Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

gmx wrote:Well this is quite possibly another subject you could enlighten me on.

Pseudepigraphy (writings not by a person but purported to be by a person) number in the hundreds or even thousands (depending on your timeframe and the way you subdivide your pseudepigraphs). Now most scholars get very wibbly wobbly on the exact moral implications of all that, and I don't blame them. More relevant is the fact that it happened, and, in this context, the similarity of intent behind the creation of a pseudepigraph and the creation of a non-authentic relic.

Most of our information about the origins of holy sites and relics starts in the era of Constantine or later. It's all very dry stuff, and I don't really bother with it myself. You're looking for more of a medievalist at this point (since that is where most of the historical evidence is). In any case, "manufacture" of holy relics from the apostolic era could, if you felt like being a bit poetic about it, be called the rule instead of the exception. (There's a certain deductive nature to that statement when you come to some of the more popular items, since there was only so much wood from the cross, only so many heads of John the Baptist, etc.) I'm not interested in writing about the subject. Plenty of other people have. It's nothing original. Look it up if you're interested.

Relics are excellent business! Especially one of St Luke! There is a series on aunty beeb about the authenticity of art works. There is no way this is ending up in the equivalent of a reference art catalogue!

How many other churches claim they have the relics of St Luke?

Maybe it isn't actually dry, and is something for Harvard Business School?

Using religion as a USP and key business strategy? Get your eternal life here, look I have evidence, dry bones!

As a business it is impressive! Getting people to give up everything (Acts) for what exactly?

Peter Kirby wrote:Where "ancient church" is defined as all called Christians during the first five centuries (i.e., antiquity), is there really any doubt about "some fairly murky goings on and considerable dishonesty"?

So we have the remains of an elderly man, most likely of Syrian extraction, who has quite possibly perished in the first century CE. As it happens, his remains have been preserved for two millennia by the Christian church, which has venerated them, rightly or wrongly, in the belief that they are associated with Luke the evangelist.

On the flipside, the ancient Christian church has a reputation for pseudepigraphy and general dishonesty.

So which is more likely... that the first century Christian church:
(a) collected, protected and venerated the remains of a crucial second-hand witness of Jesus Christ,

or...

(b) dug up the remains of a random Syrian man and pretended they were those of a powerful but nonetheless fictitious second-hand witness of Jesus Christ.

It is a fascinating question?

is there really any doubt about "some fairly murky goings on and considerable dishonesty"?

So forensic archaeology is the subject that should be looking at xianity?

And why is it not turtles all the way down?

Why assume there is a base layer of historic truthiness and honesty that somehow got corruoted?

gmx wrote:

Peter Kirby wrote:Where "ancient church" is defined as all called Christians during the first five centuries (i.e., antiquity), is there really any doubt about "some fairly murky goings on and considerable dishonesty"?

So we have the remains of an elderly man, most likely of Syrian extraction, who has quite possibly perished in the first century CE. As it happens, his remains have been preserved for two millennia by the Christian church, which has venerated them, rightly or wrongly, in the belief that they are associated with Luke the evangelist.

On the flipside, the ancient Christian church has a reputation for pseudepigraphy and general dishonesty.

So which is more likely... that the first century Christian church:
(a) collected, protected and venerated the remains of a crucial second-hand witness of Jesus Christ,

or...

(b) dug up the remains of a random Syrian man and pretended they were those of a powerful but nonetheless fictitious second-hand witness of Jesus Christ.

It is a fascinating question?

Assuming the dating and provenance are correct, with Luke being a popular name, there's also the possibility that some Christian guy named Luke, a local house church leader or even a martyr was venerated early and later became associated with the Evangelist.

gmx wrote:It is a fascinating question?

Sure.

I've found a reference that is relevant, but someone else (if anyone) will have to track it down.

The Passio S. Artemii, Philostorgius, and the dates of the invention and translations of the relics of Sts Andrew and Luke.
Burgess, Richard W.. (2011) - In: Burgess, Chronicles, Consuls, and Coins Pt. XI p. 5-36

The Passio S. Artemii, Philostorgius, and the dates of the invention and translations of the relics of Sts Andrew and Luke from Analecta Bollandiana 121 (2003), 5–36

An interesting reference to that article:

http://www.academia.edu/3322958/From_Pa ... onstantine_
"A new reading of the sources indicates that Constantine was thinking of the church as the actual memorial for the remains of the apostles. Relics of Andrew and Luke were located and transferred to Constantinople and introduced into the church on June 22, 336."

If you search on the web, you will find a lot of references to the "translation" under Constantius in 357/358. Apparently even this is a mystery.

gmx wrote:So which is more likely... that the first century Christian church:

You're still assuming too much. We're not able to connect this relic to the "first century Christian church."

It appears in history in the fourth century AD. Apparently, Jerome and Procopius (the references are needed) mention the "translation" of the relics of Andrew the apostle and Luke the evangelist to Constantinople. Anything before the fourth century is speculation.

it's a miracle!

This all reminds me of a book I read way back when about the remains of St. Peter in Rome. It seemed vaguely convincing at the time.

I believe it was called "The Bones of St. Peter," published 1982, by John Evangelist Walsh.