c. 958; copies preserved in the 12th century

Imperial correspondence distinguishes relic cloths

A letter about Constantinople’s relics mentions burial cloths apart from the Mandylion.

This correspondence is cited as evidence that Byzantine writers could distinguish face-image and burial linens. Its later transmission and interpretation call for caution.

A letter associated with Constantine VII’s military correspondence around 958 lists objects connected with Christ’s Passion, including the cross, lance, tunic and burial textiles. The list is important because it places more than one cloth-related term within the imperial relic collection. The document was composed in a military and devotional context, encouraging troops through relics and holy water.¹

What the surviving source says

The wording and the date of the surviving manuscript copies must be kept distinct. Terms such as sindon and spargana are not interchangeable, and scholars disagree about exactly which physical relic each label denotes. A list of relics does not prove that every item was a unique, continuously documented object.¹²

Historical significance and limits

The correspondence matters to the Mandylion debate because it may distinguish the face image from burial linens held in the capital. It complicates any simple claim that all references to Christ’s cloth refer to one and the same object.²³

Sources and further reading

1. Mark Guscin, The Tradition of the Image of Edessa (source study). Consult the cited passage in the full source and its transmission context; the article distinguishes the source’s wording from later interpretation.
2. Otangelo Grasso, The Image That Should Not Exist: A Scientific Investigation of the Shroud of Turin (2026), ch. 2, “Origins and Historical Record,” pp. 23–31, and ch. 17, “The Mandylion, Art, and the Historical Record,” pp. 232–243. Author synthesis; not an independent witness.
3. Otangelo Grasso, From Forensics to Faith (2026), ch. 2, “Pre-1355 History,” pp. 32–125, and ch. 3, “6th to 14th Century History,” pp. 126–194. The book advances a proposed reconstruction; claims are assessed here against the primary texts.
4. Otangelo Grasso, Chronological List of Pre-1356 Literature Mentioning the Shroud and Christ’s Burial Cloth (20 July 2025), pp. 1–9. Prepared with AI assistance and used as a research checklist; its identifications and confidence labels are not treated as verified facts.
5. Andrea Nicolotti, From the Mandylion of Edessa to the Shroud of Turin (critical study). Further reading or contextual source retained from this event’s earlier bibliography.