Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 06-22-2012, 09:27 PM

DNA bolsters Bulgaria's John the Baptist bones claim

Quote:

Reuters) - Bulgaria's claim to have unearthed six bones belonging to John the Baptist has received a boost from scientists who have concluded after dating them and analyzing their genetic code that they could indeed be relics of the man who baptized Jesus.

The remains, which include a molar and a piece of cranium, were found in July 2010 in a marble sarcophagus in the ruins of a medieval church on the island of Sveti Ivan, or Saint John, off Bulgaria's Black Sea coast near the resort of Sozopol.

outhouse · 06-22-2012, 10:00 PM

its nothing new, old news.

its a man from the right time. and thats all that can be said with certainty

Huon · 06-23-2012, 12:40 AM

In 817, Pippin I of Aquitaine, a grandson of Charlemagne, received a relic which was said to be the head of John the Baptist. This relic was triumphally brought to Angeriacum, which is now Saint Jean d’Angely, near la Rochelle.

Possibly, JtB had two heads...

mountainman · 06-23-2012, 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

In 817, Pippin I of Aquitaine, a grandson of Charlemagne, received a relic which was said to be the head of John the Baptist. This relic was triumphally brought to Angeriacum, which is now Saint Jean d’Angely, near la Rochelle.

Possibly, JtB had two heads...

Hey Huon,

I think the number of heads is much greater than two. According to the WIKI article on JtB there are multiple heads ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI on John the Baptist

Amiens cathedral, which holds one of the alleged heads of the Baptist, has a biographical sequence in polychrome relief, dating from the 16th century. This stresses the execution and the disposal of the saint's remains.

rizdek · 06-23-2012, 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

In 817, Pippin I of Aquitaine, a grandson of Charlemagne, received a relic which was said to be the head of John the Baptist. This relic was triumphally brought to Angeriacum, which is now Saint Jean d’Angely, near la Rochelle.

Possibly, JtB had two heads...

Indeed, a miracle tantamount to resurrection. While Jesus just came back to life, John the Baptists dead body began sprouting heads. Or maybe his dead head just started going through a process similar to mitosis.

aeebee50 · 06-23-2012, 04:59 AM

Powerful dance of Salome to cause so many heads to grow.

PhilosopherJay · 06-23-2012, 05:50 AM

Hi All,

"Higham's team dated a knuckle-bone to the first century AD, when John the Baptist would have lived, while geneticist colleagues from the University of Copenhagen established the full DNA code of three of the bones.

The genetic analysis showed that the bones were from the same person, a man who most probably came from the Middle East."

It would be interesting to see the actual dates of the carbon tests. Generally there's a variance in radio carbon dating going back 2000. The Dead Sea Scrolls had average variances of around 40 years. If the date was 50 C.E. plus or minus 40 years, that would mean that the bone fragments could have come from a person killed during the Judeo-Roman war circa 70 C.E. Since there were 100,000 people killed according to Josephus, we can say that it is at least 100,000 times more likely that these bone fragments came from a person killed during the war than John the Baptist.

I would guess that roughly 10 million people died in the 1st century in the Middle East. This would place the odds of this being John the Baptist's bones at roughly 1 in 10 million. However, this assumes that John the Baptist was a real and not a fictional character. If he was a fictional character then the odds would be 0. At best the odds are somewhere between 1 in 10 million and 0 that these are fragments from the bones of someone called John the Baptist.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Minimalist · 06-23-2012, 10:25 AM

Gee....what possible incentive could there have been for Ancient Palestinians to dig up bones and sell them to gullible xtians as relics of saints?

Toto · 06-23-2012, 12:10 PM

Goodacre's blog: John the Baptist's Bones Have Been Found - Again! contains links to other commentary.

I thought this was of interest: CNN Religion Blog

Quote:

Higham, an Oxford University scientist and an atheist who doesn't believe in "any kind of religion or God or anything like that," was asked to test six small bone fragments found on an island named Sveti Ivan - St. John.

The bones turned out to be from a man who lived in the Middle East at the same time as Jesus, Higham said.

"We got a date that was exactly where it should be, right in the middle of the first century," said Higham, a radiocarbon dating expert.

It's not proof that they belonged to John the Baptist, since there's no DNA database of early Christian saints, the archeologist who found the bones said.

But the mere fact that the testing didn't prove the bones are fakes is unusual.

In other words, most of these claimed relics are recent forgeries, and not very good. But this is at least an ancient forgery!

