Veronica's Veil - True Account?

[patrick457]

Whereas the Cura’s story is fairly straightforward, involving the healing of Tiberius and his conversion, Pilate’s comeuppance, and (in some versions) the trial of Simon Magus, the Vindicta Salvatoris’ (ca. 8th century; our earliest manuscript dates from the 9th) plotline is a bit more complicated. There you have two sick kings – the emperor Tiberius and Titus/Tirus/Tyrus, “a court official of Tiberius in the kingdom of Aquitania, for a city of Libia which is called Burdigala” (based obviously on the military commander and later emperor who besieged and captured Jerusalem in AD 70), and two envoys – Nathan son of Naum the Ishmaelite and Volosianus (the Vindicta’s answer to the Cura’s Volusianus the priest).

In the Vindicta, it is Titus – afflicted by a sort of malignant wound (‘the sore called “cancer”’) in his face – who learns of Jesus from Nathan, who had just visited Palestine and is stranded by a storm en route to Rome. Titus, deeply moved by what he had heard and offended that the Jewish people had treated their Savior so cruelly (the Vindicta places the blame for Jesus’ death more on the Jews rather than on Pilate as in the Cura), vows to avenge Jesus, threatening violent reprisals against them. As soon as he had uttered this, voila! the cancer which afflicts his face is miraculously cured. Titus is then baptized by Nathan. (In some versions, Titus takes on the name ‘Titus’ at this point – prior to this his name is given as ‘Tirus’/’Tyrus’.)

Newly converted, Titus and his colleague Vespasian (again, based on the eponymous general who is the real-life Titus’ father and predecessor) then launch a violent assault on the Jews. King Herod (!) becomes disturbed (“and all Jerusalem with him”), appoints his son Archelaus (!) to be his successor, and then commits suicide by falling on his spear/sword a la King Saul. (In some late versions, it is Archelaus who appoints his unnamed son to be his successor; Archelaus kills himself to avoid being captured by Titus and Vespasian.) Archelaus (or the unnamed son) then shuts himself in Jerusalem along with other kings and nobles in fear. Titus and Vespasian then lay siege to Jerusalem for seven to eight years.

By the seventh/eighth year of the siege, a severe famine hits the land to the point that people had to eat dirt for lack of bread. The eleven thousand soldiers guarding Jerusalem then agree to commit mass suicide rather than be captured by the Romans. (The siege of Masada, anyone?) The kings holed up within the city were frightened further, not knowing what to do with the bodies. They finally decide to surrender (realizing that punishment has come upon them for putting Jesus to death) and hand the keys to the city over to Titus and Vespasian. The survivors were then captured and put to death in various ways (being stoned, hanged, speared, etc.) or sold into slavery (thirty people were sold for one denarius –because Jesus was sold for thirty pieces of silver!)

 

[patrick457]

Pilate, Veronica, and the portrait of Jesus are then introduced somewhat abruptly at this point; after ransacking Jerusalem Titus and Vespasian begin to conduct a search for the image. (The author, in a conspicuous lapse of continuity, does not give any clues as to how the two learned of Veronica or why they decided to seek her out.) They find both Veronica and Pilate. The latter was put into jail in Damascus, after which they send a messenger to Tiberius (who is here “full of ulcers and enveloped in leprosy”), begging to send Volosianus to them. Tiberius dispatches Volosianus to seek one of the disciples of Jesus and to visit judgment upon the Jews (despite Titus and Vespasian having already done so!) Arriving in Jerusalem after a year and seven days’ journey by sea, he meets up with Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, who testify about Jesus. Veronica also appears, testifying how she was cured of her issue of blood when she touched Jesus’ garment. Volosianus confronts Pilate (who has appeared in the scene) for his sending Jesus to death – Pilate then offers the excuse that “His nation and my priests handed him over.”

After Pilate is sent back to prison, Volosianus then asks Veronica for the “face of the Lord” (vultum Domini). Veronica denies that she has it, prompting Volosianus to have her tortured. Veronica finally confesses that she has the portrait locked in her room (in other versions, she has it “in clean linen”) and promptly gives it to Volosianus, who falls flat on the ground awestruck. He wraps the image in a purple cloth lined with gold and stores it in a golden chest, vowing never to look at it until he finally comes back to Tiberius. He orders Pilate to be punished “with the most ignominious death” and finally heads back to Rome. At this point Veronica catches up with Volosianus just as he was boarding the ship:

