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.

(Huffington Post)   Vatican reveals St. Peter's bone. No word yet on where in the altar boy the bone was found   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 39
    More: Interesting, Apostle Peter, Vatican, Pope Paul VI, Castel Gandolfo, Apostolic Palace, sts, basilica, rhetoric of science  
•       •       •

2393 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Nov 2013 at 1:11 PM (20 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



39 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-11-25 12:11:34 PM
Question for archaeology types:  Is there really any way this can be scientifically tested?  Some descendant with DNA or something?
 
2013-11-25 01:11:58 PM

nekom: Some descendant


HAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
 
2013-11-25 01:12:51 PM
Between that and Christ's toenails are we going to find st Paul's eyeball in preparation for an assault of castlevania? Did they find it by squatting next to a cliff with a blue crystal?
 
2013-11-25 01:16:21 PM

nekom: Question for archaeology types:  Is there really any way this can be scientifically tested?  Some descendant with DNA or something?


There's a few problems with DNA going back that far. The biggest is that if you go back far enough, anyone who is an ancestor of a single living human is also going to show up in the family tree of every living human. Also, after enough generations, you can have an ancestor that you share no genetic material with.
 
2013-11-25 01:16:50 PM

vudukungfu: nekom: Some descendant

HAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


Not so far from impossible..

Peter ran a fishing business in Bethsaida.[Jn. 1:44] He was named Simon, son of Jonah or John.[20] The Synoptic Gospels all recount how Peter's mother-in-law was healed by Jesus at their home in Capernaum[Matt. 8:14-17] [Mk. 1:29-31] [Lk. 4:38] which, coupled with 1 Cor. 9:5, clearly depict Peter as a married man. His wife is known in the East as Febronia and her feast is celebrated on June 28. In the Synoptic Gospels, Peter (then Simon) was a fisherman along with his brother Andrew and the sons of Zebedee, James and John.
 
2013-11-25 01:18:18 PM

nekom: Question for archaeology types:  Is there really any way this can be scientifically tested?


They tried asking the bones, but they denied their identity three times.
 
2013-11-25 01:19:08 PM

MassAsster: vudukungfu: nekom: Some descendant

HAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Not so far from impossible..

Peter ran a fishing business in Bethsaida.[Jn. 1:44] He was named Simon, son of Jonah or John.[20] The Synoptic Gospels all recount how Peter's mother-in-law was healed by Jesus at their home in Capernaum[Matt. 8:14-17] [Mk. 1:29-31] [Lk. 4:38] which, coupled with 1 Cor. 9:5, clearly depict Peter as a married man. His wife is known in the East as Febronia and her feast is celebrated on June 28. In the Synoptic Gospels, Peter (then Simon) was a fisherman along with his brother Andrew and the sons of Zebedee, James and John.


You sure Peter didn't fool around with that Magdalene chick? I hear she was easy.
 
v15
2013-11-25 01:20:21 PM
Peter gets crucified upside-down and still bones an alter boy? That's skill. And, hopefully, a skill that died with him.
 
2013-11-25 01:20:44 PM

Cyclometh: nekom: Question for archaeology types:  Is there really any way this can be scientifically tested?  Some descendant with DNA or something?

There's a few problems with DNA going back that far. The biggest is that if you go back far enough, anyone who is an ancestor of a single living human is also going to show up in the family tree of every living human. Also, after enough generations, you can have an ancestor that you share no genetic material with.


That makes sense, I myself have traced one line back to English royalty but I suspect anyone with the slightest bit of English ancestry can say the same.  But wouldn't they at least be able to narrow it down a bit?  Perhaps determine whether or not he was a member of whatever ethnicity, tribe or whatever.  Just wondering if there is any sort of science that can be done or if that's forever lost to the ages.
 
2013-11-25 01:24:03 PM

v15: Peter gets crucified upside-down and still bones an alter boy? That's skill. And, hopefully, a skill that died with him.


Reverse Fisherman
 
2013-11-25 01:25:04 PM

nekom: Cyclometh: nekom: Question for archaeology types:  Is there really any way this can be scientifically tested?  Some descendant with DNA or something?

There's a few problems with DNA going back that far. The biggest is that if you go back far enough, anyone who is an ancestor of a single living human is also going to show up in the family tree of every living human. Also, after enough generations, you can have an ancestor that you share no genetic material with.

That makes sense, I myself have traced one line back to English royalty but I suspect anyone with the slightest bit of English ancestry can say the same.  But wouldn't they at least be able to narrow it down a bit?  Perhaps determine whether or not he was a member of whatever ethnicity, tribe or whatever.  Just wondering if there is any sort of science that can be done or if that's forever lost to the ages.


