquified upon contact with the cloth. The reduced (yet still evident) capillarity with the bloodstains (and in sharp contrast with the body images on the Shroud) indicate that the blood was not fully liquified when it made contact with the cloth but was, instead, in a partially dry state which still had a sufficient degree of moisture to it so that the blood clot could transfer to the cloth along with its corresponding serum halo.
Additionally, while I agree with you that Gregory never mentions that the Image of Edessa is a funerary cloth, it’s because it did not dawn on him that it was. Quite obvious from his words (and rather logically of him) he recognized that the coloration of the body images was the yellowed color of a good ol’ fashioned sweat stain—so, he kept thinking that sweat was what yellowed the linen to create the FORM on the cloth. But, sure, the mention of sweat and blood clots is an ALLUSION to Jesus’ Agony in Gethsemane, but this is not Gregory “quoting” from Luke 22:44 (as you claimed.)
When you mention that you think that I am missing a semantic point when I mention the word “form” rather than face, I don’t think so at all as Gregory’s sermon will go from referring to the “face” and then to the “form.” Two different words are used.
Additionally, we have this from Gregory’s sermon:
“Regarding what was on the Image of Edessa, Gregory states that “[t]his is not the art of painting . . . [t]his reflection was imprinted from a living original. This reflection, however – let everyone be inspired with the explanation – has been imprinted only by the sweat from the face of the originator of life, falling like drops [clots] of blood, and by the finger of God. For these are the beauties that have made up the true imprint of Christ, since after the drops [clots] fell, it was embellished by drops [clots] from his own side. Both are highly instructive – blood and water there, here sweat and image. [T]he origin of the image made by sweat is in fact of the same nature as the origin of that which makes the liquid flow from the side.”
Gregory is making it known that the origin of the sweat and the blood on the cloth is Jesus—God Incarnate. It is so interesting that Gregory mentions that it is a “reflection” that was “imprinted from a living original.” Reflections involve light—light is energy (which can cause the accelerated cellulosic yellowing of linen)for cellulosic—and a brilliant light characterized the Transfiguration of Christ. I think it’s fair to say that Jesus was, once again, “transfigured” when He was resurrected as He did not come to life again in the same way that Lazarus and others who had been resurrected had. Instead, Jesus’ resurrection brought back to earth Jesus’ body in what is described as a “glorified state.”
And, yes, while Gregory mentions sweat from Jesus’ face falling like clots of blood (and that this sweat—as if by the finger of God—created the body images, Gregory then shifts to a different type of clots—those of blood—which he specifies is on the imprint of Jesus and that the blood on the cloth derives from the blood from Jesus’ side-wound. So, Gregory is hypothesizing a miraculous situation whereby sweat from Jesus’ face creates the body images on the cloth and blood from Jesus’ side-wound creates the blood clots on the cloth.
Gregory mentions that, ‘[b]y the simple touching to the face of Christ, an image of his form was made, so that people would not think in a dangerous or perilous way that it [the once-physical form of God Incarnate] never actually existed and has been invented. There’s no reason for Gregory to shift from the use of “face” to “form” unless that has a different meaning.
Additionally, it seems like you might be thinking that “form” is supposed to indicate the imprinting of the face onto the cloth. But, if that were the case, Gregory would have likely just said as much. A “form” typically indicates an entire body—not just the face. For example, someone might say of a person in great physical shape that the person “has a nice form”—indicating the shape of their body. In other situations (if the person were just referring to someone’s face) they might say that someone has a nice face.
Your mention of the cloth touching the “living personality of Jesus” but only the “form” was transferred to the cloth does not make sense to me. The “living personality” of someone is intangible. The creation of a form from a living body (which Gregory specifies) is something far different from a “living personality.” The Greeks have a perfectly good word for “character”—it’s “χαρακτηρας,” and “personality” is “προσωπικοτητα.”
Anyhow, these are some additional thoughts on the matter, although there really are so many other important details in the text that are worthy of bringing up. But, I don’t have the time to get into all of them. But, perhaps some additional comments later on.
Best regards,
Teddi
Hi, again, Marco,
I was just looking, again, at your assessment regarding “μορφη.” You mention it can mean “beauty” and “grace,” however, this seems to me to be more the word (which obviously stems from “μορφη” but is “ομορφια.” But, again, with the word “ομορφια,” this seems to harken back to a beautiful form or a beautiful nature/character. Since a nature and a character cannot be imprinted onto a cloth, the fallback position would seem to be “form.”