Veronica also abandoned everything for the name of Christ and followed him, and went aboard the ship along with them. Then Volosianus said, “Woman, whom are you seeking?” (cf. John 20:15) And she said, “In truth, I am looking for (the image of) my Lord that the Lord gave to me, not for my merits but out his mercy, and which you have taken away from me against the law—just as the Jews had taken Christ, whom neither you nor your people have seen, from the world. Even though I have deserved ill, hand back to me my Lord! And if you do not hand him back to me, I will not release him until I see where they have laid him down. And I will worship him and serve him as long as I live because my redeemer himself lives, and on the last day I shall see God, my savior.” (cf. Job 19:25-26) Now all of her men or “her husband”] began to weep, her sons and daughters, neighbors and all who knew her. Then Veronica said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me but for yourselves, and weep for your daughters. (cf. Luke 23:28) For have you never heard God saying, ‘Everyone who has left everything for the name of Christ will receive a hundredfold and will possess eternal life’?” (cf. Matthew 19:29)

 

[patrick457]

Volosianus finally returns to Rome with Veronica, reporting to Tiberius everything that had happened. Tiberius is then shown the image of Jesus and as he worships it, he is cured of his leprosy. He then also converts and his baptized along with his household, bringing the story to its conclusion. (In some versions, Nathan again appears just to baptize Tiberius!) Of note is the way Volosianus describes the vultus Domini to Tiberius:

“Afterward they [Titus and Vespasian] sent a search for a portrait of the Lord and found a woman, Veronica by name, who had it because she had painted it. Now, I have here the portrait of the Lord and the woman with it.”

In some manuscripts of the Vindicta, including the oldest one we have (MS Saint-Omer, Bibliotheque Municipale 202, aka O), the words in bold are given as: “who had him who painted it,” the implication being that Jesus was the one who made His own portrait. So we now have at least two versions of how the image came to be: while one agrees with the earlier Cura in that it was a painting of Jesus from life commissioned by Veronica (or perhaps even created by her), the other now claims that it is created by Jesus Himself.

 

[patrick457]

Shifting gears for a moment, let’s look at the story of King Abgar in slightly more depth. The whole gist of the story is basically that the Osroene king Abgar V (reigned 4 BC-AD 7, AD 13-50), suffering from an incurable illness, sent his messenger (usually named Ananias/Hanan) to Jesus, inviting Him to come cure his disease. Jesus in reply sends back to Abgar a letter turning down the invitation, but promising to later send one of His followers to him. After the ascension, Thaddaeus (one of the seventy disciples) is sent to Mesopotamia wherein he finally heals Abgar.

Eusebius is our very first witness to this story (Church History 1.13.1-20). He also provides the texts of what is supposedly the correspondence exchanged between Abgar and Jesus (more specifically, Abgar’s letter and the answer dictated by Jesus - or in some versions of the story, written by Jesus Himself), claiming that the originals were kept in the archives of Edessa (the capital of the Osroene kingdom; modern Şanlıurfa, Turkey) and that he had translated them from Syriac to Greek.

Copy of a letter written by the Abgar the toparch to Jesus, sent to him at Jerusalem by the courier Ananias

Abgar Uchama, the Toparch, to Jesus the excellent Savior who has appeared in the region of Jerusalem, greeting.
I have heard about you and the cures which you accomplish without drugs or herbs. Word has it that you make the blind see and the lame walk, that you heal lepers and cast out unclean spirits and demons, and that you heal those tortured by chronic disease and raise the dead. When I heard all these things about you, I decided that one of two things is true: either you are God and came down from heaven to do these things or you are God’s Son for doing them. For this reason I am writing to beg you to take the trouble to come to me and heal my suffering. I have also heard that the Jews are murmuring against you and plot to harm you. Now, my city-state is very small but highly-regard and adequate for both of us.
(He wrote this letter when the divine light had only begun to shine on him. It is appropritate to hear also the letter that Jesus sent him by the same letter carrier. It is only a few lines long but very powerful: )

The reply of Jesus to the toparch Abgar by the courier Ananias

Blessed are you who believed in me without seeing me! For it is written that those who have seen me will not believe in me and that those who have not seen me will believe and live. Now regarding your request that I come to you, I must first complete everything all that I was sent to do here, and, once that is completed, must be taken up to the One who sent me. When I have been taken up, I will send one of my disciples to heal your suffering and bring life to you and yours.​

Eusebius then continues to provide an account of Thaddaeus healing Abgar which “is appended to these letters in Syriac.” He concludes by dating these events “to the year 340” (of the Seleucid era, which began around 311-310 BC), which would correspond with around AD 29-30. (Later versions of the story would put it as occurring just days before Jesus is arrested and crucified.)

Late in the 4th century, the story has apparently become popular enough that the pilgrim Egeria was familiar with it. She had a brief stopover at Edessa while returning from her pilgrimage to the Holy Land. There was given a personal tour by the bishop of Edessa, who introduced her to various sites in the city (including a supposed statue of Abgar) and gave her many accounts of miracles that had saved Edessa from the Persians (usually involving the letter of Jesus) and put into her hands transcripts of the correspondence of Abgarus and Jesus, which she thought was more ‘complete’ than the version she is familar with: “although I have copies at home, yet it seemed to me more pleasant to receive them from him, lest perhaps something less might have reached us at home, and indeed that which I received here is fuller.”

