Fig. 1: Under the features of the legendary King Abgar, holding the Mandylion, can be recognised Constantine VII Porphyrogenetes, Emperor of Byzantium from 913 to 959. Compare the face of Christ painted on the Mandylion with that imprinted on the Holy Shroud (fig. 2, p. 5): it is indeed Him! Painting on wood, Saint Catherine’s Monastery, Mount Sinai. Circa 940.

     «It was very early on the first day of the week and still dark when Mary of Magdala came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been moved away from the tomb.» (Jn 20.1) This Mary is the sister of Martha and Lazarus, but sheltered under a kind of respectful incognito. She is that beloved woman, that converted sinner whom Jesus loved as He did the Apostle John. Other women will go to the tomb, but John thinks only of her, she who was moreover the first to arrive, while it was still night.

     «She came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved.» As if there were but two people in the world! It is true that the others had fled. But at least Peter and John are still there, and it is to them that Mary Magdalen cries out rather incoherently: «They have taken the Lord out of the tomb and we do not know where they have put him.» The plural clearly indicates that she had been joined by others, as the Synoptics relate.

     «So Peter set out with the other disciple to go to the tomb. They ran together, but the other disciple, running faster than Peter, reached the tomb first; he bent down and saw the linen cloths (othonia) lying on the ground, but did not go in. Simon Peter, who was following, now came up, went right into the tomb, saw the linen cloths on the ground, and also the Shroud (soudarion) that had been over his Head; this was not with the linen cloths but rolled up in a Place by itself.» (Jn 20.3-7) In his burial account, Saint John at first uses the word othonia to refer to the whole set of «linen cloths» which wrapped the Body of Jesus and bound His limbs in readiness for His transfer to the tomb: in other words, the large piece of material which the Synoptics call sindôn (burial cloth), and the bands used to tie Jesus’ hands and feet. Here, in his account of the discovery of the empty tomb, the Evangelist differentiates the sindôn, «burial cloth», and he calls it a soudarion, «shroud». The Abbé de Nantes has denounced the «pitiful error» of those who insist on «referring to our relic exclusively as the “burial cloth” of Jesus Christ, notwithstanding its title of Holy Shroud». They do this on the pretext of keeping to the term sindôn or «burial cloth» common to the Synoptics. They reject the interpretation of Saint John which we proposed to the Congress of Bologna in 1981¹, and in this way they maintain their grotesque and degrading fiction of a «short linen cloth fastened over Jesus’ head, which they picture as a chin strap of the kind formerly seen on those with a raging toothache! What a horror!²»

     Saint John uses the term «soudarion» to designate not a handkerchief, or a towel, still less a chin strap! but a large sheet passed lengthwise over the head, epi tès kephalès, therefore covering it as well as the face and the whole body, both above and below, right down to the feet.

     This is the same large cloth which the Synoptics refer to as a «sindon». Matthew specifies that this “burial cloth” was «without stain», kathara (Mt 27.59), when Joseph of Arimathaea bought it to bury Jesus. Doubtless he was alluding to the «stains» which were subsequently discovered on it, the object of our study today. One could not be more explicit!

THE BLESSED VIRGIN AND THE HOLY SHROUD

     We read in a Georgian version of the Transitus, dating from the 6^th century: «After the Ascension, this Immaculate Virgin was in the habit of carrying on Her person the image formed on the Shroud which She had received from the divine hands. In this way She had it constantly before Her eyes and was able to contemplate the beautiful face of Her Son. Whenever She prayed, She would hold the image up towards the East and pray in this direction, raising Her hands aloft.»

     The historical character of the Transitus sets it apart from all the other apocryphal works³, in particular from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, written in Aramaic around the end of the 1^st century, which includes a passage, quoted by Saint Jerome, in which «the Lord having given the burial cloth to the servant of the high priest, visited James and appeared to him».

     This text of great antiquity, very close in time to the canonical Gospels, presents the Shroud preserved by the early Christians as evidence of the reality of the Resurrection, itself attested by the appearance to James⁴: «Whatever historical authority we choose to give or deny this apocryphal gospel and its account, writes Father Vaccari, it is certain at any rate that in the second century, when this literature was already in circulation, there were Christians who took a great interest in the fate of the Lord’s burial cloth and believed they knew where it was kept.⁵» Namely, in the Jerusalem community, where James held the office of «high priest» until his martyrdom in 62⁶.

     Until the day of Her Assumption in 63⁷, Mary, whom John had taken to his home (Jn 19.27), remained at the centre of this community (Ac 1.14). It was She, therefore, who received the Holy Shroud brought back from the tomb by John Her “son”. This She did with infinite respect, great tenderness and wonderful devotion, just as She had previously received in Her maternal arms the gentle immolated Body at the foot of the Cross, before It was buried in this very same Shroud. She knows that this relic is sacred. It is the work of the Son of God made man who had already taken on a body in Her virginal womb. She contemplates the imprint left by His divine Body, marked with all the stigmata of His cruel Passion: «It is indeed Him, she says to Herself, and it is Him just as He wished that My children should know Him until the end of the world!» She adores and She loves, She admires the beauty of Her Child and recognizes His slender frame, the magnificent way He carried His head, His fine shoulders, His wrists, and the elegance of His hands whose length is now accentuated by the painful retraction of the thumb into the hand.