All the best,
Teddi
Hi, Marco,
Thank you so much for taking the time to do that blow-by-blow translation–I really appreciate that very much! I’m curious why you think that “μορφη” must be “image” and not “form” or “shape?” Strong’s gives “shape” as the first definition (that’s rather synonymous with “form.” It is only the secondary definition which mentions “nature” with the use of figurative language. For “image” I would think that the word “εικων” would be used.
Also, regarding the word “χρώμασι,” as I was researching this word (to double-check Mark Guscin’s choice of translating this word as “paint”–in that the image/form was not produced with “ordinary paint”) I confirmed that his choice of translating this word as “paint” is quite valid. As, of course, you are aware (and, of course, you did specify that what you just gave me was a LITERAL translation–which I always prefer to have that, at least, as a starting point), getting to the true translation of sentences needs to be open to how words and phrases were used. I read that when authors such as Plato and Aristotle were using the word “χρωμασι” this was specifically referring to an artist’s physical materials such as pigment/paint–and not just referring to the color of something. I think that this is a very telling choice of words by Gregory in that even he was able to observe that the imprint/image that he was seeing on the linen cloth was not made from pigment/paint. That’s really a STUNNING observation by him. And, again, Gregory speaks to what we now know that the body images are–cellulosic yellowing of the linen. It’s just that Gregory was thinking that it must be from sweat (as, undoubtedly, he was aware that sweat could cause yellowing of cloth.) But, what is, also, quite interesting is that Gregory refers, repeatedly, to the image’s being a REFLECTION–and, we need LIGHT to create a reflection. So, my goodness, Gregory was mentioning so many thing (which I think are indicative of his having seen the Image of Edessa up-close the day before)–it’s just that he doesn’t put it together as the image’s having occurred as a result of (what I believe) was Resurrection Energy (what accelerated the aging process to induce the cellulosic yellowing.)
I think that this dialogue has been long-needed, so thank you so much for participating in this discussion!
All the best,
Teddi
…I saw [εἶδον]…
I’m sorry, Teddi, but your translation, apart from the interesting interpretation of ἐν τῇ ὄψει σου as “in your presence” or “before your eyes” (perhaps deriving from your knowledge of Modern Greek?), is seriously incorrect overall.
Literally, it would be as follows:
“Tell me [δίδαξον] this [ἐκεῖνο]: how [πῶς] was imprinted [ἐνετυπώθη] upon the linen cloth [ἐν τῇ ὀθόνῃ] the holy image [ἡ… ἅγια… μορφή] that has healed [ἀναστήσασα] me [με], for [γάρ] I see [ὁρῶ] (that) it [αὐτήν] was not [οὐ] made [γεγονυῖαν] with the usual colors [συνήθεσι χρώμασι]; and [καί] (tell me) what [τίς] its extraordinary power [ἡ ταύτης ἰσχὺς ὑπερβάλλουσα] (is), because [ὅτι], as soon as [ἅμα] I saw it [αὐτήν] unfolded [ἡπλωμένην]…”
And no, there is no “if” here, Teddi.
I would also be very cautious about taking it for granted that μορφή has a three-dimensional connotation. It is true that the most common translations in English and Italian (“form”) may encourage such an interpretation, but in Greek this does not always seem to me to be the case. Among the meanings proposed by the major dictionaries are also “outward appearance”, “figure”, “stature”, “beauty”, “grace”, “appearance”, and I would not feel comfortable saying that all of these meanings emphasize three-dimensionality.
Part 2 (of my questions to Marco–or anyone else) this evening:
I put in my translation: IF I saw it unfolded in your presence. Is that right–is that “IF?” And, if that is the situation, it would seem that it all could have still, in actuality, have happened, but that as he is discussing this, he is phrasing things in a more neutral/hypothetical way?
Hi, Marco,
WONDERFUL explanations! Thank you so much! If I could please get your help in fine-tuning the following, this would be really helpful. So, I have been cross-referencing Gregory’s words in Greek, Mark Guscin’s translation and my combing through these and going on a “fishing expedition” to see what I might catch. And, well, I think that I’ve caught something–some text that Mark omitted (inadvertently, I’m confident.) Nonetheless. I think it’s important text to include. But, also, if you could please examine my translation against the Greek and Guscin’s translation as I would be extremely interested in what adjustments you’d make to the text.