We now come to the so-called Doctrine of Addai, a Syriac Christian text written perhaps about AD 400. Here the tale and the letters is given in a more elaborate form than the one given in Eusebius. In fact, there is a new element in the story:

When Jesus received the letter [of Abgar] at the house of the chief priest of the Jews [Gamaliel], He said to Hannan, the keeper of the archives: “Go and say to thy lord, who hath sent thee to Me, ‘Blessed art thou, who, although thou hast not seen Me, believest in Me, for it is written of Me, Those who see Me will not believe in Me, and those who see Me not, will believe in me. But as to that which thou hast written to Me, that I should come to thee, that for which I was sent here is now finished, and I am going up to my Father, who sent me, and when I have gone up to Him, I will send to thee one of my disciples, who will cure the disease which thou hast, and restore thee to health; and all who are with thee he will convert to everlasting life. Thy city shall be blessed, and no enemy shall again become master of it for ever.’”

When Hannan, the keeper of the archives, saw that Jesus spake 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 honour in one of his palatial houses. Hannan, the keeper of the archives, related to him everything which he had heard from Jesus, as His words were put by him in writing.

 

[patrick457]

About a century later, the Syrian author Evagrius Scholasticus in his Ecclesiastical History (AD 593) speaks of this image of Jesus in the context of the siege of Edessa by the Sassanid Persian emperor Khosrau I (aka Chosroes, reigned 531-579):

THE same Procopius narrates what the ancients had recorded concerning Edessa and Abgarus, and how Christ wrote a letter to him. He then relates how Chosroes made a fresh movement to lay siege to the city, thinking to falsify the assertion prevalent among the faithful, that Edessa would never fall into the power of an enemy: which assertion, however, is not contained in what was written to Abgarus by Christ our God; as the studious may gather from the history of Eusebius Pamphili, who cites the epistle verbatim. Such, however, is the averment and belief of the faithful; which was then realised, faith bringing about the accomplishment of the prediction. For after Chosroes had made many assaults on the city, had raised a mound of sufficient size to overtop the walls of the town, and had devised innumerable expedients beside, he raised the siege and retreated. I will, however, detail the particulars. Chosroes ordered his troops to collect a great quantity of wood for the siege from whatever timber fell in their way; and when this had been done before the order could well be issued, arranging it in a circular form, he threw a mound inside with its face advancing against the city. In this way elevating it gradually with the timber and earth, and pushing it forward towards the town, he raised it to a height sufficient to overtop the wall, so that the besiegers could hurl their missiles from vantage ground against the defenders. When the besiegers saw the mound approaching the walls like a moving mountain, and the enemy in expectation of stepping into the town at day-break, they devised to run a mine under the mound–which the Latins term “aggestus”–and by that means apply fire, so that the combustion of the timber might cause the downfall of the mound. The mine was completed; but they failed in attempting to fire the wood, because the fire, having no exit whence it could obtain a supply of air, was unable to take hold of it.

In this state of utter perplexity, they bring the divinely wrought image, which the hands of men did not form, but Christ our God sent to Abgarus on his desiring to see Him. Accordingly, having introduced this holy image into the mine, and washed it over with water, they sprinkled some upon the timber; and the divine power forthwith being present to the faith of those who had so done, the result was accomplished which had previously been impossible: for the timber immediately caught the flame, and being in an instant reduced to cinders, communicated with that above, and the fire spread in all directions. When the besieged saw the smoke rising, they adopted the following contrivance. Having filled small jars with sulphur, tow, and other combustibles, they threw them upon the aggestus ; and these, sending forth srnoke as the fire was increased by the force of their flight, prevented that which was rising from the mound from being observed; so that all who were not in the secret, supposed that the smoke proceeded solely from the jars.

On the third day the flames were seen issuing from the earth, and then the Persians on the mound became aware of their unfortunate situation. But Chosroes, as if in opposition to the power of heaven, endeavoured to extinguish the pile, by turning all the water-courses which were outside the city upon it. The fire, however, receiving the water as if it had been oil or sulphur, or some other combustible, continually increased, until it had completely levelled the entire mound and reduced the aggestus to ashes. Then Chosroes, in utter despair, impressed by the circumstances with a sense of his disgraceful folly in having entertained an idea of prevailing over the God whom we worship, retreated ingloriously into his own territories.

Unlike in the Doctrine of Addai, the image is here not a painting made by Hannan, but “divinely wrought…which the hands of men did not form.” Whereas before, it is the letter sent by Jesus which was the focus of attention, as time went on the story focused more on this divinely-wrought image of Jesus, the Image of Edessa, the Holy Mandylion.