If you tested the bones you might be able to find a descendant, but it wouldn't prove anything about the provenance of the bones.  That assumes there's even recoverable genetic material in them, or that it's all the same person's bones, and that they haven't been contaminated, etc.
 
2013-11-25 01:25:46 PM

nekom: Cyclometh: nekom: Question for archaeology types:  Is there really any way this can be scientifically tested?  Some descendant with DNA or something?

There's a few problems with DNA going back that far. The biggest is that if you go back far enough, anyone who is an ancestor of a single living human is also going to show up in the family tree of every living human. Also, after enough generations, you can have an ancestor that you share no genetic material with.

That makes sense, I myself have traced one line back to English royalty but I suspect anyone with the slightest bit of English ancestry can say the same.  But wouldn't they at least be able to narrow it down a bit?  Perhaps determine whether or not he was a member of whatever ethnicity, tribe or whatever.  Just wondering if there is any sort of science that can be done or if that's forever lost to the ages.


You can narrow it down to some degree: DNA tests to figure out the ethnicity, radioisotope dating to figure out if he lived around the right time, and so on. But without a verifiable close blood relative, you're not really going to be able to narrow it down much beyond that.
 
2013-11-25 01:26:56 PM
Well done, subby.  I'll give up my aisle seat for you when the bus stops.

i90.photobucket.com
 
2013-11-25 01:30:26 PM

Millennium: But without a verifiable close blood relative,


Yup. And that doesn't exist.

Hell, there's not a lot of proof that Peter himself actually existed outside the Bible and related (often self-referential) accounts. Same goes for Jesus. They may have existed, or may have been amalgamations of other personalities, or been made up out of whole cloth. Hard to say this far on, with so much history being rearranged to suit the needs of the powers that be at the time.
 
2013-11-25 01:31:46 PM
First two pics in the slideshow are hilariously unfortunate.

Pic 1:  "Put me down!  Why are you letting him fondle me?"

Pic 2:  "You know the routine, boy."
 
2013-11-25 01:34:37 PM

nekom: Question for archaeology types:  Is there really any way this can be scientifically tested?  Some descendant with DNA or something?


I don't think it is possible to prove that they are St-Peter's bones. It might be possible to prove that they are not. The article does not say if it is an entire skeleton or just a few bones and in what states they are. Depending on that it might be possible to find the sex of the skeleton, where it lived, when it lived, how it lived and how it died.
 
2013-11-25 01:35:04 PM

Tax Boy: nekom: Question for archaeology types:  Is there really any way this can be scientifically tested?

They tried asking the bones, but they denied their identity three times.


Did they do this before the rooster crowed?

nekom: Question for archaeology types:  Is there really any way this can be scientifically tested?  Some descendant with DNA or something?

Considering that most saints, based upon the so-called holy relics of them there are, have more ribs than a Kansas City BBQ joint, and more fingers than a porn site favoring fisting, I doubt that you can find an authentic relic belonging to a specific saint, including Saint Peter.

Fano: Between that and Christ's toenails are we going to find st Paul's eyeball in preparation for an assault of castlevania? Did they find it by squatting next to a cliff with a blue crystal?


I've got some stakes than can be sharpened.
 
2013-11-25 01:38:24 PM

Cyclometh: nekom: Question for archaeology types:  Is there really any way this can be scientifically tested?  Some descendant with DNA or something?

There's a few problems with DNA going back that far. The biggest is that if you go back far enough, anyone who is an ancestor of a single living human is also going to show up in the family tree of every living human. Also, after enough generations, you can have an ancestor that you share no genetic material with.


I'm a Merovingian, so I'm really getting a kick....
 
2013-11-25 01:50:02 PM
i47.tinypic.com
 
2013-11-25 01:51:06 PM
Popes don't have wish bones.
 
2013-11-25 01:51:07 PM

LewDux: v15: Peter gets crucified upside-down and still bones an alter boy? That's skill. And, hopefully, a skill that died with him.

Reverse Fisherman


d2tq98mqfjyz2l.cloudfront.net

/subby
 
2013-11-25 01:53:03 PM

Cyclometh: Millennium: But without a verifiable close blood relative,

Yup. And that doesn't exist.


Pretty much. It doesn't really meet falsifiability standards. If the bones are not Peter's, it might be possible to prove that they aren't, but that would depend on exactly who the bones belonged to: for example, someone of a totally different ethnicity or sex, or someone who wasn't even alive during the right time period. But there are many people who lived around that place and time whose bones would be indistinguishable from Peter's, at least as far as modern science can determine. So even if we cannot falsify them with our current tests, that wouldn't be enough to establish a whole lot of confidence.
 