While I am a Greek-American who grew up in a home where both English and Greek were spoken, I can often understand a good amount of Koine Greek and then just look up words that I might not know. Yet, in this particular text (which I think is ancient Greek)–especially the one that I’ve pulled here for translation–there are MANY words which are foreign to me–so I am having a much more difficult time in understanding what is being said–although I still understand some. I’m sure my tenses and such things are likely wrong–so, this is why I could use help from someone skilled in this area with ancient Greek. The texts are, as follow:
Gregory’s words: “[Ε]κεινο δε διδαξον, πως η εν τη οθονη αναστησασα με αγια εωετυπωθη μορφη, ου γαρ ορω αυτην γεγονυιαν συνηθεσι χρωμασι, και τις η ταυτης ισχυς υπερβαλλουσα, ότι αμα ειδον ηπλωμενην αυτην εν τη οψει σου απηλλαγην της νοσου μου και της κλινης ανεστην, . . .”
Guscin’s translation: “But tell me how the image on the linen that cured me was made, since I can see it was not produced with ordinary paint, and explain its special strength, since when I saw it unfolded on your face I was cured of my illness and got up from my bed[.]”
Teddi’s VERY ROUGH translation with very questionable tenses: This has not been taught to me, how is the one on the linen cloth that cured me with the holy imprint of his form [this is missing from Guscin’s translation], for I do not see how this happened as a typical paint and what is its exceeding power, that if I saw it unfolded in your presence I was freed/cured from my illness and I rose from my bed.
ALSO, I think that it is especially interesting that Gregory will, in certain parts of the sermon, use the word “face” but then he’ll use the word “form.” One VERY INTERESTING thing that I noticed is that the word “form” implies more of a three dimensional image as opposed to a face–which is typically depicted (in a painting/imprint) as a frontal image. This, also, points to the Image of Edessa’s being the Shroud of Turin since there is both a frontal and dorsal image (which gives more of a 3-D impression of a “form”–and, also, I can’t help but wonder whether this “3-D” aspect is God-wink (or God-nod) to the 3-D type of encoding that was gleaned from the VP-8 image analyzer analysis of the Shroud’s frontal and dorsal body images. (I might be letting my imagination get carried away with that last comment, but, who knows–maybe not.
Any help that you can give me (and us all) with this would be extremely appreciated.
All the best,
Teddi
Hi, Teddi, I can confirm that ἀναστήσασα is another verbal form derived from ἀνίστημι, which certainly can also carry the meaning “to resurrect”.” However, the overlap in meanings that we are discussing is not significant from the perspective that interests you. One has to consider the way different languages express concepts. What in English (and in Italian as well) is an abstract concept such as “resurrection”, in Latin (resurrectio) or Greek (ἀνάστασις) was expressed through a very concrete metaphor. Strictly speaking, both ἀνάστασις and resurrectio simply mean “getting up” or “rising again.” To make the point clearer, it is as if a Latin or Greek speaker would express things this way (I am intentionally using literal English calques of the underlying Greek and Latin expressions): “Teddi had a fever, but now she has gotten up again” (where we would say, “she has recovered”); “Someone had died, but then got up again” (where we would say, “he or she was resurrected”). In other words, a Greek or Latin speaker could use the same underlying image of “getting up” or “rising” in situations where modern English would employ more specialized and abstract expressions such as “recover” or “be resurrected.”
Hi, Teddi,
I can confirm that ἀναστήσασα is another verbal form derived from ἀνίστημι, which certainly can also carry the meaning “to resurrect”.” However, the overlap in meanings that we are discussing is not significant from the perspective that interests you.
One has to consider the way different languages express concepts. What in English (and in Italian as well) is an abstract concept such as “resurrection”, in Latin (resurrectio) or Greek (ἀνάστασις) was expressed through a very concrete metaphor. Strictly speaking, both ἀνάστασις and resurrectio simply mean “getting up” or “rising again.”
To make the point clearer, it is as if a Latin or Greek speaker would express things this way (I am intentionally using literal English calques of the underlying Greek and Latin expressions): “Teddi had a fever, but now she has gotten up again” (where we would say, “she has recovered”); “Someone had died, but then got up again” (where we would say, “he or she was resurrected”).
In other words, a Greek or Latin speaker could use the same underlying image of “getting up” or “rising” in situations where modern English would employ more specialized and abstract expressions such as “recover” or “be resurrected.”