 

[patrick457]

For Christians in that era, Edessa was considered to be a blessed city by virtue of the letter of Jesus and the Holy Mandylion. The letter (and later the image) was considered to be a palladium, protecting the city from invaders. (Note the version of the letter in the Doctrine of Addai and in later accounts, which specifically promises that “Your city will be blessed and no enemy shall be the master of it.”) In fact the story and the letter was so popular that copies (with variations in the text) circulated virtually everywhere; in some places it was even incorporated into the Liturgy. Some even used the letter as an amulet, considering that the protection promised by Jesus will be extended to them as well. That being said there were also some skeptics: the [Decretum Gelasianum](http:// http://www.tertullian.org/decretum_eng.htm) attributed to Pope Gelasius I (pontificate 492-496) considered the letter to be apocryphal. The author of the Libri Carolini (a treatise written under Charlemagne attacking the Byzantine ‘worship’ of images which was purportedly condoned by the anti-Iconoclastic Second Council of Nicaea of 798) also attacked the story. His reason? It’s not in the Bible.

In any case, Evagrius is our first witness to the historical existence of the Mandylion. Funny thing is, the Mandylion’s existence (rediscovery?) seemed to have sparked a chain reaction: soon different places begin reporting images of Jesus ‘not made by hands’ miraculously appearing on church walls or apses. Interestingly, it is also around this time (the 6th century?) that artists begin to be more and more consistent as to the way Jesus is depicted: it is at this time that the familiar image of Jesus (long hair and a long-ish forked beard) begin to have the upper hand over against rival portrayals (such as those showing Him as a young man or as having a ‘Semitic’ look: short, frizzy hair and a close-cropped beard), although it was considered by some to look a bit too much like Zeus. There was even a story about how a painter’s hands withered up when he portrayed Jesus in this way, first recounted by an early 6th-century Byzantine historian named Theodorus Lector, who dates it to the time when St. Gennadius was patriarch of Constantinople (458-471).

At the time of Gennadius was withered the hand of a painter who dared to paint the Saviour in the likeness of Zeus. Gennadius healed him by means of a prayer. The author [Theodorus Lector] says that the other form of Christ, viz. the one with short, frizzy hair, is the more authentic.

• Theodorus Lector, Historia Ecclesiastica 1.15 (ca 540s), from Theophanes the Confessor (ca. 810-15)

Theodore the historian of Constantinople, from his History of the Church, about Gennadius, archbishop of Constantinople:

I shall set down other things about him full of amazement. A certain painter, while painting an icon of Christ our Master, found that his hand shriveled up. And it was said that, as the work of the icon had been ordered by a certain pagan, in the adornment of the name of the Savior he had depicted his hair divided on his forehead, so that his eyes were not covered—for in such a way the children of the pagans depict Zeus—so that those who saw it would think that they were assigning veneration to the Savior.

• Theodorus Lector as quoted by St. John of Damascus, Three Treatises on the Divine Images (720s-30s), Treatise 3, 130

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/1407_-Milano-_S.Lorenzo-_Cappella_S.Aquilino-Traditio_Legis-Dall%27Orto-18-May-2007.jpg/320px-1407-Milano-_S.Lorenzo-_Cappella_S.Aquilino-Traditio_Legis-Dall%27Orto-_18-May-2007.jpg

http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/967/6thsinaipantocrator.jpg

 

[patrick457]

A Greek work, the Acts of Thaddaeus (6th-7th century) relates the story of Abgar thus:

In those times there was a governor of the city of Edessa, Abgarus by name. And there having gone abroad the fame of Christ, of the wonders which He did, and of His teaching, Abgarus having heard of it, was astonished, and desired to see Christ, and could not leave his city and government. And about the days of the Passion and the plots of the Jews, Abgarus, being seized by an incurable disease, sent a letter to Christ by Ananias the courier, to the following effect:— To Jesus called Christ, Abgarus the governor of the country of the Edessenes, an unworthy slave. The multitude of the wonders done by you has been heard of by me, that you heal the blind, the lame, and the paralytic, and curest all the demoniacs; and on this account I entreat your goodness to come even to us, and escape from the plottings of the wicked Jews, which through envy they set in motion against you. My city is small, but large enough for both. Abgarus enjoined Ananias to take accurate account of Christ, of what appearance He was, and His stature, and His hair, and in a word everything.

And Ananias, having gone and given the letter, was carefully looking at Christ, but was unable to fix Him in his mind. And He knew as knowing the heart, and asked to wash Himself; and a towel (tetradiplon ‘folded in four’) was given Him; and when He had washed Himself, He wiped His face with it. And His image having been imprinted upon the linen (sindōn), He gave it to Ananias, saying: Give this, and take back this message, to him that sent you: Peace to you and your city! For because of this I have come, to suffer for the world, and to rise again, and to raise up the forefathers. And after I have been taken up into the heavens I shall send you my disciple Thaddaeus, who shall enlighten you, and guide you into all the truth, both you and your city.