There is a more academic discussion here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christopher Rollston

1. John the Baptist was buried in a tomb in Palestine, arguably in the Galilee (where he died). (2) John the Baptist died during the early 1st century CE. Therefore, without some compelling evidence for the moving of the body (or portions thereof) of John the Baptist (centuries later!) from the place of burial in Palestine, it is not cogent or prudent to propose that the remains found on a small island in the Black Sea, in the archaeological ruins of a basilica of the 5th century CE, are those of a Palestinian Jews named John the Baptist who lived, died, and was buried in the 1st century CE, in Palestine.

3. To be sure, Popkonstantinov has argued (2010) that the inscription on the sandstone box near the reliquary is the “key” to his interpretation. However, this is not particularly convincing. After all, the inscription certainly does *not* state that “these are the remains of John the Baptist.” 4. The date of June 24th is one of the feast days for John the Baptist (e.g., within Orthodox Christianity), but this cannot be construed as evidence that the bones themselves are actually those of John (indeed, the date of the founding of this church would argue against this, as the church was founded centuries after the death and burial of John the Baptist). 5. Furthermore, the inscription is not on the reliquary (where the bones were found), but rather, they are on a sandstone box that was found *near* the reliquary. One might propose that the bones are those of a certain man named “Thomas,” but even this is not necessarily the case, for a number of reasons (not the least of which is the fact that the reliquary and sandstone box need not have belonged to the same person or been deposited at precisely the same time in the basilica).

6. Mostly, the inscription strikes me as a plea of a pious believer from the island of Sveti Ivan to a famed patron saint, namely, a plea to John the Baptist. That’s it. That’s the way I would interpret the totality of the evidence.

Diogenes the Cynic · 06-23-2012, 06:47 PM

It's obviously ridiculous to pronounce these to be the bones of John the Baptist based on this one result, but it is a novelty at least (and an entertaining one, in my opinion) that the bones managed to survive a test which normally debunks purported relics like a bug zapper. A genuine, 1st Century, Middle Eastern provenance is, to the best of my knowledge (though I'm willing to be corrected) unique among alleged Christian relics found outside of Palestine.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-22-2012, 10:00 PM	#2
outhouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auburn ca Posts: 4,269	its nothing new, old news. its a man from the right time. and thats all that can be said with certainty

06-23-2012, 12:40 AM	#3
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	In 817, Pippin I of Aquitaine, a grandson of Charlemagne, received a relic which was said to be the head of John the Baptist. This relic was triumphally brought to Angeriacum, which is now Saint Jean d’Angely, near la Rochelle. Possibly, JtB had two heads...

06-23-2012, 04:59 AM	#6
aeebee50 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Texas Posts: 5,810	Powerful dance of Salome to cause so many heads to grow.

06-23-2012, 05:50 AM	#7
PhilosopherJay Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Orlando Posts: 2,014	Hi All, "Higham's team dated a knuckle-bone to the first century AD, when John the Baptist would have lived, while geneticist colleagues from the University of Copenhagen established the full DNA code of three of the bones. The genetic analysis showed that the bones were from the same person, a man who most probably came from the Middle East." It would be interesting to see the actual dates of the carbon tests. Generally there's a variance in radio carbon dating going back 2000. The Dead Sea Scrolls had average variances of around 40 years. If the date was 50 C.E. plus or minus 40 years, that would mean that the bone fragments could have come from a person killed during the Judeo-Roman war circa 70 C.E. Since there were 100,000 people killed according to Josephus, we can say that it is at least 100,000 times more likely that these bone fragments came from a person killed during the war than John the Baptist. I would guess that roughly 10 million people died in the 1st century in the Middle East. This would place the odds of this being John the Baptist's bones at roughly 1 in 10 million. However, this assumes that John the Baptist was a real and not a fictional character. If he was a fictional character then the odds would be 0. At best the odds are somewhere between 1 in 10 million and 0 that these are fragments from the bones of someone called John the Baptist. Warmly, Jay Raskin

06-23-2012, 10:25 AM	#8
Minimalist Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,808	Gee....what possible incentive could there have been for Ancient Palestinians to dig up bones and sell them to gullible xtians as relics of saints?

06-23-2012, 06:47 PM	#10
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	It's obviously ridiculous to pronounce these to be the bones of John the Baptist based on this one result, but it is a novelty at least (and an entertaining one, in my opinion) that the bones managed to survive a test which normally debunks purported relics like a bug zapper. A genuine, 1st Century, Middle Eastern provenance is, to the best of my knowledge (though I'm willing to be corrected) unique among alleged Christian relics found outside of Palestine.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.