Joan of Arc’s Relics are Fake

Again supposed religious relics turn out to be fake. What provokes people to do things like this? Can't you have God and religion without these fabrications?

By Ker Than
LiveScience Staff Writer

The relics of Joan of Arc’s body housed in a church museum are forgeries and not the remains of the 15th-century French heroine and saint, it was reported Wednesday.

Instead, the sacred items were manufactured from the remains of an Egyptian mummy, scientists say. The relics include a charred-looking human rib, chunks of seemingly burnt wood, a six-inch strip of linen and a cat femur—consistent with the medieval practice of throwing black cats onto the pyres of alleged witches. They are housed in a museum in Chinon that belongs to the Archdiocese of Tours, in France.

More at source

Whats next, the Temple mount?

posted by Malichai

Again supposed religious relics turn out to be fake. What provokes people to do things like this? Can't you have God and religion without these fabrications?

By Ker Than, LiveScience Staff Writer
“The relics of Joan of Arc’s body housed in a church museum are forgeries and not the remains of the 15th-century French heroine and saint, it was reported Wednesday.”

What’s next, the Temple mount? [Edited by Don W]

I dunno Mr M. Voltaire wrote in “Candide” that part of Eleanor’s dowry to Charles the Great, a/k/a Charlemagne included the Holy Pupice or Holy Foreskin. Voltaire argued that because Christ was God, it would have been impossible to circumcise him. Or that even if it was possible, that His foreskin would immediately re-grow. Voltaire also claimed the priest in charge of the relic was caught replacing or renewing it from time to time.

Actually, the cult of relics is easy to understand in view of the very limited knowledge available to the ordinary peasant living anywhere before the 18th or 19th century. Those good folk had all they could do to grow enough food for themselves and family and share-crop for the owner of the land. It is tragic to see people - college grads - in the 21st century also claiming miraculous powers are present in ancient artifacts. Self delusion. Widely practiced.

[edit on 4/10/2007 by donwhite]

The Temple Mount. Believed by many to be the site of Solomon’s Temple. However, modern archaeologists have been unable to find any evidence that Saul, David or Solomon existed. The first 3 kings of Israel seem to be mythological. As in the 10 lost tribes, which are considered to be a phantasmagoric telling of tall tales by old-timers.

One of the curiosities surrounding Solomon’s Temple is the lost Ark of the Covenant. Arguably the most important religious icon of ancient Hebrews, it went missing when the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem around 570 BCE. All the books in the Hebrew bible written prior to the “Captivity” include references to the Ark. It is described and its magical powers reported. But the Ark is never mentioned again in any book written after the Jews were freed by the Persian emperor Darius the Great to return to Judea.

We do know that Herod’s Temple was built on the Temple Mount. It was destroyed by Roman General Titus in AD 70 after putting down the First Jewish Revolt. Mohammad (570-632) is said to have ascended into Heaven from a rock which is now covered by the Dome of the Rock mosque. This is the same rock Jewish people believe was the rock on which Abraham was about to offer Isaac as a child sacrifice when stopped by God. Not an uncommon practice in that era. The al Aqsa Mosque is also on the Temple Mount. These are the #3 high Holy Sites of Islam. I don’t know the significance of the al Aqsa Mosque.

One of the supports for the Temple Mount is the West Wall or Wailing Wall, which is holy to Jewish people as the last remnant of Solomon’s Temple. However, that strongly held belief is held on questionable grounds.

It is a fact no one living in the area seems to have considered any of the now popular religoius holy sites to have been of particular importance until the appearance of Helena, the mother of Emperor Constantine. A new Christian convert, she came to Jerusalem intent on locating all the holy sites relating to Christ. She was shown the sites of the Jesus era by dutiful subjects who were paid for each site. The site of the crucifixion, the burial and the resurrection. The Garden of Gethsemane, and the 12 station of the cross. All of this was “discovered” by the Empress Helena.

There have been 2 separate reconstructions undertaken of the West Wall since the first century. It really does not seem possible to be sure that any of the pre-Islamic sites are accurately placed, based on what we know.