And having received Ananias, and fallen down and adored the likeness, Abgarus was cured of his disease before Thaddaeus came.

Jesus washing His face and leaving His image on a piece of cloth in lieu of a painted portrait? A messenger sent by a sick king to fetch Jesus returns instead with His image? A disciple of Jesus coming to the king? That all kinda seems familiar (if you’ve read this thread that is), ain’t it?

 

[Michael_315]

In the 1840’s a young Carmelite nun named Sr. Mary of St. Peter received revelations from Jesus about a devotion he wanted established to honor His Holy Face and to establish the Work of Reparation. She was of course not believed by the Arch Bishop of Tours. She was interviewed by the Church hierarchy, wrote down all her revelations as ordered to, and died in the odor of sanctity without ever seeing Our Lord’s wishes fulfilled. Shortly after her death and unrelated to her revelations, the Pope decreed that the Veil of Veronica be displayed for three days for veneration at the Vatican. Veronica’s Veil was displayed with another veil covering it. In front of several witnesses an image of the Holy Face of Jesus clearly appeared on the outside veil. This image lasted for several hours and was witnessed by hundreds that flocked to the chapel to see the miracle. This image was copied by artists at the Vatican while it was still visible. Several copies were made and touched to the relic of Veronica’s Veil.

Shortly after the miracle, a holy man of Tours that supported the Carmelites and was a friend of Sr. Mary of St. Peter, was given one of the copies. This man, Leo Dupont, hung that picture in his parlor and lit a lamp before it. Before long healing’s occurred to people who prayed with Dupont in front of the image. So many miraculous healing’s occurred that the Church took interest. Sr. Mary of St. Peter’s revelations were revisited and approved by the Pope. The Church finally moved forward with establishing what Christ had demanded a few years earlier, devotion to His Holy Face and reparation for blasphemy’s committed to His Holy Name and the profanation of Sunday’s and Holy Days of obligation.

The miracles attributed to that one copy of the Holy Face were so numerous that Pope Pius IX declared Leo Dupont to be perhaps the greatest miracle worker in Church history.

During Sr. Mary’s revelations, Jesus mentioned Veronica by name and mentioned her pious act of wiping His face. The miracles God allowed through Leo Dupont and the picture of His Holy Face attest to the truth of these revelations and to the fact that St. Veronica was no myth, but a pious woman who showed compassion and mercy on Jesus himself.

 

[Michael_315]

I might add that St. Theresa of Lisieux, who’s religious name is actually Sr. Theresa of the Child Jesus and the Holy Face, actually had a copy of the Holy Face exactly like Leo Dupont’s picture and used to carry it around with her. She believed in the reality of St. Veronica and was a ardent supporter of devotion to the Holy Face of Jesus.

So if that wonderful saint believes wholeheartedly in devotion to the Holy Face of Jesus, and not just any face, but that which came about through a miracle of the Veil of Veronica, then we should thank Our Lord for giving us things such as this that strengthen our faith.

 

[Memaw]

I might add that St. Theresa of Lisieux, who’s religious name is actually Sr. Theresa of the Child Jesus and the Holy Face, actually had a copy of the Holy Face exactly like Leo Dupont’s picture and used to carry it around with her. She believed in the reality of St. Veronica and was a ardent supporter of devotion to the Holy Face of Jesus.

So if that wonderful saint believes wholeheartedly in devotion to the Holy Face of Jesus, and not just any face, but that which came about through a miracle of the Veil of Veronica, then we should thank Our Lord for giving us things such as this that strengthen our faith.

Thank You Michael, I hope this puts and end to all this conflict!. God Bless, Memaw

 

[patrick457]

Thanks for the added info Michael! Now to continue:

The Abgar story reached its present form around the 10th century. The Holy Mandylion, after centuries of being kept in Edessa (and a few gaps in its history), was taken to Constantinople along with the famed letter of Jesus after the Byzantine general John Curcuas controversially (and with opposition from the locals) demanded it in exchange for sparing the city, then already under Muslim control, from attack. The image and the letter officially arrived in Constantinople at the 16th of August (nowadays, the feast of the Mandylion) of the year 944, and both were deposited in the Theotokos of the Pharos chapel in the Great Palace of Constantinople, accompanied by other claimed relics brought centuries earlier by St. Helena (such as pieces of the true cross, the spear, the crown of thorns, Jesus’ seamless garment, etc.) There the Mandylion would stay until it is finally lost to history in the 1204 Sack of Constantinople, with conflicting theories as to where it ended up.

