medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
From: Henk 't Jong <[log in to unmask]>
> I still could come up with lots of arguments why these remains could well
be
a fraud, though.
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.;
b) DNA from the teeth shows he was very probably from 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.).
D) The leaden casket is the original burial container;
IV) its decoration is typically 1st-2nd c.;
5) pollen inside it included pollen from Greece;
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.
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).
XCIX) And so on.
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.
most probably the work of the same 14th c. guys in Champagne who "painted" the
Turin Artifact --the M.O. is certainly the same, so Q.E.D. on that one...
"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."
"consistent" being the Operative Word, there.
> Furthermore: even science asks for some kind of belief in its results,
yes.
yes, it does.
as the contraversy around the Turin Artifact demonstrates quite adequately
(i.e., reading the interpretors of the "scientific" stuff is every bit as
enlightening as reading the "shroudie" stuff).
>so if you want to believe they are Luke's relics it helps.
helps *what*, eggsactly?
>But I might as well talk to a brick wall, I presume.
sounds like someone who doubts the results of the C-14 testing.
carful, there, H., lest you Lapse into Heresy and be Excommunicated from the
Church of Science.
next you'll find yourself doubting the C-14 testing which "proves" that the
Turin Artifact is a 14th c. Northern French Painting.
> PS I don't read Italian.
Oh, *that's* a Good Excuse.
Te Resolvimus.
Pox.
c
**********************************************************************
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
|