Hi, Marco,
Thanks so much for your comments. While from what I read, the word “αναστησασα” could still–if taken in a religious context–mean “resurrection.” Just curious–do you agree with that technical observation? Nonetheless, I’ve determined that (for a different reason) Abgar could not have been dead as the manuscript from the Edessan archives that was written in Syriac mentions what we were discussing before: that Abgar SAW the cloth unfolded/stretched either in his presence or on his face. Since, the last time I checked, dead men can’t see, Abgar couldn’t have been dead. So, I think my time in that rabbit hole has ended.
All the best,
Teddi
Hi Teddi,
the verbal form used by Gregory is ἀνέστην, derived from ἀνίστημι, and it constitutes the most obvious and natural way to say “to get up” or, more specifically, “to get out of bed” or “to recover from illness.” Therefore, nothing justifies the idea that could there be a reference to the Resurrection.
As for πρόσωπον, it can occasionally denotes a “person,” but refers more to the individual than to the physical body. If Gregory had wanted to emphasize that the cloth had touched Jesus’ entire body, he would have used σῶμα, not πρόσωπον.
Hello, Marco,
THANK YOU SO MUCH (!!!) for your important confirmation of this extremely important new translation of this key portion of Gregory’s sermon—as well as your prior confirmation of the “face” vs. “form” translation.
Additionally, I will mention something else that I learned when reviewing the glorious Greek text of Gregory’s sermon. Very curiously, he uses the word (I’m not at my desk right now with the copy of the sermon in front of me of my) but in line 6 of the Greek text I previously mention, the word used that Guscin gives a valid translation as “got up from my bed” is the word for RESURRECTION. (Going from memory, it was, I think, “anastasa.”) interesting word choice, yes??? Had Abgar died and been resurrected, or do we have the more literal use of the word which means to rise up? Guscin added (“from my bed”) which I did not notice (at least not from my memory) as being in the text. Thoughts?
All the best,
Teddi
Yes, Teddi, it seems to me to be a legitimate interpretation from a linguistic perspective
The key part of the Greek text in Dubarle’s Latin translation (with its accompanying Greek text) can be found on page 19, section (#10), lines 7-9. https://www.persee.fr/doc/rebyz_0766-5598_1997_num_55_1_1935
It’s definitely worth a look-see!
Cheers,
Teddi
Hi, Hugh and, especially, Marco,
In examining the Greek text from the Dubarle text, I think I’m coming up with a different translation that what Mark Guscin came up with in a very crucial point in the Abgar story. In Guscin’s English translation, this can be found in section (#9), lines 5-6. Guscin translates the text as “since when I saw it unfolded on your face, I was cured of my illness and got up from my bed . . .”
But, it appears to me that the “unfolded on your face” might, instead, be “unfolded” or “stretched out” in your presence. Thoughts?
Still examining the Greek text and some key words.
Cheers,
Teddi
Hi, Hugh,
Just a quick reply (the longer one is coming.) But, you mention that I’m trying to squeeze the Shroud into the sermon rather than deriving the Shroud from the sermon. I’d characterize what I am doing as this: I have heard the claim that the Image of Edessa is the Shroud of Turin, and I have heard the claim that it is not. So, I’m examining the text to figure out what is True.
Also, with regard to your saying that the “form” of Jesus’s face on the Image of Edessa is not cognate with the “form” of Adam made out clay, to this I ask: why does it need to be? If other evidence points to the “form” on the Image of Edessa being something other than just the face, then that’s that. I’ll get deeper into the weeds in another response as I comb through some of the Greek text.
Cheers,
Teddi
Hi, Hugh and Everybody,
Just to let y’all know, I didn’t have any time yesterday to finish up the response that I was writing the previous evening. And, just now getting a chance to get back to working on it–and, in typical fashion, it keeps expanding. But, I’m reviewing and comparing the primary texts with some translations, so just be aware that a response will be forthcoming–y’all haven’t heard the last yet from me on this subject.
Cheers,
Teddi
Hi Marco,
Thanks very much. My own Greek is not really good enough to extract the precise meaning from Gregory’s extremely dense and convoluted construction, but by working with it and the three translations mentioned (as well as the trusty Liddel & Scott), I think I get a reasonable grasp of it. Your advice is a very welcome contribution!