Anyways, shortly after the image’s arrival, the Mandylion’s ‘official’ history starting from Abgar up to its transfer, was put into writing: the Narratio de Imagine Edessena (Story of the Image of Edessa).

img831.imageshack.us/img831/1121/81356878.jpg
Jesus giving Ananias the Mandylion

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Abgarwithimageofedessa10thcentury.jpg
King Abgar with the Mandylion

2.bp.blogspot.com/UOJjUH2o_wM/TGnaXe6VsDI/AAAAAAAAD0s/gbyUvu25DwM/s1600/Esposizione+S+Mandylion.jpg
The Mandylion rediscovered at a city gate in Edessa ca. AD 525 after being hidden for centuries
heiliges-antlitz.de/Surrender_of_the_Mandylion_to_the_Byzantines_kl.jpg
The Mandylion being venerated

alisonkeillor.uku.co.uk/shroud/XIcent.jpg

 

[patrick457]

I’ll just let the Narratio de Imagine Edessena take over here:

Since Ananias had given clear proof of his affection towards his master, and given that he already knew the route, and knew how to paint, Abgar sent him to take this letter to Jesus. He instructed him that if he could not persuade Christ to come with him with the letter, he should carefully copy the likeness of his form and take that to him, so that he could at least learn through a faint shadow what the author of these great wonders looked like, and not merely hear about him. Ananias set out on his mission and reached Judea, and found Christ in the open air speaking to the crowd who had gathered, and working wonderful miracles. Ananias could not get near Jesus because of the crowd, who had come from different places for different reasons, and so he went and climbed a rock that stood out a little above the ground and sat down, not far from where the Lord was speaking. He was able to distinguish the Lord among the crowd as he stood out from the people, and immediately set his eyes on Jesus and his hand to the parchment, and started to copy the likeness of what he could see.

Christ realised in his spirit what was happening and called Thomas over. “Go over there,” he said, “and bring me the man sitting on the rock and painting my form. He should bring the letter he brought from his home, so that he can fulfil the orders of the one who sent him.” Thomas went away and recognised Ananias from what he had heard he was doing, and took him to Jesus. Before he took the letter from him, Christ told him why he had come, and the content of the letter. He then took it and read it, and wrote another letter to Abgar, reading verbatim as follows:

Blessed are you, Abgar, for believing in me without having seen me (…)

Christ gave this letter to Ananias. Since he knew Ananias was anxious and concerned about the other order his lord had given him, namely to take back to him a likeness of Jesus’ face, the Saviour washed his face in water and wiped the liquid from it onto a cloth that he had been handed, and arranged in a divine way beyond understanding for his own likeness to be imprinted upon the cloth. He gave it to Ananias and told him to give it to Abgar, so that he might have some consolation for his desire and for his illness. On his way back with these objects, Ananias reached the stronghold of Hierapolis, which in Arabic is called Membich and in Syrian Mabouk. He settled down for the night outside the town, next to a pile of tiles that had recently been made, and hid the holy cloth there. Around midnight a great fire appeared around the place, and in the city people thought that the whole area was on fire. They were afraid for themselves and left the town to find out what was the blaze they had seen. There they found Ananias and arrested him as the author of the deed. They investigated the event and asked him who he was, where he was going and where he had come from.

Ananias did not know why they were asking him about such strange things, and so he openly told them where he was from, where he had come from, and what he was carrying with him. He told them had placed what he was carrying among the tiles, from where the flames seemed to be springing. They immediately wished to find out the truth about what he had said and searched the place. Not only did they find what Ananias had put there, but on one of the tiles that was touching it, another figure of the divine representation, his form miraculously and wonderfully transferred onto the tile from the unpainted cloth. When they had seen this, they were filled with fear and amazement. They could not find any fire burning, rather the flames seemed to proceed from the light in the figure. They kept the tile which had received for themselves as a sacred heirloom and valuable treasure, and guessed from what they had seen that it contained divine energy. They were afraid to retain the original image and its bearer and sent them on to Abgar. Even no, that image on the tile is still preserved and venerated by the inhabitants of this town, being an icon not painted by human hands after another image not painted by human hands either. Ananias completed the journey that lay before him and told his lord everything that had happened on the way. He also gave him the symbols of salvation he had brought with him.​

 

[patrick457]

So much for the story of Abgar. But, our author doesn’t stop here; he interestingly records another version of how the Holy Mandylion was created. And if you had earlier read the different stories of how the Veronica (the image, not the woman) came to be on this thread, this one might also ring a bell.

This is the story according to most sources, regarding the image of our Saviour on the cloth not painted by hand. However, there is another version, which is not improbably and does not lack reliable witnesses. For this reason I shall present this second version so that nobody assumes I gave preference to the first one out of ignorance of the second. It would not be strange if confusion has arisen in the story over such a long time. All the sources agree on the main fact, that the form on the cloth was miraculously transferred from the Lord’s face. They disagree on some of the details, such as when this took place. Whether it happened earlier or later does not alter the truth of the matter. The other version is as follows.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

It is said that when Christ was about to willingly undergo suffering, he displayed human weakness and prayed in anguish. **The gospel tells us that his sweat fell like drops of blood and then it is said that he took this piece of cloth, which can still be seen, from one of his disciples, and wiped off the streams of sweat on it. The figure of his divine face, which is still visible, was immediately transferred onto it. ** He gave it to Thomas and told him to send it to Abgar with Thaddaeus after his ascension to heaven, thus fulfilling what he had promised in the letter. When our Lord Jesus Christ was taken up into heaven, Thomas gave the image of our Lord’s face that was not painted by hand to Thaddaeus, and sent him to Abgar.