2013-11-25 01:53:21 PM
I once heard this from a priest:

A young archeologist named Stossel,
uncovered an unusual fossil.
He could tell by the bend,
and the knob on the end,
'twas the peter of Paul the Apostle!
 
2013-11-25 01:57:36 PM
Nothing compared to what Plucky Purcell revealed.
d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net
 
2013-11-25 02:25:43 PM

Fano: Between that and Christ's toenails are we going to find st Paul's eyeball in preparation for an assault of castlevania? Did they find it by squatting next to a cliff with a blue crystal?


I larfed and larfed at this
 
2013-11-25 02:38:50 PM

Tax Boy: nekom: Question for archaeology types:  Is there really any way this can be scientifically tested?

They tried asking the bones, but they denied their identity three times.


i184.photobucket.com

Oh, Mr Bones....

Yuk, yuk, yuk

/politically incorrect, I know.
 
2013-11-25 02:58:58 PM

MassAsster: Not so far from impossible..


Call me when someone does it on ancestry dot com.
 
2013-11-25 03:25:32 PM

v15: Peter gets crucified upside-down and still bones an alter boy? That's skill. And, hopefully, a skill that died with him.


We prefer a St. Andrew's cross these days.
 
2013-11-25 03:46:27 PM
The circumstantial evidence seems strong enough to raise the possibility that the bones are genuinely those of Saint Peter.

As for DNA testing, it might not prove much, but if they had a sufficiently large and complete sample, say a Y chromosome, you could at least compare it to the Y chromosomes of Jews and others with a Middle Eastern ancestry and whatever DNA evidence you had from the 1st Century Christian Era.

The problem is that Peter was a common fisherman and not a priest (or Cohen as their descendants are often stilled named). There are many Jews whose priestly ancestry can be confirmed by DNA, but it would be much harder to prove anything useful about a fisherman. His Y chromosome would be shared with many men but not all of them would be Christians or Jews.

For example, Peter's living relations (and descendants if he has any) might prove to be Palestinians or possibly in Central Asia. He might be related to men in Pakistan or India. The Jews got around a lot over the last 2,000 years. The most likely place for relations of Saint Peter might be Central Europe, Russia, etc, where the Ashkenazi Jews were particularly numerous.

Anybody, almost anywhere, could have the same Y chromosome but if Peter came from a large successful family, there would be a slightly greater probability of the Y chromosome turning up among Jews or Jewish converts or early Christians where available.

As for mitochondrial DNA, another common test, it is inherited via the egg from the Mother. It would be an even weaker "proof" because it would not link a male to his male ancestors, but only to the ancestors of his Mother's Mother's mothers throughout time.

It could still identify Saint Peter as a 1st Century Jew, perhaps, but would not prove he wasn't just any 1st Century Jew.

As for the bones, they could be dated. Some of the newer tests are not as destructive and would not require destruction of all of the bone and any marrow cell material surviving against the odds.

I don't see much point to test the bones really. Their history is far more important. The fact that they were found in a shrine, in a box which was labelled "Here is Peter" which were both under the Vatican in a place where many early Popes were buried is the most telling piece of evidence. There was only one Pope Peter in Rome (other Popes elsewhere took that name). Some people doubt there was a historical Jesus, but few doubt there was a historical Apostle Peter or Paul.
 
2013-11-25 03:47:27 PM
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-11-25 03:48:06 PM
Does that guy have horns?
 
2013-11-25 04:44:48 PM
I'm amazed. I thought they only came in packets of 10.

upload.wikimedia.org
/hot
 
2013-11-25 04:53:09 PM

brantgoose: [upload.wikimedia.org image 850x1133]


Wonder what they'll do when John Paul 2 is canonized. They didn't leave any room for S.
 
2013-11-25 05:17:07 PM
now that we cant be homophobes, racists or islamophobes at least we can still hate catholics.
 
2013-11-25 05:59:43 PM
There was a pope named Cletus! Where he from, Ken-tuck? Whal, I'll be John Brown. Don't That Beat All.
 
2013-11-25 06:10:40 PM

Schmerd1948: There was a pope named Cletus! Where he from, Ken-tuck? Whal, I'll be John Brown. Don't That Beat All.


There was also a pope named Lando.
 
2013-11-25 07:33:58 PM

vudukungfu: nekom: Some descendant

HAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


Tru dat.
 
2013-11-25 08:36:52 PM
I read a few years back that the real bones o Paul and of Peter are interred in Bury St. Edmunds, in the UK. Around 500 AD, the Pope asked the faithful king of England to accept them and to preserve them, as the church allowed the tombs to fall into disrepair. So, what bones are they showing today? Maybe the janitor's?
 
2013-11-26 01:21:22 PM
What a load of old bollocks. Wait, what about the holy bollocks, where are they?
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report