Note: I contend Emperor Constantie is the true founder of modern Christianity. Along with St. Paul, of course.

[edit on 4/10/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite

However, modern archaeologists have been unable to find any evidence that Saul, David or Solomon existed.

Not exactly.

The Tel Dan Stele mentions "the house of David," at least according to some scholars, and erected in the 9th century BCE.

The Mesha Stele has a more controversial inscription that is reconstructed by some authorities to read similarly. It definitely does mention Omri, one of David's alleged descendents.

If either of these artefacts are being interpreted correctly, then they were both erected by Israel's enemies, and refer to "the House of David," in the same style that scriptures do.

Now, both of these artefacts are bones of contention; scholars are hardly unanymous. But that's not anywhere near being unable to find "any evidence."

Part of the problem, for either side of the debate, is the extreme antiquity of the evidence, from the very birth of writing. Add to that the fact that Israel was a relative backwater in terms of world politics, and it's hardly surprising that there are no mountains of evidence 3000 years later.

But consider another, much later, example. Julius Caesar. He doesn't appear on any contemporary coins. No cities were named after him until they were set up by his successor, Augustus. All the documents we possess that mention Caesar are copies of copies of copies. In many instances, these copies were created by the self-same monks who were busy reproducing the gospels, and Josephus, from one generation to the next. In many cases, in the same monasteries. So, while it may be difficult to "prove" the existance of Saul or David, it isn't exactly a given that our image of Julius Caesar is entirely historical, either. Funny how that never gets discussed in a college classics course.

So, "no rock-solid evidence" does not equal "not any evidence." Not by a long shot.

.

posted by dr_strangecraft

posted by donwhite . . modern archaeologists have been unable to find any evidence that Saul, David or Solomon existed.

Not exactly. The Tel Dan Stele mentions "the house of David," at least according to some scholars, and erected in the 9th century BCE. The Mesha Stele has a more controversial inscription that is reconstructed by some authorities to read similarly. It definitely does mention Omri, one of David's alleged decedents. [Edited by Don W]

I followed the Biblical Archaeological Review by Hershel Shanks. I have collected the first 10 years of publication in the 6 X 9 format. I have read “Masada” by Yigael Yadin. I have read an English translation of Josephus and several critical commentators on Josephus. I have chosen for my “proof” to put my reliance on what is NOT there, rather than on a doubtful inscription or two. I have also read the de-bunking of Yadin's mass suicide at Masada. Which by the way, I find persuasive.

Now, both of these artefacts are bones of contention; scholars are hardly unanimous. But that's not anywhere near being unable to find "any evidence." Add to that the fact that Israel was a relative backwater in terms of world politics, and it's hardly surprising that there are no mountains of evidence 3000 years later. So, "no rock-solid evidence" does not equal "not any evidence." Not by a long shot.

I am not hitting back at your well considered and thoughtfully laid out reasoning, but it is in the Holy Bible that the many claims made for Solomon are set out. Hyperbole of the first order.

And as to those references in Holy Writings, I believe it was 5 centuries after the Saul, David and Solomon events before it was first put in writing. I don’t discount oral history in every instance, but when it varies with facts on the ground, I have to ignore it. Since the early 1900s people of every stripe have been searching desperately for evidence of David and Solomon, but have come up short.

Similarity, I discount the 2 reference to Jesus in the writings of Josephus. I personally believe those entries were made in the 4th or 5th century by some overly enthusiastic copier or on orders from higher up the chain of command. That’s been known to happen in our own day!

As for the lack of portraits of Julius Caesar, it does not follow that the lack of evidence of one thing is proof that lack of evidence of another is equal to proof that the second exists. Besides, didn’t I read “Julius Caesar” in my second year of Latin in the 10th grade?