Compare it with what Petrus Mallius (the canon of St. Peter’s) wrote about the Veronica in 1160:

The oratorium of the holy Mother of God, called the Veronica, in which are kept [apart from the crib relic] … the indubitable genuine sudarium of Christ, the cloth into which he pressed his most holy face before the Passion, when his sweat ran in drops of blood to the earth … Before the Veronica ten lamps burn day and night.

 

[patrick457]

The archdeacon of the Hagia Sophia named Gregory Referendarius gave a sermon on the occasion of the Mandylion’s arrival in Constantinople in 944. In it he seems to prefer this second version of the Mandylion’s creation over the ‘Jesus wiping His face upon receiving the letter’ story. (This is probably where the Narratio gets this from.)
Since there is no mention of an image in either letter and the voice of tradition has not been able to convince wise men or help them understand, we went to Edessa, our souls burning with zeal, hoping to find in the manuscripts there what Abgar had done. And we found a great number of manuscripts written in the Syriac language, from which we copied what was asked of us and translated it into Greek. This is what it says:

King Abgar said to Thaddaeus, “You have taught me correctly about how Christ came down to earth, about his miracles and his suffering, about his burial and resurrection, and about how he was miraculously taken up to the Father in his body, and I confess that he is the true God. But tell me how the image on the linen that cured me was made, since I can see that it was no produced with ordinary paint, and explain its special strength, since when I saw it unfolded in your face I was cured of my illness and got up from my bed, and I felt the strength that I had in my body when I was in my prime.”

And Thaddaeus answered, “When Ananias, who you entrusted the letters to, said in hope that apart from your health, you also wished to look upon the likeness of his face as it was seen, Jesus told him to come quickly to you with the letter, in which he promised to send you one of his disciples after his ascension, and I am that disciple. But Jesus, undergoing the passion of his own free will, believing that human nature fears death – indeed death comes upon the very nature that was made to live – taking this linen cloth he wiped the sweat that was falling down his face like drops of blood in his agony. And miraculously, just as he made everything from nothing in his divine strength, he imprinted the reflection of his form in the linen.

“When he came down to the mountain after praying, he gave it to Thomas, one of my fellow disciples, as I was not there. He told him to give it to me, so that after the ascension I could bring it to you.”upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Prayer_in_the_Garden_of_Olives_%28San_Marco%29.jpg/640px-Prayer_in_the_Garden_of_Olives_%28San_Marco%29.jpg
​

 

[patrick457]

We finally go back to the Veronica. As noted repeatedly the earlier tradition has the portrait which Veronica possessed was a painting of Jesus from life (so in the Cura Sanitatis Tiberii, some versions of the Vindicta Salvatoris, and some manuscripts of Gervase of Tilbury), which later shifted into a miraculous image formed when Jesus wiped His face onto a cloth either when the woman Veronica wanted to have a portrait of Him (so in other versions of the Vindicta, The Golden Legend, Mors Pilati, Gerald de Barri, Matthew Paris, the Dit is Veronica, etc.) or when He sweated blood at Gethsemane (Petrus Mallius). The parallels between this and the story of the Holy Mandylion is very interesting. (In fact, in 1287 when a Syrian monk visiting Rome was shown the Veronica, he had identified it with the Mandylion!)

Roger d’Argenteuil’s 13th century prose retelling of the Bible in French is very important because it set a standard. After Roger almost all subsequent retellers adopted his version or elements from it - the basic plotline is the one we all know today. In Roger, a pagan woman in Jerusalem named Veronica was on her way to market to sell a piece of cloth (a vernicle) when she met Jesus carrying His cross en route to Calvary. Moved with pity she used the vernicle she was originally going to sell to wipe Jesus’ face. She then discovers that an image of Jesus’ face was stamped onto the cloth, left there as a reward for her compassion.

 

[Brian_Quail]

Veronica is a corruption of “vera icona”, ie. the true image of Christ. There is no such person as Veronica, not in the Gospels, nor in Catholic teaching.

The image goes back to the Mandylion of Edessa, which is the origin of the Shroud of Turin.
In spite of the carbon dating disappointment of '86, increasing evidence points to the inescapable authenticity of the Shroud. It’s image appears on Byzantine coins of Justin II, in the 11th century, and appears on the Hungarian Prey manuscript, long before the carbon dating of the 14th century.