     The Holy Face, which She had clasped in Her bosom on the morning of the Resurrection, in all its resplendent glory, seems here, in the very act of the Resurrection, to reflect that gentle and humble majesty which had radiated from His whole being ever since the day of His birth. The beautifully gentle appeal to love falls from those lips offered to His Mother’s kiss⁸.

SAINT VERONICA

     And after Mary? The Acts of Pilate, an apocryphal work dating from the 4^th-5^th century, relates how various witnesses for the defence presented themselves during Jesus’ appearance before Pilate: «A woman whose name was Berenice, then called out from a distance: “I used to suffer from heavy bleeding, and I touched the hem of your tunic and my flow of blood dried up, and this has lasted for twelve years now!”» (chap. 7). The Latin text says mulier quaedam nomine Veronica, but the Greek correctly says Bernikè, «a form confirmed by the epigraphy of the Macedonian name Berenikè = Greek Pherenikè.⁹»

     Which, let us note in passing, means «victory-bearer», as opposed to the fanciful etymology of Gervase of Tilbury (1210): vera icona, «true image».

     In a later writing, dating from the 6^th century, the Vindicta Salvatoris, “Vengeance of the Saviour”, which treats of the divine chastisement of those responsible for the death of Jesus Christ, «mention is made not only of the holy woman Veronica, but also of the portrait of Christ that Veronica possessed. How did it come into her hands? The Vindicta does not say.

     All we learn is that it was a portrait on an immaculate linen cloth, in sindone munda; which the holy woman Veronica had long kept in her possession, in domo sua.¹»

     Dobschütz observes that the author of this document gives no explanation because he «simply assumes that the Vultus Domini is very famous. So might he have had before his eyes a precise image of Christ?²» The reply to this question is yes, without hesitation: he had the Holy Shroud, if not «before his eyes», at least clearly present in his mind. At any rate, Dobschütz is categorical: it was certainly not «an extant Roman relic», something seen as needing an «appropriate historical legend».

     A comparison with the case of the Palladium kept in the temple of Vesta in pagan Rome is enlightening. The legendary character of the Palladium was evident «at a time when, as we can prove, the only thing kept in the temple was the sacred fire»³. Yet the sheer persistence of the legend and the manner in which belief in it continued to spread in «the most unencumbered dogmatic form» finally managed to create the object: «What was missing under Augustus certainly existed at the time of Elagabal».

     «In the case of Veronica, continues Dobschütz, things appear to have been different: it can be confidently assumed that an image of Christ had already existed for a long time and that it was only later that it was connected with the legend of Veronica.»

     So, according to Dobschütz, before the two came to be linked in the 12^th century, each being explained by reference to the other, the «legend» and the «image» had each followed their own distinct path quite independently of one another.

     But that is to forget that they share a common origin, as evidenced in a document which predates the Acts of Pilate. Eusebius of Caesarea (265-340) records a tradition in book VII of his Ecclesiastical History, according to which the haemorrhissa (woman suffering from a haemorrhage) cured by Jesus was a native of Caesarea Philippi, a town «which the Phoenicians call Paneas», close to the source of the Jordan:

     «People point out her house in the town, and there exist some wonderful monuments of the Lord’s goodness to her. On a raised stone, in front of the doors to her house, there is a bronze statue of a woman; bending her knee and holding her hands out before her, she resembles a suppliant. Opposite her is another image in the same material, the representation of a man who is standing, draped in a mantle and holding out his hand to the woman; by his feet, on the same stele, there seems to be growing a strange plant which has reached the level of the hem of the bronze mantle; it is the antidote for every kind of disease.

     «People said that this statue reproduced Jesus’ features. It has lasted right down to our own times, so we were able to see it for ourselves when we visited the town.» (EH, VII 18)

     Dobschütz is not unaware of the «Paneas legend which presented this Berenice-Veronica as the possessor of an image of Christ.» But in order to explain how the transition was made from a bronze statue to a cloth painting, he writes: «We do not have to look far to find the reason for this transformation. A bronze statue was all very well for local adoration, but it would be rather heavy for a woman to take to Rome and present to the Emperor.⁴» An allusion to a text, older than the Vindicta Salvatoris, entitled Cura sanitatis Tiberii (cure of Tiberius), a Western version of the legend of Abgar (fig. 1).

     From this it can be seen how the whole of the learned German’s research into what he calls the «Christian legend» is governed by his preconceptions. According to him, this legend «easily avoids the various difficulties, chief among which is that of chronology». What created the image, he explains, «was quite simply the idea that Tiberius needed a visible image of Jesus in order to believe and be cured, and so come to appreciate the real extent of Pilate’s crime.» So the «legend» supposedly created the image because the story needed it, just as in times past the Palladium was invented for the temple of Vesta.