[edit on 4/11/2007 by donwhite]

There is evidence for Solomon's presence in the Megiddo valley. Lots of evidence that fits with biblical descriptions. But to admit that would relinquish the Jews' claim on Jerusalem, which they seem more than reluctant to do.

posted by queenannie38
There is evidence for Solomon's presence in the Megiddo valley. Lots of evidence that fits with biblical descriptions. But to admit that would relinquish the Jews' claim on Jerusalem, which they seem more than reluctant to do. [Edited by Don W]

Ms Q/A, I’m nonplussed.

In the legal world, when the chain of title is broken, it cannot be argued successfully that today’s claimant has derivative rights his or her predecessors once possessed. Contemporary claims become historical references. Historical revisionism at work? Although up has down and forward has backward and left has right, time runs only one way. Methinks such claims [unrevealed evidence] are spurious at best, disingenuous at worst.

Where, in modern geography, is the Megiddo Valley?


[edit on 4/11/2007 by donwhite]

At what point do we consider a thread to by hijacked? Do we have to wait for a ransom note? Or should we go ahead and put out an amber alert for the original topic right now?

I kid, I kid.


DW, perhaps you noticed I didn't appeal to scripture as evidence, even though that's where we get the whole idea of the Davidic saga and line from.

I can understand completely where you're coming from. I can see why thoughtful people would say there is an incredible lack of persuasive evidence for the origins of the "house of David." You're certainly entitled to your view, and I see it at well thought-out.

Personally, my faith isn't rooted in the historicity of the narrative in Samuel & Kings, so I don't feel like I have a vested interest in taking them at their word. Like many glowing accounts (did we mention Josephus?), I suspect that there is a kernel of historical fact, protected by a bodyguard of legend to make our heroes . . . well, heroic.

I feel the same way about another, later king: Arthur. I suspect that somewhere in Britain's past there probably was a historical personage that experienced the conflicts and emotional triumphs attributed to him. But I don't have to believe in the lady of the lake, that some "moistened bink distributing scimitars" is behind the legend of Arthur.

I might expect you to deny that Arthur ever existed as a real man; and you'd be welcome to such an opinion. I choose to believe that legends are often based on folk memory, but don't fault you for not joining me in any single instance.

Similarity, I discount the 2 reference to Jesus in the writings of Josephus. I personally believe those entries were made in the 4th or 5th century by some overly enthusiastic copier or on orders from higher up the chain of command. That’s been known to happen in our own day!

My impression is that about 85% of mainstream scholars would agree that both mentions have been "massaged," and that one is an outright insertion. But a majority of them think the better of the two quotes probably has a basis in Jospehus' account, based on sentence structure and whatnot. I agree with them, but don't have any emotional tie to Josephus--I wouldn't shed a tear if they were both proven to be later insertions.

As for the lack of portraits of Julius Caesar, it does not follow that the lack of evidence of one thing is proof that lack of evidence of another is equal to proof that the second exists. Besides, didn’t I read “Julius Caesar” in my second year of Latin in the 10th grade?

[edit on 4/11/2007 by donwhite]

You did, if you say so---and that's my point precisely. Our best manuscript of his War Commentaries comes from a monastery in northern Italy--the same one that has the juiciest copies of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews. The oldest physical copy of the commentaries dates from the 10th century CE. My only point was this: If they doctored the gospels and Josephus, what's to have kept them from doctoring Caesar as well.

Actually, I was paraphrasing an essay of William James', on the nature of truth. Just because Ceasar existed doesn't mean that everything attributed to him, or claimed by him, actually happened. I believe Caesar existed; I'm just not sure that his escape from his pirate kidnappers should be taken as . . . gospel.

.

All of that to one side.

If they are saying that the relics of Joan are out-and-out fakes, why was there a cat's bone with them? Supposedly it shows a connection with burning at the stake. But if they were from an egyptian mummy, then the relics haven't been anywhere near a stake, right? And how can you tell a mummy's bone?? Decomposition? the presence of nitre? An ash heaps would have it, too. That's how you manufacture potassium nitrate in the absence of guano.

I'd like to see the in-depth argument for why it's a mummy's bone, and can't have been Joan's. Not because I believe in Joan, but because it is so surpising to find such an outre artefact venerated accidentally. Like finding a brown bess colonial musket on Iwo Jima. Something doesn't fit.

