How the Shroud of Turin affected Orthodox Worship

I wrote this article during Lent of 2005 and distributed it during Holy Week to our congregation. I thought I\'d share it with the people on this forum. I\'d appreciate any comments, but I cannot reply to emails through this forum as my version of Mozilla is too old and not supported by this site. Email me at mcreekus@mindspring.com. The Epitaphio, the Aer, and the Shroud of Turin by Emanuel H. Creekus Choir Director, St. George Greek Orthodox Church, Massillon, Ohio About a year and a half ago, I was re-reading a fascinating book about the Shroud of Turin, entitled The Shroud and the Controversy, by Kenneth E. Stevenson and Gary R. Habermas (Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1990). My interest in this subject was rekindled, particularly that part of the Shroud legend that says that what we Greek Orthodox call the Holy Mandylion (pronounced mahn-DEE-lee-ohn) was in the possession of the Patriarchate of Constantinople from the year 944 until the Latin invasion of that city in 1204, when it was stolen by the Crusaders. While doing some Internet surfing on this subject, I ran across the website www.shroud.com. In this website\'s list of articles and papers available for downloading, was one entitled, “Greek Epitaphioi and Other Evidence for the Shroud in Constantinople up to 1204”, by Dr. Daniel Scavone, history professor at the University of Southern Indiana. While reading Dr. Scavone\'s paper, I realized that he omitted some information that may be important in proving his thesis. I contacted him via e-mail, and the following is the result of about two months of correspondence with him, plus a filling in of other historical information for you, the reader. This is a fascinating venture into Church History, and yes, hymnography certainly has played a role here as well. It is also an example of actual facts and history backing up and verifying the Orthodox Church\'s Holy Tradition. A Brief History of the Shroud/Holy Mandylion As you probably know, the Shroud of Turin is a long piece of cloth that shows an image of a scourged, crucified, naked man, both front and back. The image is three-dimensional and not flat. Many researchers and others think it may be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ and the image was somehow made by His resurrection—a 3-D image that modern science has so far been unable to explain for certain or to duplicate. Legend has it that King Abgar of the city of Edessa (Odessa) wrote to Jesus shortly before His death, asking Him to come to Edessa to heal him from a disease. Jesus replied that he could not come Himself, because He knew His time was near, but that after His death and resurrection, one of His disciples would come and heal him. St. Jude (Thaddeus) did so, bringing the Shroud with him. (Why Jude? This further verifies the tradition that Jude was Jesus\' half-brother, another son of Joseph by a previous marriage. Burial cloths were considered very unclean and were only given to and kept by family members.) When St. Jude touched King Abgar with the Shroud, he was healed. Stevenson and Habermas write, “...Edessa became one of the first Eastern cities to convert to Christianity. Later, the cloth disappeared during a period of persecution of the new church, only to be uncovered nearly five hundred years later—sealed in a wall of the city...When this image was uncovered in Edessa after a serious flood destroyed a portion of the walls in approximately A.D. 525, it was believed without question to be the cloth of the Edessa legend.”1 Remember this date, 525 A.D. It becomes very significant in light of what Dr. Scavone and I discussed. In the year 944, an army from Constantinople sieged Edessa. The Byzantine general, John Curcuras, released 200 Muslim prisoners, paid 12,000 pieces of silver, and granted a peace treaty in exchange for the Shroud. Even so, the Muslims tried to pass off a fake Shroud but were foiled.2 Stevenson and Habermas also say: “In 1204, it was stolen by French Crusader Knights when they sacked the city of Constantinople. Consequently, the cloth disappeared once again. Finally, the Shroud as we know it today, turned up in Lirey in the family of a French Crusader Knight who claimed it was a \'spoil of war\'.”3 Are the Holy Mandylion and the Shroud of Turin one and the same? Most sindonologists agree that they are. (A sindonologist