Best wishes,
Hugh
Hi Teddi,
That’s exactly what I mean by squeezing the Shroud into the Sermon rather than deriving the Shroud from it. What seems obvious to you does not seem obvious to anybody else, and I think derives from your clinging to the idea that the word “form” must refer to a full body image, which, as I have explained, it doesn’t. The “form” of Jesus’s face on the Image of Edessa is not cognate with the “form” of Adam made out of clay: in the Greek there is a comparison between the events, but no such parallel in their descriptions.
Best wishes,
Hugh
Hi, Hugh, and thank you. It is a pleasure for me to contribute to the discussion.
I would like to add a few observations concerning the noun πρόσωπον. You write: “The subtlety is that πρόσωπον means rather more than just ‘face,’ but includes meanings such as ‘person’ and ‘character.’”
This is correct, but it requires some qualification. The proper meaning of πρόσωπον is “face.” It can occasionally be used to refer to the person as a whole, but this is not strictly an alternative meaning; rather, it is a simple case of synecdoche. In other words, the term is used in contexts where a reference to the face naturally implies a reference to the entire person.
The situation envisaged by Sindonologists seems to me to be exactly the opposite. In the reconstruction proposed by Sindonologists, Gregory is said to have discovered that the the Image of Edessa, contrary to what had previously been believed, bore the image of the entire body, not merely the face. Well, for that very reason, it would be quite unreasonable to suppose that, by saying that the cloth had touched the face, he intended “the body” as an obvious extension of the meaning of the word “face.”
Hi, Hugh,
As I am in the process of responding to your latest comment, I was re-examining Gregory’s sermon, and I wanted to post this as a stand-alone comment (so that it doesn’t, perhaps, get overlooked amidst my more lengthy comment which is forthcoming.)
Here’s what Gregory said:
“Oh Lord, together with the countless good things you have given us, you have now brought us peace, taking heed that history and tradition are sisters in thought. “Yes” and “No” no longer have a place among us, there will be no more lengthy debate about whether the image is yours or not. All of us who belong to the One have come together as one, all with the same thoughts, all proclaiming the same faith. Who is like you, God, doing everything in wisdom from times of old? A second light, immaterial and unique, came devotedly from you, an unexpected and material intertwining, natures distantly embracing heaven and earth, one living being made of two opposites: your human image, food from the clouds, a river flowing from a dry rock, and what is genuinely new under the sun, you were born a man in these last times from a virgin mother. You wiped clean the sweat of the nature you had taken on and what was wiped clean was transformed into an image of your unchanging form, just like Adam’s form was drawn out of the ground, like the eyes of nature in the folds of the kneaded earth.”
So, we can see here that Gregory is discussing what he (obviously) believes to be the body image of Christ on the Image of Edessa. Now, let’s pay attention to Gregory’s mentioning a “second light” that is “immaterial and unique” that “came devotedly from Christ.” I think this is Resurrection Energy–Gregory just doesn’t seem to realize it, yet I think that he was divinely inspired to proclaim such a thing. He’s basically describing the effect of cellulosic yellowing from accelerated aging from an” immaterial” and “unique” second light that came devotedly from Christ. If that’s not Resurrection Energy, then I don’t know what is! Perhaps this light is “second” because the “first light” is that which gives life at BIRTH. (!!!) And, we know from Science that at conception, there is an actual spark of light! Gregory describes the “unexpected and material intertwining” of the natures distantly embracing heaven and earth (which I take to mean the heavenly Resurrection Energy and the earthly quality of a cloth with Jesus’ image on it. Then, Gregory mentions “natures distantly embracing heaven and earth, one living being made of two opposites: your human image, food from the clouds, a river flowing from a dry rock.” So, what does that mean? Well, I’m going to offer up an interpretation to Gregory’s very poetic language which, nonetheless, is seeking to impart a message. In short, I think he’s saying something that I mentioned in my speech at the 2025 St. Louis conference–that the Holy Shroud is the Eucharist in another form–in that it displays the image taken from the actual Body of Christ and it contains. I stated that the Holy Eucharist in the form of the Holy Shroud is consumed through our eyes and it’s digested in our hearts and minds.” Gregory is saying that Jesus’ human image on the Image of Edessa is “food from the clouds”–food as in the bread which becomes the Body of Christ which is one part of the Holy Eucharist. Then, Gregory goes on to mention a “river flowing from a dry rock.” This references not only the second part of the Holy Eucharist–the blood from Jesus’ body–but the blood and WATER that FLOWED (not spattered–in that the bloodstain on the side-wound is indicative of a flow of blood from a body with a non-beating heart–as opposed to a blood that splattered from a body with a beating heart) from the side-wound.
