medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture

I'd have to agree with Paul, which was the point of my originally sardonic (and sarcastic) answer to Henk.  What people base their faith on is completely 
irrelevant - as is faith, except to the degree that a specific religioius sensibility provides information about a specific phenomenon.  Controversy becomes 
extreme (as in the website posted by Allman) only when living religious beliefs are involved (either the Cult of Science or the Cult of Cult).

Also, in the realm of reality, I would point to a different issue flowing from pre-Classical antiquity:  Homer's Illiad.  Laying aside the debate concerning the 
actual authorship, etc. of the poem, for a good while it was generally accepted that the Iliad was nothing more than folklore and mythology (in the sense of 
fraudulent tale).  The ancient Greeks, however, took it to be true in much the same way as a medieval pilgrim would have taken the relics at Santiago to be 
those of St. James.  Eventually, an amateur on a mission discovered that Troy was a real place, which precipitated further, more serious research that 
ultimately revealed the "truth" of the Illiad.

Of course, since the Greek "pagan" religions are no longer exactly "living" religions, there was no shrill outcry against those who "disbelieved" in the Blind 
Poet's Epic, nor any equally shrill response from those determined (for personal rather than scientific reasons) to "prove" that the document was a hoax 
perpetrated by an all powerful Oligarchy determined to oppress the simple Greek olive picker.

Beyond that, the authenticity of relics, even ancient ones, is not entirely subject to blanket rejection.  Already in the second century the holding of remains 
associated with prominent Apostles and early saints gave authority to particular Sees.  This is well evidenced in the Quartodeciman controversy when those 
defending the 14 Nisan dating pointed out that they held the remains of John, et al, which "proved" their tradition was equal to that of Rome, since it 
demonstrated the apostolic origin of their dating for the Christian Pasch.

Some of these ancient relics easily could have survived the centuries, although considering the magnitude of "embellishment" which went on in the Middle 
Ages, its going to be mighty hard to "prove" specific remains, particularly those without an absolute provenance.

Oh, and BTW - St. George was not dropped from the calendar - only reduced in rank on the General Calendar (to an optional memorial).  In George's case, 
it was not from historical sketchiness (although much about George is legend) but because he was not particularly significant universally (very important 
locally).

But I digress.

George (the terribly less)

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:30:56 +0000, Paul Chandler wrote:

>------=_Part_7614_11488614.1206473456892
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Disposition: inline

>medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture

>On 25/03/2008, V. Kerry Inman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>> Blows my mind too. Does anyone really base their faith on these things?
>>
>> It seems to me that this is not the issue and would be an unproductive
>direction for discussion. Henk asserted that all relics are fakes and
>unworthy of scientific study except as a religio-cultural phenomenon. Many
>relics are certainly fakes (necessarily at least all except one when there
>are multiple heads of a single saint, etc., etc. -- medieval commentators
>already made many such critiques). It seems, however, on the evidence, that
>some relics are not fakes, even some quite ancient ones.

>I cannot agree with Karl Brunner that the "truth" or authenticity of a relic
>is not a historical question, even though the cult of relics, whether they
>were true or false, is no doubt the more interesting area of study. If the
>results of the Padova study are accepted, for example, we may have
>additional, interdisciplinary evidence for a very early beginning to the
>Christian cult of relics, predating the earliest literary evidence by two or
>three generations (if I'm not mistaken; I'm thinking of the Martyrdom of
>Polycarp, ca. 167). This is surely not an insignificant historical finding.
>The new results may also provide criteria for a re-evaluation of other data.
>For example, the late tradition about Luke's burial place in Thebes was not
>previously accorded any particular weight as far as I know, like similar
>traditions about the other apostles, which are generally regarded with
>skepticism. If the Luke tradition is now supported by dated archaeological
>evidence, it must be estimated differently. Will that make a difference to
>the weight we give to other non-incredible data in the legend, and so on?
>Isn't this just the normal historical procedure of weighing the available
>evidence, and not dismissing any of it in an a priori fashion?

>Not all medieval people were totally credulous. At least some of them were
>concerned that the relics presented for their veneration should not be
>fraudulent. Bernardino of Siena, just to mention one, preached caustically
>against fake, implausible and impossible relics (and the credulity
>associated with them), but he was not at all opposed to relics or perhaps
>even to credulity in other matters. So as a historical question, the issue
>of authenticity has a history even in the Middle Ages. Insofar as the cult
>of relics is still living today, authenticity remains a historical issue.
>Many devout people today would certainly not wish to venerate fraudulent
>relics, any more than they would wish, say, to visit their mother's grave or
>Napoleon's tomb or the battlefield of Ypres and find that they had been
>deceived and that it was really somewhere else. In this case, authentication
>is a historical service.

**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html