Talk:Image of Edessa/Archive 1

An ip writes

I'm a little confused by a part in the article where it says, "An Arab legend, related to historian Andrew Palmer when he visited Urfa (Edessa) in 1999, relates that the towel (mendil) of Jesus was thrown into a well in what is today the city's Great Mosque. The Christian tradition is at variance with this, recounting how in 944 it was exchanged for a group of Muslim prisoners— at that time the Image of Edessa was taken to Constantinople". I was also reading this Turkish website which is linked to from the Wikipedia page on Şanlıurfa: http://www.sanliurfa.gov.tr/index.php?go=4,3,65

Anyhow, this Wikipedia article on the Image of Edessa seems to imply that it was thrown in to the well never to be seen again in conflict with Christian tradition (based on a reference to a story relayed to historian Andrew Palmer when he visited Urfa in 1999), but the story on the Turkish site talks about Jesus Christ's handkerchief being thrown into Job's well by a thief who was afraid of a bright light coming from the handkerchief. The handkerchief is then recovered from the well, because of a light bright as the sun coming out of the well, and returned to the monastery.

The real conflict to me (according to this article and the page I linked to above) appears to be that Christian tradition has the Image of Edessa going to Constantinople in 944 while the story of the handkerchief of Jesus (assuming we are talking about the same artifact) being thrown into the well seems to occur in 1145. I think this needs to be clarified in the article.

Why does Jesus have thin eyebrows?

Why are the eyebrows so feminine? Did he pluck them, or is it a picture of a woman?

And why is it so European when Jesus was supposedly Semitic? Clinkophonist 20:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, why is it a mediaeval painting? --Gene_poole 04:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you both talking about? Neither of your descriptions fit the Vatican copies of the image presented on this article, or the Shroud of Turin (if that is what you are referring to). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.153.134.105 (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about the Matilda chapel image, an obvious mediaeval painting. --Gene_poole (talk) 01:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions

I have restored the paragraphs that have been noiselessly suppressed over the past months, to satisfy one enthusiast's view or another's. This restores a coherent account of the development of this legend. A closer watch needs to be kept on Image of Edessa. Wikipedia cannot verify miraculous images. --Wetman 00:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sainte Chapelle

This was from Cormack - like many big-league relics it clearly was able to reproduce itself. Perhaps part of the job-lot bought from Baldwin the Latin Emperor of Byzantium, but I will have to check it out. Johnbod 15:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article repeats itself

The second paragraph reads identically to the first sentence in the History section. Recommend deleting the first sentence as it reads better in the History section. Morenooso 06:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mandylion at the Vatican

The article doesn't say anything about what this thing at the Vatican is supposed to be. Since it is called the "Mandylion", and since Mandylion redirects here, the article should explain what it is. 70.20.144.161 03:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The naive representation of the face on the "thing" in the Vatican is obviously a mediaeval painting, so it's clearly NOT "not made by human hands" - unless the deity allegedly responsible was peculiarly unskilled with the brush. --Gene_poole 22:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image on Veronica's Veil needs to be discussed in terms of the Image of Edessa. Competent art historical commentary is always welcome at Wikipedia. --Wetman 05:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case we seem to have mis-labelled the picture in this article. --Gene_poole 05:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reorganised the article, trying to seperate out the different elements of this complex history. In so doing I have put the surviving images under a new heading. Hope this helps

--John Price 18:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Acheiropoieta

I suggest the article Acheiropoieta be merged into this one--both articles are really discussing the same thing, and "Image of Edessa" would probalby be the form under which most people who know of it would be looking it up ("Acheiropoieta" is a bit obscure). MishaPan 16:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The Edessa image is only one example of Acheiropoieta, although the various legends have become entangled. Johnbod 16:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Precisely. This is a genre: the phenomenon of ascribing miraculous supernatural origins to images is not limited to this one: see, for example, the Holy Face of Lucca, "completed by angels". --Wetman 23:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. What a strange idea --John Price 18:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Image of Edessa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Image of Edessa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927210031/http://www.shroudstory.com/scavone/scavone.doc to http://www.shroudstory.com/scavone/scavone.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical. What is the article ABOUT?

The lead, and the entire article, explain in no way how the image became known as "not painted by human hand", as the only account of how it was actually created has a painter painting it. That can't be it. The tangential mention of a tile being miraculously imprinted by the image of the actual Mandylion, which was hidden behind it, a. refers to a secondary relic, and b. isn't pursued any further anyway.

In other words, there is so much effort in disproving the historicity of the legend, that the article forgets to clearly state: what is the LEGEND of the Mandylion?

So we have an article without a clear definition of its topic. Nice. Arminden (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]