is someone who studies ancient burial cloths, and usually refers to those who study mummies or the Shroud.) The Mandylion supposedly only showed the face, but there is ample evidence from many ancient sources that describe the cloth as being “doubled in four” so that only the face would show. The Shroud has these same folds in the cloth. For brevity\'s sake, I will not go into further detail but let the readers investigate for themselves. The Epitaphio The Epitaphio, for those reading this who are not Orthodox Christians, is the holy cloth depicting Christ\'s naked, dead body that is used to cover the tomb on Holy Friday. Many Orthodox have come to refer to the entire mock-up of Christ\'s tomb as the Epitaphio, but this is technically incorrect. The Epitaphio is the cloth. The structure is more properly referred to as the Kouvouklion. The Aer The Aer (pronounced ah-EER) is a cloth that is used as a covering for the Paten and Chalice, but it is also much more than that. The Aer has two ribbons sewn onto it. During the Great Entrance, the priest or deacon ties the ribbons around his neck so that the Aer looks like a shoulder-blade length cape, worn while he transfers the Paten and Chalice from the Prothesis (Oblation) Table to the Altar. Dr. Scavone was not aware of this usage, only of its use as a covering. It is also shaken or fanned (hence its name) over the Paten and Chalice during the reciting of the Creed. Origins It appears that the Aer and the Epitaphio have a common origin. The Aer began to be used in Jerusalem at about the time of St. Savas, who died in the year 532 (remember the 525 A.D date!). Simeon of Thessalonica wrote in no uncertain terms that the Aer, just like the Epitaphio, represents the naked and dead body of Jesus as it was placed in the tomb, and that is why the icon of the placing of Christ\'s body in the tomb is so often depicted on the Aer. Dr. Scavone, in his paper, points out that originally they showed a lamb, up until the time of the Quinisect Council in Trullo in the year 692.4 The Rev. Nicholas M. Elias, in his book The Divine Liturgy Explained, says: “The Veils or Cloth-covers...are three; two of them are smaller which are used to cover the Paten and the Chalice, the third to cover both. These three veils remind us of the clothes and shrouds which were used for Christ\'s burial.”5 Later when he describes the Great Entrance, he writes: “After all these, he [the Priest] goes to the Credence [Prothesis or Oblation Table]. He there puts on his shoulders the Air (sic), which represents the cloth in which the Body of Christ was wrapped.”6 Dr. Scavone\'s Paper The primary difficulty in the Shroud\'s history is tying the first historical reference to the Shroud in the West in 1355 to the Mandylion that was documented in Edessa since at least the 4th Century and in Constantinople from 944 to 1204. He mentions two documents, one of them being the Gregory Sermon of August 16, 944 (more on this date later), which strongly suggests a full-length image on the Mandylion that had just arrived.7 In his paper, he tries to see if a study of the Liturgy, art, and texts gives any historical backing up of the evidence. There are two items of interest about the Epitaphio that Dr. Scavone points out. One of them is the lamentation scene that we call θρηνος in Greek, which depicts the shroud upon Jesus, laying in death. In many cases, the weave pattern of the shroud portion of the scene is the identical 3 to 1 herringbone twill that we see on the Shroud of Turin. The second is the fact that on many epitaphioi, Jesus\' body is shown exactly as it appears on the Shroud of Turin, with hands crossed. Space does not permit me to retell all of the evidence he presents. But I did point out to Dr. Scavone the hymnological connection. Around the edges of most Epitaphio cloths I have seen is written the following hymn: “Ο ευσχημων Ιωσηφ απο του ξυλου καθελων το αχραντον Σου Σωμα, σινδονι καθαρα ειλησας και αρωμασιν, εν μνηματι καινω κηδευσας απεθετο.” “The noble Joseph takes down from the Tree Thy spotless Body, and when he had enwrapped it in clean linen with aromas, he laid it for burial in a new sepulchre.” As we will continue to see, hymnography and the Church\'s services play a key role in establishing a connection between Constantinople and the Shroud of Turin. Dr. Scavone\'s research indicates that the large Epitaphio cloths with the θρηνος