A History of the Tradition of the Image of Edessa

[Tim]

Given that the ‘Image of Edessa’ has reared its ugly head again, I thought that, rather than relying on @Giltil’s bald assertions and @colewd’s AI slop on the subject, it would be worth while tracing the history and development of this tradition.

1. Eusebius (c. AD 260/265 – 30 May AD 339)

In Chapter 13 of A History of the Church, Eusebius recounts the first version of the exchange of letters between King Abgar of Edessa and Jesus. It makes no mention of an image.

2. [Egeria](Egeria (pilgrim) - Wikipedia 385 AD

Egeria records the story of Abgar as related to her by the local bishop. The letters to and from Jesus are mentioned but not quoted. … What is even more significant is that Egeria writes nothing about an image or portrait of Christ.[1]

3. Doctrine of Addai [Thaddeus], c. 400

This elaborates the tradition to have Abgar send a painter to paint a protrait of Jesus:

When Hannan, the keeper of the archives, saw that Jesus spoke thus to him, by virtue of being the king’s painter, he took and painted a likeness of Jesus with choice paints, and brought with him to Abgar the king, his master. And when Abgar the king saw the likeness, he received it with great joy, and placed it with great honor in one of his palatial houses. [quote from Wikipedia]

4. Procopius (c. 500 – 565)

In his Histories of the Wars, Procopius mentions a purported letter from Jesus to Abgar, but appears skeptical of it, but makes no mention of an image. [Wikipedia, citing Cameron, Averil (1996). Changing Cultures in Early Byzantium. Variorum. p. 156.] & [2]

5. Chronicle of Edessa 540-550

Wikipedia states:

The Syriac Chronicle of Edessa written in 540-550 also claim divine interventions in the siege, but does not mention the Image. [Again citing Cameron p156]

6. Evagrius Scholasticus

By the late 6th century, the Image of Edessa had gained prominence. Evagrius Scholasticus, writing around 593, provides the first historical reference to a physical image in Edessa, describing it as a divine portrait (θεότευκτος) that helped defend the city from the Persian siege of 544.[2]

7. At around this time, the tradition seems to have developed to include the rediscovery of the Image after a flood in 525, but I am unable to find a clear source for this claim.

8. Codex Vossianus Latinus Q 69 account (8th Century)

This Codex contains the first account (from the 8th century) claiming “that a cloth in Edessa bore not just a facial imprint but the whole body of Christ.”[2]

9. The Image appears to have been transfered to Byzantium by Romanos I Lekapenos in 944.

In summary, the problems with this chronology for the claim that the Image is the Shroud of Turin would appear to be threefold:

1. We lack any contemporary account for either the Image’s association with Abgar, or for its rediscovery.

2. It’s purported rediscovery, in 525 AD, would be too late for it to have influenced the “Christ of the Catacomb of Commodille, dating from the 4th century” (as Gil claimed).

3. The first account claiming that the image was a full-body image was 7 centuries after the lives of Jesus and Abgar.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

That really just reads like a good old-fashioned game of telephone. Originally a painting of Jesus is commissioned by a King who was also asking for an (unrelated) miracle cure for his illness in a letter to Jesus.

This then transforms over the course of a century or two, into a story that the King recieved a miraculous image.

[Tim]

I see it more as a slow embellishment of an old story, that grows over the centuries.

First the story has one of the seventy disciples preaching in Edessa after Jesus’ ascension and converting the local king. Even this early core element appears to be doubted by contemporary scholars.

Then the story is expanded upon to have the king have written correspondence with Jesus before his ascension.

Then somebody imagines what the this correspondence might have contained.

Then the story is expanded to contain a portrait taken of Jesus. Wouldn’t it have been amazing if that had happened? So wishful thinking again merges into the tradition.

Wouldn’t it also be amazing if that letter or that portrait still existed, and had saved Edessa on a number of occasions.

Maybe somebody even tried to imagine what the portrait would look like, and attempted to paint that. Maybe not.

Eventually the story grew until it reached the ear of the Byzantine Emperor, and he demanded this miraculous image. The inhabitants of Edessa then had two choices – they could either tell the Emperor that the image no longer existed, if it ever had – or they could make damn sure to have an image to hand to present him – even if they had to hire an artist to create it.

This is probably not too different from how the likes of the traditions of King Arthur and Robin Hood were embellished over the centuries. Such traditions contain useful information about the cultures that developed them – but they are not good sources of reliable historical facts.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

Sure. I didn’t mean to imply I bought into the original story either, just that it seems to have morphed into something else and more grandiose over time.

[Joe_Felsenstein]

So the artist came to Jesus, and said “now we have to pose you somehow”, and Jesus said “Well I’m going to ultimately be crucified, so let me lie down here and show you what I’ll look like after that”?

[Paul_King]

What I find interesting is that both the Image of Edessa and the Shroud of Turin were originally billed as paintings - and the story grew in both cases. But there’s no good reason to think that the Image of Edessa was painted even close to Jesus’ lifetime. And none to think it was the actual shroud from Jesus’ burial.