If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Archaeologists find mysterious bones they say may belong to John the Baptist, completely invalidating theories they could actually be one of Jack, Bernard, the dude played by Clancy Brown or a past version of a time-traveling Desmond   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 22
    More: Unlikely, St. John the Baptist, archaeologists, carbon datings, humerus, Near East, Early Christian, volcanic rocks, craniums  
•       •       •

1968 clicks; posted to Geek » on 15 Jun 2012 at 1:05 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



22 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-06-15 09:55:26 AM  
Or, it could be his father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate!
 
2012-06-15 10:08:06 AM  
Aliens, definitely aliens.
 
2012-06-15 10:11:20 AM  
I'm assuming they identified it by the multiple necks.

/See that joke is funny, because at least 6 places claim/claimed to have the real head of John the Baptist.
 
2012-06-15 11:29:26 AM  

Ennuipoet: Or, it could be his father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate!


Bob the Episcopalian?
 
2012-06-15 11:49:16 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Ennuipoet: Or, it could be his father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate!

Bob the Episcopalian?


Bob never went for full immersion, just a spritz and then off for Nine Rounds at Herod Meadows Country Club!
 
2012-06-15 01:12:11 PM  
Were leather time-shorts found near the body?

/obscure
 
2012-06-15 01:48:46 PM  
FTA:There's no way to be sure, of course
 
2012-06-15 01:57:48 PM  
*yawn* FTA: "There's no way to be sure, of course, as there are no confirmed pieces of John the Baptist to compare to the fragments of bone".

Therefore, this is BS.

/archaeologist
 
2012-06-15 02:17:53 PM  

raerae1980: *yawn* FTA: "There's no way to be sure, of course, as there are no confirmed pieces of John the Baptist to compare to the fragments of bone".

Therefore, this is BS.

/archaeologist


except that:
1) the Bones are from an adult male
2) that Adult male's DNA indicates he was Semetic
3) Radio carbon dating confirms the man lived in the first century AD and dided around 35 AD
4) the Box says they are the bones of John the Baptist

So, if it's a hoax, the haoxers managed to get genetically ,and radio-carbon content correct bones with which to pull of the hoax, a neat trick for the 4th century ad

No , there is no way to be sure, but If the ossuary claimed tocarry the bones of "Joe the Israeli camel herder" the ID we have so far would be enough for scientists to accept the inscription as accurate. but because it references a "famous name" No one would be willing to call it positively ID'ed no mater what additional evidence surface
 
2012-06-15 02:27:35 PM  
Sorry Magorn, but all the information you listed DOES NOT make this a positive ID. Therefore, it is pure speculation.

What more can I say, as someone who has excavated and studied ancient skeletons? I'm not calling this a hoax, just that these bones should not be called the bones of John the Baptist. Like mentioned in the article, "There's no way to be sure, of course, as there are no confirmed pieces of John the Baptist to compare to the fragments of bone".
 
2012-06-15 02:29:42 PM  
But the sarcophagus holding the bones was found near a second box ...

Science!
 
2012-06-15 02:46:52 PM  

raerae1980: Sorry Magorn, but all the information you listed DOES NOT make this a positive ID. Therefore, it is pure speculation.

What more can I say, as someone who has excavated and studied ancient skeletons? I'm not calling this a hoax, just that these bones should not be called the bones of John the Baptist. Like mentioned in the article, "There's no way to be sure, of course, as there are no confirmed pieces of John the Baptist to compare to the fragments of bone".


But as i said, if you were excavating a house, and came across an ossuary that said "These are the Bones of Joe the Nobody, Camel Trader " and the bones inside were consistent with the time and place the claimed person was supposed to have lived, how would YOU label them in an archaeological report?
A) Unindentified male age 30 circa 1 ad?
B) presumed remains of Joe Nobody camel Merchant from Samaria circa 1 ad?


Now I understand the excess of caution when dealing with famous historical people and doubly so for religious figures, but it seems unfair to claim, on the one hand "there is no evidence that person x even existed" and on the other refuse to ascribe evidence that DOES exist because the person is too controversial
 
2012-06-15 03:13:33 PM  
In a field report, I would note age, sex, ancestry, and burial goods associated with burial. If there are inscriptions on the tomb, or on the burial goods, absoultely include it in the report. My point is, it's fine to say that the inscriptions translate to John the Baptist, but there is no conclusive way to verify that, biologically, those bones belong to that particular historical figure. So, in my report, I would not say " These bones belong to the one and only John the Baptist from biblical times".

Now, if there was some DNA around that could be matched up, I'd be open to the idea. But until then, this is shady archaeology.

Just look at all the trouble we have had identifiying Billy the Kid. And his headstone reads "Billy the Kid".
 
2012-06-15 03:22:45 PM  
Nah, it's just the leaser known saint, Bill the Bukkakist.
 