scenes began to be used in the 11th to 12th century. He also mentions that Byzantine scholar Hans Belting “...is one of the few who have perceived the Shroud as at least one factor among many in the rise of the larger cloth epitaphioi and the new mural art, but sadly he did not follow it up as we might have wished. Belting noticed what he called a new empathetic realism in liturgical representation during the 11th - 12th centuries. He noted that the θρηνος art from its inception in the 11th century reflects a liturgical change (!) as well as the new mood of empathetic involvement of the congregation in the suffering of Jesus.”8 (Italics mine.) Keep in mind that this is shortly after the Shroud\'s arrival in 944 (mid-10th century). The Hymnographical and Liturgical Evidence What was this liturgical change? Apparently Belting didn\'t mention it. I figured there had to be some hymnographical evidence and set out to find it. It did not take me long—the answer was in my own personal library, and it hit me like a ton of bricks. St. George parishioners may recall an article I wrote for our newsletter about the Hymn of Justinian (Ο Μονογενης Υιος—Only-Begotten Son). In it I mentioned that the three short antiphons sung during the Divine Liturgy were also at one time sung during Vespers as part of the “chanted” office. I mentioned that gradually the “chanted” offices gave way in favor of the monastic practice (less singing, more speaking), and that by the beginning of the 15th century had all but disappeared except in Thessalonica. In Constantinople, however, they had disappeared except for a very few feasts, by the early 13th century—shortly after the sack of the city in 1204 and the Shroud\'s disappearance. Did this have anything to do with the liturgical change in question? Dr. Oliver Strunk, in his book Essays on Music in the Byzantine World, provides the answer. In the chapter “The Byzantine Office at Hagia Sophia” (the one in 15th century Thessalonica, not the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople), he writes: “There can be little doubt that it [the manuscript of the monastic Vespers he was studying and writing about] would closely approximate the practice of Thessalonica about the year 1400. But one has only to consult the Typicon of the Great Church [Constantinople] to recognize that the practice of Constantinople in the ninth century [before the Shroud\'s arrival] was altogether different...” He goes on to say: “By the 11th century, then, the monasteries were already borrowing procedures from the “chanted” office and making them their own. At the same time, and even earlier, the influence of the monastic rite was making itself felt at Hagia Sophia [Thessalonica].” Where did the monastic rite begin? The same place that the Aer, the Epitaphio, and the Shroud did—Jerusalem. Strunk writes: “By the year 1200, the Great Church [Constantinople] had abandoned the celebration of the Liturgy on Good Friday...and in an 11th century manuscript at the Laura, almost certainly written in Constantinople or within its orbit, the Palestinian hour-services for Good Friday [this is the morning service] have displaced the service called for in the Typicon of the Great Church. In this source, the monastic hours are specifically identified as \'conforming to the Tradition of the Holy City\'. The conflicting service called for in the Typicon is then relegated to an appendix. Nor is the Typicon itself altogether free from monastic borrowings, even in its ninth century state. On Maundy Thursday...the commemoration of the feet of the disciples already involves the singing of the troparia taken over from the local use of Jerusalem.”9 (Italics mine.) Dr. Strunk provides a plate of the front page of this 11th century manuscript. It reads as follows: “Η ταξις [next word unreadable] τη Αγια και Μεγαλη Παρασκευη εις τας Ωρας, κατα την παραδοσιν της Αγιας Πολεως. Ποιημα Σωφρονιου Πατριαρχου Ιεροσολυμων. Τροπαρια των Αγιων Παθων Ωρα Α\' Ηχος Πλ. Δ\' Σημερον του ναου το καταπετασμα εις ελεγχον ρηγνυται των παρανομων, και τας ιδιας ακτινας ο ηλιος κρυπτει, Δεσποτην ορων σταυρομενον.”10 Strunk did not translate this, but I will: “The order...of the Great and Holy Friday for the Hours; according to the tradition of the Holy City. A poem by Sophronios, Patriarch of Jerusalem. Troparia (Hymns) of the Holy Passion 1st Hour, Fourth Plagal Tone (this is a musical sign denoting