Luke's remains

[gmx]

What has been made of the radiocarbon and DNA analysis of remains claimed to be those of Luke the evangelist, that suggest a first-century origin and male of Syrian descent?

[Secret Alias]

[Peter Kirby]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... Padua.html

It's odd the way this newspaper (which you might expect to be secular and fact-oriented) doesn't allow the experts quoted to speak for themselves.

All the quotes suggest caution, only to be followed by editorial comment "translating" that into 99.9% certainty for the public who are, apparently, assumed to be uncomfortable with ambiguity.

A master of the convoluted understatement, he added: "I think we should accept that there is no way to tell, definitively, that this is the body of Luke, but the genetic evidence does not contradict the idea."
For this read that the scientific world is now 99.9 per cent convinced that the remains, venerated for centuries, are those of the evangelist St Luke, the author of the third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles.

PS-- Some key information in this newspaper article is incorrect.

http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 934#p38934

[Peter Kirby]

Male? Of course it's male.

First century? Not necessarily. That's the end of the radiocarbon dating range. It's only likely to be first century if we assume the remains are of a Christian (and, ofc, that Christians are 1st century in origin).

Syrian? Maybe. But a lot's happened in 2000 years in the area of Syria, the Anatolian peninsula, Greece, and the surrounding area. That's way too specific, as an absolute statement.

PS -- The information was reported wrongly by the newspaper. The range is first century AD to fourth century AD.

http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 934#p38934

[ficino]

From what is stated in the article, it appears that the tooth is actually 12 years outside the date range:

"Radiocarbon dating of one of the teeth indicated that it belonged to someone who died between AD72 and 416BC. We knew that the evangelist, according to ancient sources, was born in Antioch, worked as a doctor and died at 84 in Thebes."

??

[gmx]

First century? Not necessarily. That's the end of the radiocarbon dating range. It's only likely to be first century if we assume the remains are of a Christian (and, ofc, that Christians are 1st century in origin).

What seems reasonably certain is that these remains have been venerated by "the Christian Church" for a very long time. I raise this because you suggested the other day that other than the documentary artifacts, our earliest Christian relic is the late 2nd century inscription by Abercius. I wondered if these human remains would qualify as an earlier Christian relic, based on the radiocarbon dating?

That they have long been venerated as those of the evangelist, and have "proven" to be of Syrian extraction and from roughly the right epoch, is curious to say the least.

As this "discovery" is some 15 years old, I thought there might be more of a scholarly consensus on their significance, and I was somewhat surprised to find only scant references in the mainstream media.

[TedM]

Male? Of course it's male.

First century? Not necessarily. That's the end of the radiocarbon dating range.

Hi Peter. I've never seen that range before, and am curious where you are getting that from. I mean are you saying here the creationists got one thing right when they blasted the accuracy of radiocarbon dating A quick search on google seems to show a consensus of sorts in the scientific community that it is 'fairly' accurate up to 20-50,000 years, but some examples exist that show that it could be completely inaccurate at times!..so I'm not sure what to think. A couple of related links:


http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ets-reset/

http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-crea ... -14-dating

[TedM]

From what is stated in the article, it appears that the tooth is actually 12 years outside the date range:

"Radiocarbon dating of one of the teeth indicated that it belonged to someone who died between AD72 and 416BC. We knew that the evangelist, according to ancient sources, was born in Antioch, worked as a doctor and died at 84 in Thebes."

??

?? It would be outside the date range if Luke died in AD84. 84 is his age at death and not a date

EDIT reason: my boneheaded thinking...and grammar corrections

[TedM]

Syrian? Maybe. But a lot's happened in 2000 years in the area of Syria, the Anatolian peninsula, Greece, and the surrounding area. That's way too specific, as an absolute statement.

I think we need some more detail, which I assume could be found in the publication by the scientist who concluded that the DNA more closely matched a Syrian individual than a Greek. Since the remains were in Constantinople and had been claimed to be those of a Syrian man who was brought from Antioch to Constantinople after being venerated for 200 years in Antioch as the remains of Luke, more than just the DNA evidence should be given consideration. It would be helpful to know what ancient sources exist that discuss the history of the relic, to better gauge the reliability of that history. If one assumes someone just threw a dead Greek man or even Syrian man into a coffin around 300 BC and claimed it was Saint Luke's remains, then if there is nothing to suggest otherwise it seems it is a dead issue, but if there is something to suggest otherwise then it seems worthy of study. There appear to be 3 things to suggest otherwise:

1. the DNA evidence (favoring Syrian)
2. the radiocarbon evidence (favoring a date over 200 years prior to the first appearance in Constantinople)
3. the relic tradition (favoring existence prior to Constantinople)

Another possibility is that a relic was 'found' in sometime prior to the move to Constantinople, but wasn't Luke, and in this case it would appear that only #2 clearly suggests otherwise.

Here's the NY times article, which doesn't really add much: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/16/world ... ility.html

[ficino]

From what is stated in the article, it appears that the tooth is actually 12 years outside the date range:

"Radiocarbon dating of one of the teeth indicated that it belonged to someone who died between AD72 and 416BC. We knew that the evangelist, according to ancient sources, was born in Antioch, worked as a doctor and died at 84 in Thebes."

??

?? It would be outside the date range if Luke died in AD84. 84 is his age at death and not a date

EDIT reason: my boneheaded thinking...and grammar corrections

Oh, duh, thanks! I read it as "died in 84." Sigh.