Gregory was filled with the Holy Spirit when he delivered that glorious sermon–of that I am incredibly confident.
Undoubtedly, you’ll respond, “Why didn’t the Holy Spirit clue Gregory in to the Image of Edessa’s being a burial cloth?” To that, I’d respond that God’s modus operandi is to give us enough of what we need in order to come to Him but to leave enough out so that those who prefer to have themselves as their own personal god or to have some other god feel more free to do so. As C.S. Lewis wrote about God in “The Screwtape Letters,” “He cannot ravish. He can only woo.” Leave it to me to want to correct and improve upon Lewis, but I’m gonna . . . 😆😆😆 God can do whatever He wants to do. But, God CHOOSES not to ravish and to only woo.
Cheers,
Teddi
Hi Teddi,
I’m afraid you’re redefining your own definition. Your whole point about the Res Ipsa Loquitur is that the Shroud needs no context. The d’Arcis memo “doesn’t matter,” the radiocarbon date “doesn’t matter,” even the Sermon of the Referendarius doesn’t matter, and you chose as your examples two artefacts, a video card by a roadside and a knife at the bottom of a river. Your point was that these objects spoke for themselves regardless of the circumstances of their finding. It is true that simultaneously with invoking Res Ipsa Loquitur you do also mention other evidence (such as the Sermon of Referendarius), but that only obfuscates your argument; it does not support it.
And no; the trial of O.J. Simpson has absolutely no relevance to the Shroud at all.
As for Gregory Referendarius, you are attempting to squeeze the Shroud into the Sermon, not deriving the Shroud from the Sermon. I have already explained the significance of the words “το άφ’ού” and “μορφήν” above, showing that there is no evidence that Gregory saw any blood on the Image of Edessa, and that there is no evidence that it was a full length image. You don’t seem to have noticed either of these, but perhaps that was due to the lateness of the night!
Best wishes,
Hugh
Oops . . . moments ago, I posted this long comment to the Res Ipsa Loquitur section. Anyhow, it, nonetheless, applies to both. But, here’s my comment:
Hi, Hugh,
I’m rather confident that you’ll not find me claiming anywhere that the SHROUD speaks for itself. With regard to the Shroud of Turin, I don’t ever refer to just one piece of evidence that gives us assurance beyond a reasonable doubt that this is the actual burial cloth of Christ with His supernaturally created image on it. Instead, with the Shroud, itself, I refer to the BODY OF EVIDENCE—as well as the CONTEXT that this body of evidence pertaining to the Shroud needs to be assessed.
Undoubtedly, you and Dan and other skeptics will, nonetheless, state that you all are not convinced. However, I think that this is akin to the jury nullification that came from the verdict of the infamous O.J. Simpson murder case in California that went on from late 1994 to 1995. The jury was unconvinced by a mountain of compelling evidence that the prosecution presented to demonstrate Simpson’s guilt, yet the jury returned a verdict of “not guilty.”
The reception of the body of evidence revolving around the Shroud’s authenticity has something strangely in common with the reception of the body of evidence that the California prosecutors presented in the Simpson case. In both of these situations, the body of evidence pertained to someone very famous, and this fame caused people to treat the evidence in a very different way than if the same evidence was presented with regard to someone who was not famous.
There is, however, a bit of a contrast that should be mentioned before I go back to what the two “cases” have in common. In Jesus’ case, people had (and continue to have) very polarized opinions about Him. In Simpson’s case, at that time, he was more than just a very highly acclaimed (albeit then retired) athlete. He had, also, appeared in at least one huge commercial (for Hertz) and had become a Hollywood celebrity—appearing in some films. He was, by all accounts, widely beloved by, overally, the general public in America and probably other parts of the world that were (American) football fans. Additionally, he was considered by many to be very handsome, very physically fit and very charismatic. These three characteristics (even among non-celebrities) are known to give people an advantage (a sort of “halo effect”) that their less attractive counterparts do not enjoy. If, for example, the evidence in Simpson’s trial had been brought against an unattractive person that nobody had ever heard of, would a jury have found the mountain of evidence that the prosecution had to be more than sufficient? Without a doubt, YES! Many defendants have been found guilty of 1st degree murder with far less pieces of incriminating evidence than what was presented in Simpson’s case. But, most (if not all) of the jurors and around half of the nation, were not assessing the evidence impartially.