2012-06-15 03:52:15 PM  

raerae1980: In a field report, I would note age, sex, ancestry, and burial goods associated with burial. If there are inscriptions on the tomb, or on the burial goods, absoultely include it in the report. My point is, it's fine to say that the inscriptions translate to John the Baptist, but there is no conclusive way to verify that, biologically, those bones belong to that particular historical figure. So, in my report, I would not say " These bones belong to the one and only John the Baptist from biblical times".

Now, if there was some DNA around that could be matched up, I'd be open to the idea. But until then, this is shady archaeology.

Just look at all the trouble we have had identifiying Billy the Kid. And his headstone reads "Billy the Kid".


Okay, fair enough, and I totally agree with that point. Can You say this IS John the Baptist? No, and you never will be able to. Just like those Fruitcakes who keep making extraoridnary claims about the so-called "Jesus TOmb" derve all the derision they get for making such unsupportable claims.

I'm just saying that given the fact that the DNA makes this guy the right Age, Sex and living in the correct time period as the person he is claimed to be; if these are intentional fakes, someone got damned lucky
 
2012-06-15 04:16:18 PM  

Magorn: raerae1980: In a field report, I would note age, sex, ancestry, and burial goods associated with burial. If there are inscriptions on the tomb, or on the burial goods, absoultely include it in the report. My point is, it's fine to say that the inscriptions translate to John the Baptist, but there is no conclusive way to verify that, biologically, those bones belong to that particular historical figure. So, in my report, I would not say " These bones belong to the one and only John the Baptist from biblical times".

Now, if there was some DNA around that could be matched up, I'd be open to the idea. But until then, this is shady archaeology.

Just look at all the trouble we have had identifiying Billy the Kid. And his headstone reads "Billy the Kid".

Okay, fair enough, and I totally agree with that point. Can You say this IS John the Baptist? No, and you never will be able to. Just like those Fruitcakes who keep making extraoridnary claims about the so-called "Jesus TOmb" derve all the derision they get for making such unsupportable claims.

I'm just saying that given the fact that the DNA makes this guy the right Age, Sex and living in the correct time period as the person he is claimed to be; if these are intentional fakes, someone got damned lucky


Yeah, or the guy just grabbed bones from a tomb where the dates looked right because he didn't want to spend all night searching the graveyard by torch light for the right grave to rob.
 
2012-06-15 04:25:34 PM  

Magorn: raerae1980: Sorry Magorn, but all the information you listed DOES NOT make this a positive ID. Therefore, it is pure speculation.

What more can I say, as someone who has excavated and studied ancient skeletons? I'm not calling this a hoax, just that these bones should not be called the bones of John the Baptist. Like mentioned in the article, "There's no way to be sure, of course, as there are no confirmed pieces of John the Baptist to compare to the fragments of bone".

But as i said, if you were excavating a house, and came across an ossuary that said "These are the Bones of Joe the Nobody, Camel Trader " and the bones inside were consistent with the time and place the claimed person was supposed to have lived, how would YOU label them in an archaeological report?
A) Unindentified male age 30 circa 1 ad?
B) presumed remains of Joe Nobody camel Merchant from Samaria circa 1 ad?


Now I understand the excess of caution when dealing with famous historical people and doubly so for religious figures, but it seems unfair to claim, on the one hand "there is no evidence that person x even existed" and on the other refuse to ascribe evidence that DOES exist because the person is too controversial


Eh, there's no money to be made in "Joe Nobody the Camel Merchant", as opposed to the big money to be made from pilgrims coming to see John the Baptist. As to the age, there's been grave robbers as long as there have been graves ... it wouldn't be that hard to find a 1st century grave and use those bones. Without the cross-referencing of other samples from John's supposed reliquaries, this is just sensationalist nothingness.
 
2012-06-15 05:53:21 PM  
How could John have been a Baptist? Christianity wan't even invented yet. I think he may have only been a baptist.
 
2012-06-15 07:44:24 PM  
"I have here a bone from the finger of John the Baptist. Baldric, you stand amazed".

"I am! I thought they only came in boxes of ten!"
 
2012-06-15 07:54:01 PM  
The Virgin Mary found a bone that belonged to me.
And then she had to change her title.
 
2012-06-16 12:41:52 PM  
Angry Monkey God
Eh, there's no money to be made in "Joe Nobody the Camel Merchant", as opposed to the big money to be made from pilgrims coming to see John the Baptist.

Even more, calling it the remains of "Joe Nobody" is for our convenience.. you know, so that we have something to call the remains. If the guy's name was "Jim Nobody", it would change absolutely nothing about what we know about this person and how he lived.

However, if the "John the Baptist" bones were actually labelled "Fred the Baptist", then that would be a significant difference. The problem is not in saying "This guy's name was John". The problem is in saying "This john is the same as this other john, and thus we can infer stuff from this relationship."

So, Magorn, can you see the difference now? Saying these bones were of "John the Baptist" is a significantly bigger claim (it says more and thus requires more evidence) than saying these bones were of "Joe Nobody".
 
2012-06-16 02:10:41 PM  
Did anyone else read "Sveti Ivan" in the article and immediately pictured a Russian wrestler?
 
Displayed 22 of 22 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report