medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
The point of the list below, H*. --which Paul Chandler clearly made and i
tried (albeit not explicitly) to make-- is that the Craft of History *rarely*
procedes via clear deduction, but rather by inductive reasoning based (in a
Best Case Scenario) on a "Preponderance of the Evidence" (a U.S. legal term,
sorry).
the evidence marshalled from the "scientific" examination of the Padova
Artifact does not "prove" that it is the skeleton of St. Luke --hey, what
*could* possibly "prove" that???
only, as Paul said,
"All in all, the results of the most extensive scientific tests available
today, and a thorough review of the historical documentation, **were
consistent with** the skeleton being actually that of St Luke, in which case
historians inclined to **automatic skepticism** about ancient relics (I hang
my head) must think again." [emphasis mine]
as an historian who sometimes finds himself dealing with evidence which is
only "consistent with" some hypothesis which i am trying to propose (never, if
i happen to be sober, to "prove") --and one who, more often than not, alas,
has to settle for the much more tinuous position of "not inconsistent with"--
i can only agree with, and repeat, Paul's conclusion, viz.:
"...in which case historians inclined to **automatic skepticism** about
ancient relics (I hang my head) must think again." [emphasis mine]
my own assessment, btw, would be more than somewhat less Charitable than that
of Fr. Paul, and would probably include the term "Patellar reflex" quite
prominently within it.
as i see it, the Evidenciary Hierarchy is something like:
-Pure Hypothesis, unsupported (or unsupportable) by any Evidence whatever
-Hypothesis supported by some (preferably relevant) Evidence
-Hypothesis supported by Evidence which is "not inconsistent" with it
-Hypothesis supported by Evidence which is "consistent" with it
-Hypothesis questionable because of Evidence which appears to be "somewhat
inconsistent" with it
-Hypothesis questionable because of Evidence which appears to be "quite/very
inconsistent" with it
-Hypothesis probably untrue because of Evidence which appears to be "entirely
inconsistent" with it
-Hypothesis definitely untrue because of Evidence which directly disproves it
in any case, Paul's (essentially Methodological) point is every bit as
applicable to the Turin Artifact as to that found in Padua.
and if there is one thing which has been frequently sorely lacking in most
discussions of the Turin Artifact --including a significant amount of the
literature comming from the Cult O'Science community as well as, alas,
certainly the early posts to the present string on this list-- it is a
misunderstanding (if not a complete ignorance) of various aspects of
Fundamental Methodology.
c
p.s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patellar_reflex
------ Original Message ------
Received: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 07:42:44 AM EDT
From: Henk 't Jong <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [M-R] Shroud of Turin
> medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
>
>
>
> High C.
>
>
>
> You wrote:
>
> no doubt, with your Level of Faith in the Religion of Science, you could,
H.
>
> but those arugments would have to (presumably) accept that
>
>
>
> 1) The Padova skeleton, of an elderly man with arthritis, was carbon-dated
> to
>
> between mid-1st and early 4th c.;
>
>
>
> Lot of people living then. But I agree that arthritis is a dead giveaway...
>
>
>
> b) DNA from the teeth shows he was very probably from Syria;
>
>
>
> Quite a lot of those lived in Syria.
>
>
>
> iii) the missing skull was matched with the reputed skull of St Luke
> preserved
>
> in Prague (but not St Luke's other skull, brought to Rome from
> Constantinople
>
> in the time of Gregory the Great, now dated 5th-6th c.).
>
>
>
> I wish I could read medical Italian enough to check this. Does it mean
they
> fitted the loose part as a jig-saw piece in a skull with exactly that part
> missing? But is it also known why the part from the Padova skeleton turned
> up in Prague? And, more importantly, when?
>
>
>
> D) The leaden casket is the original burial container;
>
>
>
> They were 2 a penny in them days, how can you ascertain that it wasn't a
> later or earlier one? Is lead carbon-dateable?
>
>
>
> IV) its decoration is typically 1st-2nd c.;
>
>
>
> No shit! That's a quite damning piece of proof!!!!
>
>
>
> 5) pollen inside it included pollen from Greece;
>
>
>
> Was it from typical Boeotian plants? Or was it more generally Greek, like
> maybe from the coast of present day Turkey or Northern Macedonia? And what
> was the other pollen like or from where did it hail?
>
>
>
> f) carbon dating of small animal remains in the casket revealed that it had
>
> been in the Padova area since the 5th or 6th c., earlier, in fact, than the
>
> associated literary traditions.
>
>
>
> So let me recapitulate: the old ca 100 AD (50-150 AD) lead casket with a
> partly preserved ca 230 AD (150-320 AD) skeleton of maybe a Syrian man (so
> did they use a second hand casket? Why?) turns up in ca 500 AD Padova which
> later (how much later) is described as the remains of St Luke? Now where
> does that remind me off?
>
>
>
> vii) The casket fits perfectly into the pagan marble sarcophagus, reworked
> in
>
> the 2nd c., associated with St Luke in Thebes in Boeotia, the traditional
>
> place of his death (a theory is that it may have been removed from there in
>
> the time of Julian the Apostate).
>
>
>
> Lead caskets, as I said, were 2 a penny in Roman times and were made, as
far
> as I can remember, as mass products in standard sizes. Monuments where they
> fit in would be worked towards, were hollowed out or built to accomodate
> these caskets,
>
>
>
> XCIX) And so on.
>
>
>
> Indeed.
>
>
>
> none of which, of course, obiates the possibility of "fraud."
>
>
>
> a very, very elaborate "fraud," perpetrated (at the latest) in the 5th or
> 6th
>
> c.
>
>
>
> I think you may have a point there.
>
>
>
> >so if you want to believe they are Luke's relics it helps.
>
>
>
> helps *what*, eggsactly?
>
>
>
> Move mountains.
>
>
>
> >But I might as well talk to a brick wall, I presume.
>
>
>
> sounds like someone who doubts the results of the C-14 testing.
>
>
>
> C-14 testing is ok when you try to determinate if the last Ice Age started
> in 10000 BC or 12000 BC, but for determining medieval stuff to within 50
> years it is tricky. You probably have heard that several dates thus
> determined in the early era of carbon dating have had to be revised.
> Contamination by all kinds of stuff did that. I know that nowadays the
> methods are safer and the results correspondingly more precise, but they
> always have to be compared with dendro, and other, even historical,
research
> results. Indeed, I do not trust C-14 just on its own.
>
>
>
> carful, there, H., lest you Lapse into Heresy and be Excommunicated from
the
Church of Science.
>
>
>
> See if I care!
>
>
>
> H.
**********************************************************************
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
|