Why? As aforementioned, there was Simpson’s status as a widely beloved celebrity that was, additionally, charismatic and good-looking. But, there was something else—and this is where things become polarized. There were underlying racial tensions which, additionally, factored into this case—particularly since the now deceased Simpson was African-American and his murdered ex-wife was white (their divorce was finalized in October 1992.) Eight of the 12 jurors in Simpson’s criminal trial were African-American females. There are many African-American females who have been, and are, quite vocal about African-American males dating or marrying white women. However, it seems that the anger about this tends to not be with who it should be—the African-American male—but it can tend to get misdirected to the white woman. It doesn’t really take a psychologist to figure out that there was, quite likely, jury nullification due to Simpson’s beloved status as a celebrity and his good looks and charisma, but, also, perhaps, a subconscious lack of sympathy for this white woman (and the white waiter who was, also, slaughtered. Additionally, Simpson’s trial was in Los Angeles—which had January 24-October 3, 1995 (the murders occurred, on June 12, 1994.) This was, also, amidst the backdrop of the infamous Rodney King riots (brought about from racial tensions between African-Americans and whites) that went on from April-May of 1992, also, in Los Angeles. (Also, it is quite the rarity for a single murder trial to go on for over 7 months. According to A.I., the average murder trial in the U.S. lasts from 1-4 weeks—and (from what I’ve seen), I agree with that assessment, and I’d add that most do not go on for as long as 3-4 weeks.
Anyhow, my whole point with the O.J. Simpson case and the “case” regarding the Shroud’s authenticity, is that there had been (and is) a mountain of evidence in both situations—which, under normal circumstances, would have been more than enough for people to arrive at the conclusion that Simpson was guilty and that the Shroud is authentic—if the person or object in question were concerning someone or something that did not pull on peoples’ biases to where they become blind to the body of evidence and the reasonable and rational conclusion that come from it when, especially, viewed in its proper context.
Well, (as usual), I digressed, but, I think, these were points that were worth taking the time to make. Again, to emphasize, I don’t recall ever pointing to just one piece of evidence for the Shroud of Turin’s authenticity. Instead, I habitually point to a BODY of evidence which does—and that this body of evidence is so strong that a full chain of custody/provenance is not needed because the body of evidence—and the context which envelops the Shroud evidence, makes an unbroken chain of custody/provenance not needed, because the BODY OF EVIDENCE regarding the Shroud’s authenticity speaks for itself.
Additionally, regarding Archdeacon Gregory Referendarius’ sermon, the numerous, pertinent details in this sermon (which I highlight in this recent podcast that I did with Dale Glover) demonstrate how, when looking at ALL of this evidence—with the piece de resistance being that Gregory said that it (the Image of Edessa) was worthy of WORSHIP (not just mere veneration.) For the details regarding Gregory’s sermons, one can find listen to them from the 1:02:00 mark at https://www.youtube.com/live/o0uFUUMn2fo?si=wZe57-CWxxaga6eg.
Hugh, you mention that in the first, the image is made only by drops of sweat from Jesus’s face (albeit similar to drops of blood), but in the second, the image has been embellished by actual drops of blood from Jesus’s side.
I don’t find these two sentences inconsistent at all. Why? Because—as we know from studying the Shroud evidence—that on the Shroud’s linen cloth there is the straw-yellow body image (which the best evidence points to its being cellulosic aging from—quite likely the accelerated aging derived from Resurrection Energy), and then there are the bloodstains which “embellish” the body image. The body of evidence for the Shroud indicate that the body image is (of course) a totally different process that occurred at a different time than the deposition of the bloodstains on the cloth. Let’s all say it together: Blood first, image second.
Gregory—quite correctly—pointed out that what brought about the body image on the cloth was something different and quite inexplicable—as compared to the blood clots. Those clots—those glorious clots (!)—that Gregory referred to were—as people like Vignon and Barbet and others (even before STURP’s 1978 investigation—authentic, bloody transfers from actual blood clots—as opposed to painted or dribbled on blood onto the cloth—which looks different from a transfer from a blood clot and which lacks the characteristic serum halo that a blood clot yields when in a certain position or positions—such as a vertical position.
Let’s look, again, at what Gregory said: “This reflection, however, let everyone be inspired with the explanation –has been imprinted only by the sweat from the face of the originator of life, falling like drops of blood, and by the finger of God. For these are the beauties that have made up the true imprint of Christ, since after the drops [should be “clots”] [of sweat] fell, it was embellished by drops from his own side.” [Emphasis added.]
