www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Mandylion of Edessa

The Vatican Museum is here in Fort Lauderdale, and one of the exhibits being advertised is the Mandylion of Edessa, encased ina beautiful reliquary. The exhibit says that it dates from the 3rd to the 5th century, and is the oldest pictorial reprsentation of Christ's face.

This confuses me; aren't there plenty of other visual representations of Our Lord that exhisted far before the 3rd to 5th century, the figures and paintings in the catacombs for instance, which depict him as a young shephard youth?

And is there any evidence that this image really does date to the time of Christ, or is the 3rd to 5th century dating a Modernist, skeptical claim?

Thank you.

They claim to have the *actual* one in a museum in Florida??

The Vatican Museum is currently on tour, all over the world. It's going to three cities in the U.S. So far it's been to Houston, TX, and now it's in Fort Lauderdale, FL:

Saint Peter and the Vatican: The Legacy of the Popes [museumofart.org]

Yes, the original Mandylion is currently at the Fort Laduerdale Mseum of Art.

Do you know the answers to any of my questions?

PaxTecvm,

As to your first question the catacomb images are symbolic representations not pictoral or iconographic ones. The youthful shepherd is simply a pagan image the Christians of Rome adopted. It's pagan origin along with its genericness is precisely why the Byzantine Church has forbidden Christ to be depicted this way in iconography.

As to your second question, it depends what you consider to be the authentic Mandylion of Edessa. Many hold that the Mandylion is nothing but the Shroud of Turin folded in fours so that only the Holy Face can be seen. At this page, right yellow column, fourth paragraph there is an illustration of this http://www.shroudstory.com/early.htm

So if you think the Shroud is authentic (I do) and you think that the Mandylion is the Shroud (I do), then you have your answer. I sugget the site below:
http://www.shroudstory.com/index.htm

The Mandylion in the Vatican exhibit is in my opinion an icon, which in and of itself makes it worthy of veneration. I do not think it is the real Mandylion, however.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

Actually, the Mandylion of Edessa is, according to Tradition, not the shroud of Turin, which many believe to be the burial cloth (winding sheet) of Christ, but rather a cloth on which Christ placed his image, at the request of the King of Edessa for a visit by the Savior. This feast is celebrated on August 16th. There are other such feasts of the image of the Savior not-made-with-hands which are supposedly copies of this orginal.

You can read about it at http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/feasts-and-saints/aug-16.html#transfer .

I'm not sure of the origin of the image displayed at the Vatican tour. One answer as to where the orginal is that it was acquired at the time of the Crusades, like many if not most Orthodox relics and treasures from that period. This may or may not be it. I'm not aware of any Orthodox source which claims to now have it.

Priest Thomas Soroka

Father, in the West we like to say that relics were "gained" or "acquired" by the Crusades.

(Sorry if I'm making light of a sore subject)

Father Thomas:

I think what Lance was saying was that there are some scholars who think that the whole Abgar story is just a myth, and that the image held in Edessa was really the Shroud of Turin.

The original Mandylion was stolen from Constantinople during the Crusades, and brought to the Vatican. The Holy Father has given his permission to allow this sacred icon to go on tour.

The one temporarily in Fort Lauderdale is THE original (unless the real original is in fact the Shroud of Turin).

Ah yes, of course! We are quite appreciative of your conservatorship. :rolleyes:

PT

LatinTrad:

God help us if this becomes another forum for moaning and whining about the Crusades. The Byzantines have enough Latin blood on their hands if they're gonna start demanding apologies, political correctness, and groveling for the sins of our spiritual forefathers . . . :rolleyes:

Wow. I'll now go and change my original post in the interest of political correctness.

Priest Thomas

I'm sorry, I'm sorry!!

Paxtecvm and Priest Thomas have my full apology.

I didn't mean to get people actually upset--just some light humor (which I've been known to attempt at all the wrong times.)

Now, don't all the Easterners get mad at Pax now for that line about Latin blood on their hands . . . .

Actually, LatinTrad, I thought your post was kind of tongue-in-cheek funny, and my reply to you was in kind. There was no offense taken.

There was offense taken to the so-called "whining and moaning" about the Crusades (in a different post, not yours). I'm sure that most realize that my word choice was not meant to "whine and moan" but rather simply to define. There are no harbored feelings of anger over the past.


PT

Reverend Father,

I did not think you were moaning or whining at all in your post. I just said I hope it wouldn't come to that.

I saw the purported Mandylion when it toured in Cleveland a few years ago. It has obviously been painted over, but who knows what lies beneath. Even the painted version in its distracting silver frame was a haunting and moving experience for me.

I actually made it all the way to Edessa (now Urfa, in Turkey) to see the shroud. I was told by the local museum folk that they had the real one (and had had it ever since the days of good King Abgar), and that they had a mosaic replica of it.

What did I see? Neither. Both were, "unfortunately" in the words of the museum dude, not exhibited to the public. Nor were any of the scanty publications available at the museum showing pictures of either.

It's late. I just typed "shroud" when I should have typed "Mandylion." I myself am not inclined to equate the Shroud of Turin with the Mandylion.