All the best.

Originally posted by donwhite
Ms Q/A, I’m nonplussed.

I didn't mention the word 'secret' nor do I think I implied it.

Where, in modern geography, is the Megiddo Valley?

Same place as it always has been; site of famous battles fought as far back as the reign of Thutmose III to WWI. It is at the base of Mt Carmel adjacent to the Jezreel Valley.

Megiddo Valley

Sorry for derailing.

Thanks for the topic reminder. I’d like to reply to this then get back on topic.

posted by dr_strangecraft

DW, perhaps you noticed I didn't appeal to scripture as evidence, even though that's where we get the whole idea of the Davidic saga and line from. I understand where you're coming from. I can see why thoughtful people would say there is an incredible lack of persuasive evidence for the origins of the "house of David." You're certainly entitled to your view, and I see it at well thought-out. [Edited by Don W]

Although I come from a fundamentalist Protestant (Church of Christ) background, I was never fully convinced. Nowadays, I prefer the Big Bang and Charles Darwin. However, I did not mean to be so strident on “any” as related to evidence. That is both inaccurate and worse, unnecessary. Sorry about that.

My faith isn't rooted in the historicity of the narrative in Samuel & Kings, so I don't feel like I have a vested interest in taking them at their word. Like many glowing accounts (did we mention Josephus?), I suspect that there is a kernel of historical fact, protected by a bodyguard of legend to make our heroes . . . well, heroic. I feel the same way about another, later king: Arthur. I suspect that somewhere in Britain's past there probably was a historical personage that experienced the conflicts and emotional triumphs attributed to him. But I don't have to believe in the lady of the lake, that some "moistened bink distributing scimitars" is behind the legend of Arthur.

Exactly. I believe a major part of difficulty encountered in contemporary conversation about events happening several millennia ago can be illustrated like this. Our world is filled with real verifiable facts. In a simple matter such as time, I have the wall mounted radio controlled clock accurate to 10 decimal places. It resets itself 4 times a day. I once owned a 30 jeweled Rolex but my mothers $15 Timex kept better time. In the time we are talking about and until Mr Harrison's very accurate chronometer, people were mostly content in knowing if it was daylight or dark. If they were lucky the local church bell would toll important messages.

While I go to my pantry and muse for minutes over what to eat - I live alone - most people in those days had maybe a 1 or 2 days supply of food. I must have a 20 days supply on hand. Much of which I will discard unused as Use Before dates expire.

One more example. I take lightly the story of Legion and the Demons. That Jesus had to first put the demons in the herd of swine then the swine drowned themselves as essential to the exorcism, is unbelievable to me. Why 2 steps, when 1 should do? But I believe also that the people to whom that story was related actually believed the story but knew the pigs did not jump into the lake. The lesson was not in the real facts, but in the symbols. We miss all that in our literal world.

But a majority of them think the better of the two quotes probably has a basis in Jospehus' account, based on sentence structure and whatnot. I agree with them, but don't have any emotional tie to Josephus -I wouldn't shed a tear if they were both proven to be later insertions.

It holds interest to me because I am interested in the historical origins of modern Christianity. In its evolution over time. Perhaps you could recommend an author who has done work on the early church before the First Jewish Revolt? From AD 33 to AD 70.

You did, if you say so - and that's my point precisely. Our best manuscript of his War Commentaries comes from a monastery in northern Italy - the same one that has the juiciest copies of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews. The oldest physical copy of the commentaries dates from the 10th century CE. My only point was this: If they doctored the gospels and Josephus, what's to have kept them from doctoring Caesar as well. I'm just not sure that his escape from his pirate kidnappers should be taken as . . . gospel.

Oops! I missed that. Sorry. That leaves my comeback cute but irrelevant. Julius Caesar’s writing did not pose eternal questions. They were purely mundane and profane. It matters not much - unless you are at West Point - if the account is accurate or not. It seemed consistent with what I had learned elsewhere so I did not question it. Besides, the real lesson for me was in the translating into English. Which brings me to an observation. Julius Caesar was the first Italian God Father! The birth of the Mafia.