It (the Mandylion/Shroud ) spent some time in Constantinople, from where a version reached Rome, which was adopted into Catholic devotional practice as the Veronica station of the Cross.

This is a long and complex matter, but well worth investigating.

I thoroughly recommend Ian Wilson’s “The Shroud of Turin”, which is a masterly coverage of this topic. This is an utterly convincing vindication of the Shroud. Please read it!

 

[patrick457]

Veronica is a corruption of “vera icona”, ie. the true image of Christ. There is no such person as Veronica, not in the Gospels, nor in Catholic teaching.

The image goes back to the Mandylion of Edessa, which is the origin of the Shroud of Turin.
In spite of the carbon dating disappointment of '86, increasing evidence points to the inescapable authenticity of the Shroud. It’s image appears on Byzantine coins of Justin II, in the 11th century, and appears on the Hungarian Prey manuscript, long before the carbon dating of the 14th century.

It (the Mandylion/Shroud ) spent some time in Constantinople, from where a version reached Rome, which was adopted into Catholic devotional practice as the Veronica station of the Cross.

This is a long and complex matter, but well worth investigating.

I thoroughly recommend Ian Wilson’s “The Shroud of Turin”, which is a masterly coverage of this topic. This is an utterly convincing vindication of the Shroud. Please read it!

I disagree. Veronica is originally the Latinized form of the Greek name Berenike or Pheronike (‘victory-bearer’). ‘Berenice’ was a name given to the Haemorrhoissa, the woman with the issue of blood who was healed by touching Jesus’ garment, with Veronica as its Latin equivalent. It was only after the connection between this woman Berenice/Veronica and the image of Jesus became established in the Latin West that the name was given a folk etymology (vera icona) and the woman’s name applied to the image as well (the Veronica).

 

[Memaw]

So much for the story of Abgar. But, our author doesn’t stop here; he interestingly records another version of how the Holy Mandylion was created. And if you had earlier read the different stories of how the Veronica (the image, not the woman) came to be on this thread, this one might also ring a bell.

This is the story according to most sources, regarding the image of our Saviour on the cloth not painted by hand. However, there is another version, which is not improbably and does not lack reliable witnesses. For this reason I shall present this second version so that nobody assumes I gave preference to the first one out of ignorance of the second. It would not be strange if confusion has arisen in the story over such a long time. All the sources agree on the main fact, that the form on the cloth was miraculously transferred from the Lord’s face. They disagree on some of the details, such as when this took place. Whether it happened earlier or later does not alter the truth of the matter. The other version is as follows.

http://www.markdroberts.com/images/passion-garden-jesus-7.jpg

It is said that when Christ was about to willingly undergo suffering, he displayed human weakness and prayed in anguish. **The gospel tells us that his sweat fell like drops of blood and then it is said that he took this piece of cloth, which can still be seen, from one of his disciples, and wiped off the streams of sweat on it. The figure of his divine face, which is still visible, was immediately transferred onto it. ** He gave it to Thomas and told him to send it to Abgar with Thaddaeus after his ascension to heaven, thus fulfilling what he had promised in the letter. When our Lord Jesus Christ was taken up into heaven, Thomas gave the image of our Lord’s face that was not painted by hand to Thaddaeus, and sent him to Abgar.

Compare it with what Petrus Mallius (the canon of St. Peter’s) wrote about the Veronica in 1160:

The oratorium of the holy Mother of God, called the Veronica, in which are kept [apart from the crib relic] … the indubitable genuine sudarium of Christ, the cloth into which he pressed his most holy face before the Passion, when his sweat ran in drops of blood to the earth … Before the Veronica ten lamps burn day and night.

My, My, when will it ever end.
Such extremes to disprove a devotion that the Church has not only sanctioned but grants a Plenary Indulgence for doing it properly. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Marie5890]

My, My, when will it ever end.
Such extremes to**** disprove a devotion that the Church

has not only sanctioned but grants a Plenary Indulgence for doing it properly. God Bless, Memaw

Memaw, I disagree with the assessment that Patrick’s explanation of how the story came about is his attempt to disprove the devotion. Clearly, the devotion is approved and as you said, has a Plenary Indulgence attached to it.

What Patrick has done is show the history of how that devotion came to be, you know, puts it into the context of what is historically known.

I havent seen what he has done is attempting to deny the devotion at all, but rather, why it exists in the first place.

 

[Memaw]

Memaw, I disagree with the assessment that Patrick’s explanation of how the story came about is his attempt to disprove the devotion. Clearly, the devotion is approved and as you said, has a Plenary Indulgence attached to it.

What Patrick has done is show the history of how that devotion came to be, you know, puts it into the context of what is historically known.

I havent seen what he has done is attempting to deny the devotion at all, but rather, why it exists in the first place.

It has been very confusing to say the least and as the old saying goes," To many cooks spoil the broth." To many tales loose their flavor. God Bless, Memaw