the scale or mode the hymns are to be sung in, sort of like our modern key signature) Today the veil of the temple is torn in reproach of the transgressors of the law; and the sun has hidden its rays, beholding the Master crucified.” This is the same service that we celebrate today. Sophronios was Patriarch of Jerusalem from the years 634 to 638. I also mentioned to Dr. Scavone about the Apokathelosis service (the “taking down from the Cross”) that is celebrated on Good Friday afternoon, which he was unfamiliar with. Those of you who are reading this who have never been to this service, or the Hours service for that matter, are really missing something significant and beautiful. At the Apokathelosis sevice, at that point in the Gospel reading where Joseph of Arimathea asks for and takes Jesus\' body, the icon of Christ\'s dead body that is on the large crucifix is removed, wrapped in a white sheet, and placed on the altar. Later, the priest forms a procession with the Epitaphio cloth and places it on the sepulchre. While this procession takes place, the chanter chants the Aposticha, the first verse of which mentions the linen cloth (σινδονι). We see a probable origin of the Apokathelosis service and perhaps the Epitaphio as well, again in the city of Jerusalem. The early Christians in Jerusalem used the wood of the Cross that was discovered by St. Helen in their Good Friday worship, rather than the Epitaphio. We know this because the diary of a 4th century pilgrim that describes the rite has survived. On Good Friday, the bishop of Jerusalem, along with several priests and deacons, made a procession to Golgotha where a throne was set up for him on the exact spot of the Crucifixion. Before him was placed a table covered with a white cloth on which was placed the sacred wood of the Cross. As the bishop held the ends of the Cross with his hands, the faithful approached, bowed before the sacred Cross, and kissed it. This is also reminiscent of the Eastern Orthodox service on Holy Thursday evening. On Good Friday evening, we chant the following at the Kathismata: “Σινδονι καθαρα και αρωμασιν θειοις, το Σωμα το σεπτον εξαιτησας Πιλατω, μυριζει και τιθησιν Ιωσηφ καινω μνηματι...” “Joseph begged from Pilate Thy sacred Body, which he anointed with hallowed spices and laid in a new tomb with clean linen...” Iconography I also found the following by St. Romanos the Melodist. It is the first stanza from his Pascha Kontakion. We are familiar with the 1st Prelude (koukoulion) of this Kontakion, because it is still sung, and is the familiar “Ει και εν ταφω κατηλθες, Αθανατε...”. The first stanza reads, in part, “...let us adore and let us offer sweet spices as gifts to the One who is now wrapped, not in swaddling clothes, but in a shroud...” It is very interesting to note that St. Romanos came to Constantinople from Beirut only a few years (probably 5 or less) before the Shroud was rediscovered in Edessa in 525. I have also noticed other comparisons between the swaddling clothes of the Nativity to the Shroud, particularly in iconography. Many icons of the Nativity have the cave of Jesus\' birth seeming to resemble the tomb of His burial, for example. And this is not the only effect the Shroud has had on Byzantine iconography. It has been “...demonstrated that the Shroud image was known and used as a model for everything from icons to coins. Specifically, they [researchers Alan and Mary Whanger] isolated icons of Christ from the sixth century and coins bearing His image from the seventh and demonstrated 170 points of congruence [to the Shroud] for the coin, and 145 for the icon. The significance of this research is that it only takes 45 to 60 points to establish the identity or same source of face images in a court of law.”11 There is another relationship regarding the Shroud and iconography. In the Eastern Orthodox Church, we have a feast day commemorating the arrival of the Shroud/Mandylion in Constantinople on August 16, 944. The Apolytikion (Dismissal Hymn) for August 16 is the same as that for the Sunday of Orthodoxy (first Sunday of Lent), which commemorates the final victory of the Iconodules over the Iconoclasts and the 7th Ecumenical Council, that restored the icons in the year 787. The text of the hymn is: “Thy pure Image (Την αχραντον Εικονα Σου) we venerate, O Good One, and we entreat Thee, O Christ our God, of Thy goodness to pardon our transgressions,for