On Sun, 19 Oct 1997 [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> I'm a bit sceptical about whether every pile of brown powder that was
> supposed to be "mummy" actually came from that source.
You are right to be skeptical.
A similar question
> arises about nails used to crucify Christ, and scraps of wood said to be from
> the true cross. Gorgeous settings were made for these little treasures, and
> many ended up in art museums. Without having made an exact count, I
> sometimes get the odd feeling that I am seeing too many nails in museums, as
> well as too many scraps of wood. Not quite enough nails to build a house,
> but more than there ought to be.
One is right to be skeptical, but not for the reason you cite. The
total number of known relics of the True Cross has been investigated and
the entire mass does not come anywhere near a tiny portion of a real Roman
instrument of execution. The claim that so many purported relics of the
True Cross exist that they would exceed the mass of a single real cross
several times older is an ancient polemic, probably already of medieval
origin, certainly widely repeated during the Protestant Reformation. One
should be just as skeptical of such "easy" refutations of the authenticity
of relics as one is of the claims for any one relic. If you look at the
various relics of the True Cross found around the world, you will find
that they are all tiny, tiny slivers of wood. It would take hundreds of
thousands of them to add up to a single cross. And it is fairly easy to
demonstrate, by basic research, that that many supposed relics of the True
Cross have not been claimed.
Scholars have very good methods of testing authenticity. They won't
resolve all instances, but they can resolve many. Many relics throughout
history have been fraudulent, but the common modern dismissal of all
relics as fraudulent is just as sloppy a form of reasoning as is naive
credulity about all relics.
As you may know, already in the Middle Ages, Guibert of Nogent was
concerned about testing authenticity of relics; other examples exist of a
healthy medieval sense of skepticism. The idea that all medieval people
were simpletons who naively accepted anyone trying to sell them the
Brooklyn Bridge is an insult to medieval people out of an arrogant modern
sense of superiority. Plenty of naive people (one born every minute,
according to P. T. Barnum) exist in modern times: witness the Tarot craze
and various forms of New Age channeling. Some of the most credulous
people are some of the most influential in our culture. The very fact
that most journalist equate "medieval" and "superstitious," the very fact
that people unthinkingly accept the assertion that so many claimed relics
of the True Cross exist as to amount to the mass of three or four real
crosses illustrates how credulous modern people are. For them to look
down their nose at medieval people as superstitious and credulous is a bit
much.
Dennis Martin
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|