The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

APPENDIX II
THE IMAGE OF EDESSA
Although it is generally accepted that Evagrius is the ¢rst author to
mention the miraculous image of Christ at Edessa, a radical challenge
to this orthodoxy has been mounted by Chrysostomides. 1 Chrysostomides
argues that the allusion to the icon was introduced into Evagrius’
text in the eighth century, in the context of the iconoclast dispute:
Evagrius’ account of the icon was read out at the Ecumenical Council of
787, when a copy of the text presented to the Council by the monk
Stephen had this passage erased, although George, abbot of the monastery
of Hyacinthus, fortunately happened to possess a complete text. 2
According to Chrysostomides, Stephen’s text represented the genuine
Evagrius whereas that of George had been adapted for its current
purpose. Thus, far from being an important example of the development
of the cult of icons in the sixth century and of the role of Christianity in
defending the empire’s frontiers, the story of the icon would be an
instance, equally interesting, of the fabrication of material during the
Iconoclast Dispute. There are, however, several problems in Chrysostomides’
analysis.
(1) The closeness of Evagrius’ account to Procopius is overstated. In
fact, Evagrius con£ated the Procopian account of events in 540, when
Abgar’s letter proved its worth, with the major siege of 544. 3 Evagrius
transformed the siege mound into the centrepiece of his presentation, a
substantial simpli¢cation of the more extended narrative in Procopius,
but a change which deliberately focused attention on the miraculous
nature of its destruction. Procopius recorded two miracles with regard
to the 540 attack (Khusro lost his way and su¡ered a headache: Wars
ii.12.32^3), but nothing miraculous about the burning of the mound in
544. Evagrius had a di¡erent story to tell, and so ignored the events of
540 to focus on the greater wonders in 544.
1 ‘Investigation’ xxiv^xxviii; I am indebted to Chrysostomides for the opportunity to
consider her arguments in advance of publication.
2 Mansi, Collectio XIII. 189D^192C.
3 Chrysostomides, ‘Investigation’ xxv, does not notice this con£ation.