Page 4 of 5
Re: Luke's remains
Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2015 1:33 pm
by Clive
Re: Luke's remains
Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2015 4:47 am
by gmx
Peter Kirby wrote: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.
Yes, I agree. However, they ("the church") have (arguably) come up with first century human remains that are consistent with an old Syrian man. Not a bad trick.
Re: Luke's remains
Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2015 6:52 am
by Peter Kirby
gmx wrote:... first century human remains ...
Actually, that's inaccurate too. Turns out that it was naive to accept the Telegraph's reporting without checking any other sources.
The Telegraph's phrasing: "someone who died between AD72 and 416BC."
However, every other source that I can find that is not dependent on the Telegraph gives it as 72 to 416 AD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_the_Evangelist
between 72 and 416 A.D.
http://www.msgr.ca/msgr-3/st_luke_relics.htm
between AD 72 and AD 416
http://www.messengersaintanthony.com/me ... 287IDRX=84
from the second half of the first century to the fourth century
http://oca.org/saints/lives/2015/10/18/ ... elist-luke
72-416 A.D.
http://pemptousia.com/2013/10/luke-the- ... nt-18-oct/
between 72 and 416 A.D.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/it-s-gos ... s-1.332299
between 72 AD and 416 AD
If you understand carbon dating, you will know that, instead of being a strong confirmation of authenticity, this kind of dating range is anything but.
What it says is that there are 2.5% odds that the body dates before 72 AD (you can tell right off that this is a two-sigma 95% confidence range from the large range of dates being stated, i.e., about 250 years). However, the bulk of the probability range is not going to be all clumped up on the edge of the graph. Even without access to the data, we could estimate that there are about 10% odds (at best) that the body dates before 100 AD. Which means that there are
roughly 90% odds that the body is later than the first century, on the basis of the carbon dating taken by itself. The truth is very different than the idea that the radiocarbon dating has confirmed them to be "first century human remains," to be sure!
This explains why less celebratory sources have taken the carbon dating as a disconfirmation regarding authenticity.
https://books.google.com/books?id=rbhoO-6gyREC&pg=PT207
On the basis of the carbon dating, the most likely conclusion is that the person entombed died in the
second or third century AD.
Of course you could argue that this is still
consistent with the idea that the remains are of some kind of "Luke," especially if you think that Acts (the work of "Luke") stems from the mid second century AD and was written after the floruit of Marcion. The age at time of death also provides some cushion.
The meaning of the word "consistent" shouldn't be forgotten; it just means "not impossible." Things merely "consistent" with the facts are
not in evidence.
Re: Luke's remains
Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2015 12:51 am
by andrewcriddle
Peter Kirby wrote:
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.
Jerome So he [Luke] wrote the gospel as he had heard it, but composed the Acts of the apostles as he himself had seen. He was buried at Constantinople to which city, in the twentieth year of Constantius, his bones together with the remains of Andrew the apostle were transferred
(plus other references in Jerome)
Procopius There was in Byzantium from ancient times a church dedicated to all the Apostles; but having by now been shaken by the passage of time, it had fallen under the suspicion that it would not continue to stand. This the Emperor Justinian pulled down entirely, and he was at pains not simply to restore it, but to make it more worthy both in size and in beauty.
...
And at the time when this shrine was completed by him, the Apostles made it manifest to all men how they delight in the honour shewn them by the Emperor and glory in it exceedingly. At any rate the bodies of the Apostles Andrew and Luke and Timothy, which previously had been invisible and altogether concealed, became at that time visible to all men, signifying, I believe, that they did not reject the faith of the Emperor, but expressly permitted him to see them and approach them and touch them, that he might thereby enjoy their assistance and the safety of his life. This was made known in the following way.
The Emperor Constantius had built this church in honour of the Apostles and in their name, decreeing that tombs for himself and for all future Emperors should be placed there, and not for the rulers alone, but for their consorts as well; and this custom is preserved to the present day. Here also he laid the body of his father Constantine. But neither did he give any intimation whatever that the bodies of the Apostles were there, nor did any place appear there which seemed to be given over to the bodies of the holy men. But when the Emperor Justinian was rebuilding this shrine, the workmen dug up the whole soil so that nothing unseemly should be left there; and they saw three wooden coffins lying there neglected, which revealed by inscriptions upon them that they contained the bodies of the Apostles Andrew and Luke and Timothy. And the Emperor himself and all the Christians saw these with the greatest joy, and having arranged a procession in their honour and a festival, and having performed the customary holy rites over them and having put the coffins in order, they laid them once more in the ground, not leaving the place unmarked or solitary, but piously ordaining that it be dedicated to the bodies of the Apostles. And it is plain, as I have said, that it was in requital for this honour which the Emperor shewed them, that these Apostles appeared to men on this occasion.
Andrew Criddle
Re: Luke's remains
Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2015 1:36 am
by yalla
Relic
The head of John the Baptist
*....his head lies inside the Umayyad Mosque (left) in Damascus, Syria, while ... believe that a head on display at Rome's Church of San Silvestro in Capite is that of John the Baptist.
Still others believe it is buried in Turkey or even southern France. [Time magazine]
*The Head of St. John the Baptist at Amiens Cathedral
You can see a photo!
http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/the- ... -cathedral
*Several different locations claim to possess the severed head of John the Baptist. Among them: Umayyad Mosque in Damascus;[51] San Silvestro in Capite in Rome;[52] and the Residenz Museum in Munich, Germany (official residence of the Wittelsbach rulers of Bavaria from 1385 to 1918).[52] Other heads were once said to be held by the Knights Templar at Amiens Cathedral in France (brought home by Wallon de Sarton from the Fourth Crusade in Constantinople), at Antioch in Turkey (fate uncertain), and the parish church at Tenterden in Kent, where it was preserved up until the Reformation. [Wiki]
Re: Luke's remains
Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2015 5:10 am
by Clive
Isn't there an edict by Constantine to go and collect stuff?
Re: Luke's remains
Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2015 6:35 am
by DCHindley
Clive wrote:Isn't there an edict by Constantine to go and collect stuff?
Collecting head? I used to know a guy whose friend could get girls to give him all sorts of things like that. But that is irrelevant.
Re: Luke's remains
Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2015 6:55 pm
by Diogenes the Cynic
Luke is a fictional character in the first place, unless someone is trying to make a case that these are the remains of a Lucas mentioned in passing in one of Paul's letters.
Re: Luke's remains
Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2015 5:22 am
by gmx
Diogenes the Cynic wrote:Luke is a fictional character in the first place, unless someone is trying to make a case that these are the remains of a Lucas mentioned in passing in one of Paul's letters.
Why do you assert that Luke is a fictional character? Not debating you or even disagreeing... just wondering why?
Re: Luke's remains
Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2015 5:27 am
by gmx
Peter Kirby wrote:gmx wrote:... first century human remains ...
Actually, that's inaccurate too. Turns out that it was naive to accept the Telegraph's reporting without checking any other sources.
The Telegraph's phrasing: "someone who died between AD72 and 416BC."
However, every other source that I can find that is not dependent on the Telegraph gives it as 72 to 416 AD.
Well that dating changes things a little bit, doesn't it? While it doesn't rule out a first century date, it makes the possibility of the 290 AD coin-based veneration being contemporaneous with the relic itself much more likely...