of Thine own good will Thou didst consent to be lifted up in the flesh upon the Cross, that Thou might deliver those whom Thou hast created from the bondage of the enemy. Wherefore with thankfulness we cry to Thee: Thou, O our Savior, hast filled all things with joy in coming to save the world.” But, is the Shroud of Turin real? Perhaps you have heard about the carbon-14 dating of the Shroud in the late 1980\'s that showed it was of medieval origin, despite ample evidence to the contrary. The very latest evidence (January 2005) proves that the sample that was tested in London in 1988 had been taken from a portion of the Shroud that had been repaired in the Middle Ages, and that the actual Shroud cloth is of a different weave and is probably much older than the sample that was tested. For more details, go to www.shroud.com. Is Jesus the man on the Shroud? As I mentioned at the beginning, the Shroud of Turin shows the image of a scourged, crucified man. Many people were punished thus by the Romans, so a comparison of the Shroud to the Gospels is in order to determine whether it is probable that the man of the Shroud is in fact likely to be Jesus or not. We know from the Gospels that Jesus was scourged. Researchers have found at least 100 scourge marks on the Shroud, which were probably inflicted by a Roman flagrum. The flagrum was a whip-like instrument with a handle and several leather strips ending in pieces of metal or bone. On the Shroud, there is evidence that it may have had three dumbbell-shaped lead tips. The Mel Gibson film “The Passion of the Christ” showed the flagrum and its effects extremely accurately. Victims twisted, turned, and even rolled on the ground from the blows. We also know that Jesus wore a crown of thorns, mocking His claims of kingship. The man on the Shroud has many piercings throughout the scalp. Blood from the scalp wounds is visible in the hair on top, on the sides of the face, and on the forehead. Blood is especially visible in the hair on the back of the head. (By the way, the back of the Shroud shows that the man has his hair in a ponytail or braid—another influence on iconography. Many Byzantine icons show Jesus with a loose braid or ponytail—including the icons at our own St. George Church. Take a look at the icon of the Pantocrator and especially the new icon on the bishop\'s throne!) These wounds are different than the scourge wounds. Plus, what other person would give the Romans cause to make a crown of thorns to place on that person\'s head? We know that Jesus was beaten with a rod; the man on the Shroud has bruises around the eyes and cheeks, and a twisted nose. The man on the Shroud has large rub marks on both sides of his upper back, which came after the scourging, since blood from the scourge marks is smeared in those areas, from carrying the cross. Both knees, especially the left one, have bad contusions, probably from falling while carrying the cross and also possibly from falling during the scourging. Normally, crucifixion victims had their legs broken to hasten death. We know that this was not done to Jesus—nor does the man on the Shroud have any signs of broken legs. Also, there is a large side wound between the 5th and 6th ribs. Theologians and researchers have concluded that the lowest probability that the man on the Shroud is not Jesus is about 1 chance in 225 billion. However, I will leave the reader to draw his own conclusion. Whether the Shroud is real or not, whether the man on the Shroud is Jesus or not, the question still remains: Do you believe in Him? Do you accept Him and His message of salvation? Do you believe in His death on the Cross for our sins, and His bodily Resurrection? The Shroud of Turin means nothing if we do not believe in the One who quite likely was wrapped in it. His Crucifixion and Resurrection were real events! The Shroud of Turin may well prove this, but I prefer to quote the 2nd Stichera from the Lauds (Αινοι) for the Second Tone, sung during Matins: “Answer, O Jews, how was it that the guardian soldiers lost the King whom they were guarding? Why was it that the stone could not retain the Rock of Life? Either must ye therefore deliver to us Him who was buried, or worship with us Him who is risen, by shouting: \'Glory to thy bountiful mercies! O our Savior, glory to Thee!” Emanuel H. Creekus (unfortunately, the footnotes I had didn\'t copy/paste over to this post)