[edit on 4/11/2007 by donwhite]

www.catholic.com...

Relics are in the bible. The bones of Elisha .. the apron of Peter. etc etc
It's biblical. THAT is why people have them and/or believe that God works miracles through them.

Through the centuries, some people with no conscience have faked some ... it's sad.

posted by queenannie38
I didn't mention the word 'secret' nor do I think I implied it.

You’re right. I believe you said “unrevealed” evidence. Which is an oxymoron.

From your link: “The gate structure in the center is generally attributed to Solomon's reign.”

This does not mean it says on the gate, “Gate Owned by King Solomon.” King Solomon‘s reign was once accepted as around 700 BC, but later scholars have questioned not only that date but the very existence of the first 3 kings of the Israelites.

What the description means is this gate is attributed to the time frame of the putative King Solomon. Which does not "prove" the existence of King Solomon. That would be circular reasoning.

[edit on 4/11/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite

Nowadays, I prefer the Big Bang and Charles Darwin.

I see Chuck and the first noise as alternate belief-systems with, shall we say, a greater predictive power, as far as the natural sciences are concerned. But I know what you mean.

I have been an amateur investigator of fringe phenomena for 20 years now, and I'm convinced that there's a lot more to live than is dreamt of by materialists.

MY break with the big bang theory came from a research paper I wrote about background radiation for a college physics class. It turns out that if matter is spontaneously generated due to a uniformly expanding universe, the effect would be . . . background radiation at the exact rate of the noise attributed to the big bang. And it would be red-shifted, just like the noise we identify as big bang residue. But because modern physics is heavily invested in Bell's theorem, the idea of the spontaneous generation of matter is heresy. Mentioning it will literally get you ridiculed in public, by department heads. But that's another thread. Suffice it to say the experience cost me my faith in science as a social activity.

It holds interest to me because I am interested in the historical origins of modern Christianity. In its evolution over time. Perhaps you could recommend an author who has done work on the early church before the First Jewish Revolt? From AD 33 to AD 70.

That's a toughie. Strange to say, I'd probably start with Eusebius, since he was much nearer in both time and space. Seriously. Even with his biases (anti-jewish faith, if not outright antisemitic) he stands 1700 years closer to the events. Penguin books has a translation, if you don't do Greek, that I have found Penguin's to be both accurate and only slightly abridged. The Kirsopp Lake translation is better, but thicker, since the left-hand pages are typesets of the greek original.

C.K. Barrett's New Testament Background : Writings from Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire That Illuminate Christian Origins. It's a standard text in colleges and seminaries.

Penguin books has a "church history" series which is pretty solid and middle-course between protestant/catholic debates. One book I think is OK (haven't actually read the whole thing) is Henry Chadwick's History of the Early Church.

All of these are quite dated. I think BAR is an excellent magazine; if they are still publishing Bible Review, it probably has some great articles.


Meanwhile, back at the ranch . . .

I'm reading up on the Joan of Arc relics, and they claim that that nitre wouldn't be produced by burning at the stake. I'm looking into it . . .

all the best.

edit to add . . .

One GREAT other source is anything By Jacob Neusner. A Titan of Judaic studies and the formation of the Midrashic literature, and a non-Christian, he definitely brings an "outside" viewpoint. I would recommend anything in his prolific career as worth reading, but I think you'd be interested in his new (2002, and unread by me) Judaism When Christianity Began: A Survey of Belief and Practice by Jacob Neusner It's on amazon, too. Of course it will be about the JEWISH roots, but hey.

.


[edit on 11-4-2007 by dr_strangecraft]

Originally posted by donwhite
You’re right. I believe you said “unrevealed” evidence. Which is an oxymoron.

No, I didn't use the word 'unrevealed,' either.

The link I provided solely for the purpose of showing you where the Megiddo valley was located, not at all to present evidence. That would have been too far off topic and is a much more extensive investigation.