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.
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
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.