- Professor of History: Late Medieval and Early Modern Europeedit
In the 1980’s Dame Professor Averil Cameron hypothesised that the Holy Mandylion, or Image of Edessa was not a miraculous ‘made without hand’ (ἀχειροποίητα) image of the face of Christ. It was instead a sixth century painting by an... more
In the 1980’s Dame Professor Averil Cameron hypothesised that the Holy Mandylion, or Image of Edessa was not a miraculous ‘made without hand’ (ἀχειροποίητα) image of the face of Christ. It was instead a sixth century painting by an unknown artist. This paper evaluates Professor Cameron’s arguments. She ignores Biblical and early church evidence and relies on the silence of Eusebius, Aetheria and Procopius to argue it did not exist before the sixth century. However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If the Holy Mandylion was just a sixth century painting an explanation is required for the deceit perpetrated by Byzantine emperors on their Christian subjects lasting over seven hundred years. From a theological perspective the emperors were also guilty of idolatry for revering a falsified image.
As a counter-argument this paper suggests, following the historian Ian Wilson, that the Holy Mandylion was the burial shroud of Jesus, now known as the Shroud of Turin. The Shroud contains the inexplicable image of a crucified Man which is not created by paint. It was once folded into eight, shown by creases on the cloth. In this folding pattern the face of Christ would be revealed.
As a counter-argument this paper suggests, following the historian Ian Wilson, that the Holy Mandylion was the burial shroud of Jesus, now known as the Shroud of Turin. The Shroud contains the inexplicable image of a crucified Man which is not created by paint. It was once folded into eight, shown by creases on the cloth. In this folding pattern the face of Christ would be revealed.
Research Interests:
Correspondence covering the period immediately following the sacking of Constantinople in 1204 belied the true conditions there. In fact, Pope Innocent III labored under the false assumption that the city had agreed to reunite the Eastern... more
Correspondence covering the period immediately following the sacking of Constantinople in 1204 belied the true conditions there. In fact, Pope Innocent III labored under the false assumption that the city had agreed to reunite the Eastern Church with the Holy See of Rome. This provides important and immediate historical context for the analysis of a letter of Pope Innocent III dated November 1204, which the authors assert contains important linguistic and contextual clues to indicate he knew that the Eastern Church possessed the burial shroud of Jesus.
The authors have annotated a major letter to offer relevant context and commentary, posing the thesis that beyond being a pastoral letter, it also contains references to specific historical relics: the burial cloths of Jesus referenced in Gospel accounts. A literature review indicates that the only references to this particular letter appear within liturgical texts as justifications for the use of a linen corporal at the altar, based upon the prevailing opinion of previous centuries that Pope Innocent III wrote this as primarily exegetical and homiletic in its intent. However, worthy of note is the dearth of scholarship involving this particular letter, likely due to its initial interpretation as pastoral and theological, and not overtly historical. The authors assert that the signature of meaning that earlier scholars ascribed to this letter has obscured it from examination for other potential meanings.
Sindonology must consider the merits of re-examining the known record for linguistic and contextual indicators such as described herein to potentially contribute to a greater breadth of understanding for the preceding centuries. This analysis and annotation provides a model for the re-examination of the known record, while yet searching for previously unknown and potentially vital historical connectors.
The authors have annotated a major letter to offer relevant context and commentary, posing the thesis that beyond being a pastoral letter, it also contains references to specific historical relics: the burial cloths of Jesus referenced in Gospel accounts. A literature review indicates that the only references to this particular letter appear within liturgical texts as justifications for the use of a linen corporal at the altar, based upon the prevailing opinion of previous centuries that Pope Innocent III wrote this as primarily exegetical and homiletic in its intent. However, worthy of note is the dearth of scholarship involving this particular letter, likely due to its initial interpretation as pastoral and theological, and not overtly historical. The authors assert that the signature of meaning that earlier scholars ascribed to this letter has obscured it from examination for other potential meanings.
Sindonology must consider the merits of re-examining the known record for linguistic and contextual indicators such as described herein to potentially contribute to a greater breadth of understanding for the preceding centuries. This analysis and annotation provides a model for the re-examination of the known record, while yet searching for previously unknown and potentially vital historical connectors.
Research Interests:
From the earliest Christian understanding of the altar as representing the sepulcher of Christ came the use of a pure linen cloth upon it for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It is a practice that blends the consistency of history and... more
From the earliest Christian understanding of the altar as representing the sepulcher of Christ came the use of a pure linen cloth upon it for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It is a practice that blends the consistency of history and liturgy with the Passion narrative. The known history of the general use of altar cloths signals an understanding of the enshrouding of Christ that cannot be explained solely by the Gospel accounts and their differing descriptors. The prescribed use in the early Church, certainly by the fourth century, indicates knowledge of a single pure linen cloth, and one of considerable length. Interestingly, the Church adopted a vigorous emphasis on the cloth's material composition from the fourth century through the early seventh century, a time coinciding with a succession of popes who had all previously served as apocrisiarus (papal legate) to the imperial city of Constantinople. Their renewed interest and emphasis on the liturgical correctness of the altar cloth and its pure linen composition may indeed derive from knowledge of the actual burial shroud held in the Byzantine empire. One can trace this knowledge throughout the medieval papacy with the institution of increasingly specific liturgical norms found in not only canon law, but also clearly represented in medieval artwork.