Undoubtedly, Gregory must have known that sweat can cause yellowing on clothing (particularly under the armpits.) Clearly, Gregory is harkening to Luke 22:44 where Jesus is praying in Gethsemane shortly before His arrest. However, we must think HOW Jesus was positioned when He was praying. Matthew 26:36-39 tells us that Jesus “fell with His face to the ground and prayed. I don’t think anyone is going to argue that Jesus was not fully clothed when He did this. As such, while sometimes we sweat profusely from our heads when we are stressed—and maybe not in other areas of our bodies—whether Jesus was sweating anywhere else on his body other than His head would be irrelevant—as—with His being fully clothed—the only sweat that anyone would have been able to observe was sweat coming down from His FACE. (Even if some of this sweat originated from above Jesus face—such as in the hair on His head—with Jesus’ face being down to the ground, the sweat from the hair would be travelling across His face and it would be from the face that someone would be capable of observing the sweat and/or sweaty blood (via hematidrosis) falling to the ground.
So, this perfectly explains why Gregory is referring to the sweat coming from Jesus’ face. Again, let’s remember that Gregory mentions (his hypothesis) that it was through the simple touching to the FACE of Christ that an image of his FORM was made. It is important to note that Gregory uses two different words—“face” and “form.” A “face” is not the same as a “form.” Typically, when referring to a body, the face is the front portion of the head and if one just talks about the “form”—this strongly implies the entire body (not just the face—otherwise, Gregory would have just repeated the word “face” again. The likelihood is incredibly high that there was a reason for his change in the terms.
Regarding Guscin’s change of opinion, I think that he is trying to give Gregory a greater understanding of certain things than what Gregory, himself, admits to having. Specifically, Gregory said the following as he began his sermon:
“The assembly of people is unbelievable, because the reason why every-
body has come together is almost beyond understanding. For how can
something be unbelievable if it can be understood? The fitting dignity is to believe the object exists, and to praise it beyond reason. Like one
who tries to put, as it were, a golden cord on it, profound thoughts of
eloquence perhaps, by which what cannot be made is said to have been
made, and the loose bound, we could compare this to boldly trying
to measure the infinite.”
This is so typical of the Shroud of Turin in that there are certain aspects of it that we can feel confident in explaining, and then there are those things which elude us (like the continued redness of the bloodstains.)
(It’s 3:30 a.m. –further commentary will continue tomorrow . . .)
Cheers,
Teddi
Hi Marco,
Thank you for your scholarship, with which I entirely agree. I’m honoured that you have found the time to comment.
Best wishes,
Hugh
Regarding the translation proposed by the Sindonologists (whose origin—it may be worth recalling—can be traced back to an amateur Greek philologist, Gino Zaninotto), it should be noted that ἀφ’ οὗ, taken by itself, could indeed carry a temporal meaning (“from the time when”). However, for the sentence to have the meaning desired by the Sindonologists, it is also necessary to assume that τό has an anaphoric function, referring back to the image mentioned earlier. In that syntactic construction, such an assumption is untenable, since it finds no counterpart in actual Greek usage.
” It was acheiropoietos, but that doesn’t mean it had to be the Shroud.”
What is the probability that it wasn’t ? Why was it rather not ?!
Hi, as someone who has been teaching Ancient Greek for thirty years, I would like to clarify that οὗ, taken in isolation, can indeed be the genitive singular form of the relative pronoun in either the masculine or neuter gender. However, in the case under discussion, the antecedent of the relative pronoun (the article τό used with a demonstrative function) is neuter. Consequently, the relative pronoun is neuter as well.
There can therefore be no doubt that the correct translation is “(that) from which” (neuter) rather than “from whom” (masculine).
Hi Dan,
Yes, the subtleties of the Greek were quite intruiguing to me, but remarkably, even Google Translate agreed that “from whom” was a better translation than “after.”
Best wishes (and better dreams!),
Hugh
Hugh — a fine piece of untangling. The point about Guscin correcting his own earlier translation is particularly telling: when one of the sermon’s chief champions walks back his reading on internal logic grounds alone, that should give any careful reader pause. Your observation that no Byzantine scholar has embraced the Edessa-Shroud identification except those who arrived already convinced seems to me the most important sentence in the post. The text doesn’t lead to the conclusion — the conclusion leads to the text.
On Teddi Pappas’s larger argument: she is a lawyer, and lawyers think carefully about evidence. She knows 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, 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.