     But Dobschütz’s explanation is untenable. For, on the evidence of Eusebius – evidence given against his will, for the Bishop of Caesarea seems to have been rather hostile to the cult of images, viewing them as a «pagan custom» (EH, VII 18) – the existence of a full-length image of Christ is a primary fact, and the haemorrhissa cured by Jesus was its privileged custodian.

     We are therefore led to believe that the “legend” conveys a tradition, according to which this holy woman preserved the Lord’s Shroud discovered by Peter and John in the empty tomb on Easter morning⁵. This is what the traditional title “Veil of Veronica” refers to, a title designating the remarkable relic itself, which Saint Veronica received as a sacred trust after the Assumption of the Virgin Mary in 63, and which she hid in Paneas during the years of the Jewish War (66-70).

     As for the legends of Abgar and Tiberius, they arose later, and testify to the thaumaturgic properties of this relic and of the “orthodox” copies of it, by which is meant “copies conforming” to the imprinted image, as we shall see further on.

AFTER SAINT VERONICA

     In a letter addressed to Bishop John of Jerusalem, Saint Epiphanius of Salamis (315-403) recounts how he found in the entrance of a church near Jerusalem a veil bearing the image of a man who appeared to be the Christ, «quasi Christi» or some other saint¹. Epiphanius was making a pilgrimage to Bethel. Having reached Anablatha near Jerusalem, he entered a church to pray and saw the veil in the vestibule. He took it away, promising the guardian of the place that he would send him another without an image but of good quality. As we have already demonstrated, taking our cue from Father Pfeiffer, this history of a veil bearing an image «quasi Christi» in a church near Jerusalem is not only a true history, but is also completely explained if we identify this veil with that of Veronica, in other words with our present-day Holy Shroud.

     The incident at Anablatha also shows us how dangerous it was to exhibit the Holy Shroud and its image during the first centuries of a Christian community still imbued with Jewish customs which forbade the veneration of images and any contact with burial objects. No doubt this is the reason why in times of persecution the first generations of Christians avoided any reference to Christ’s Shroud, leaving this to the semi-legendary accounts of apocryphal literature.

     The Gospel of Gamaliel (5^th century), the principal theme of which is the miracles effected by the Lord’s burial cloths, presents a typical examples of this literary genre². These literary evidences accompany the very tradition which has passed this sacred Cloth down to us and which – let us not forget – constitutes the principal proof of its authenticity³. For if it were not the Shroud of Jesus Christ, why would it have been preserved for us with such precious care? Science only come afterwards, in confirmation of this. As for the carbon 14 dating, it has come in the last place with its criminal and sacrilegious intention to destroy both tradition and science.

Page 2
(1) The Johannine «soudarion», a negative of the divine Glory, in The Holy Shroud, vol. I, Proof of Christ’s Death and Resurrection (SS I), p. 59-68; cf. Eng CRC no 237, p. 4; no 295, p. 15-18. On his own against all, but with consummate science, René Robert supported our exegesis. Cf. Eng CRC no 295, p. 16-17.  –  (2) SS II, p. 75.  –  (3) Cf. B. Bonnet-Eymard, The tomb of Mary at Gethsemane, proof of Her Assumption, Eng CRC no 246 (1992), p. 7-18. In BIBLE, ARCHÉOLOGIE, HISTOIRE (BAH), vol. 2, p. 61-72.  –  (4) SS I, p. 21, 140.  –  (5) Quoted by Fr Dubarle, Ancient history of the Turin Shroud up till the 13th century, OEIL 1985, p. 120.  –  (6) Cf. B Bonnet-Eymard, The Church’s Years of Trial, 62-68 AD, Eng CRC no 324, Nov 1999, p. 5.  –  (7) Ibid., Eng CRC no 325, p. 18.  –  (8) Cf. G de Nantes, Ecce Sponsus, SS I, p. 155-156.  –  (9) Paul Perdrizet, De la Véronique et de sainte Véronique, in Seminarium Kondakovianum, vol. II (1932), p. 8.

Page3
(1) Ibid., p. 8.  –  (2) Ernst von Dobschütz, Christusbilder [Images of Christ] Untersuchungen zur christlichen Legende [Studies on the Christian legend], Leipzig, 1899, p. 217.  –  (3) Ibid., p. 219.  –  (4) Ibid., p. 213.  –  (5) Jn 20.5-7; cf. SS I, p. 59-68.

Page 4
(1) SS II, p. 38.  –  (2) SS I, p. 21, 140.  –  (3) Father Dubarle writes: «History is unable to demonstrate the authenticity of the Turin Shroud. It would need a certificate signed by the twelve Apostles and the holy women and a guaranteed safekeeping exempt from theft or disappearance. This is obviously far from being the case.» (Ancient history of the Turin Shroud, 1998, vol. 2, François-Xavier de Guibert, p. 20) An unjustified demand, worthy of Ernest Renan (cf. Brother Pascal, Mgr Freppel, p. 211), which creates a gulf between history and tradition, characteristic of a virulent modernism.