 |
|
|
|
 A reliquary box thought to have been used to carry the bones of John the Baptist.
June 22nd, 2012
07:55 AM ET
Bulgarian bones could be John the Baptist's as claimed, scientists sayBy Richard Allen Greene, CNN (CNN)– When the tools of modern science are applied to religious relics, the results are almost always the same: Science says the relics aren't what their supporters claim. The most famous of them all, the Turin Shroud, is widely regarded as a Middle Ages forgery, and even the Catholic Church does not insist the shroud was actually used to wrap the body of Jesus himself. So when Bulgarian archeologists announced two years ago that they had found the bones of John the Baptist, Tom Higham was skeptical. He got a surprise. 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. CNN's Belief Blog: the faith angles behind the big stories 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. Archeologist Kazimir Popkonstantinov led the team that found them under the altar of a fifth century basilica on Sveti Ivan, a Black Sea island off Sozopol on the south coast of Bulgaria. The bones were in a reliquary, a container for holy relics, with a tiny sandstone box. Written on the box in Greek were the words, "God, save your servant Thomas. To St. John. June 24."  Scientists take samples of the bones for radiocarbon and genetic analysis. The date is the Christian feast day of John the Baptist, believed to be his birthday. When the bones were found in 2010, Popkonstantinov said it was "logical to suggest that the founders of the monastery did their best to bring relics of its patron saint." Higham, the deputy director of Oxford's Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, got involved because a colleague knew the Bulgarian archeologists. National Geographic was also interested, so it provided funding for more extensive testing than Higham originally planned, and made a film about the project. Radiocarbon dating showed that the bones were from the right period to be from John the Baptist, Higham said, while genetic testing showed it was a man and all the bones were from the same person. DNA testing by colleagues at the University of Copenhagen suggested that the person was most likely to have been from the Middle East, he said. Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter More detailed nuclear DNA testing could pin down his location even more accurately, Higham said, but "does cost quite a lot of money." There is reasonably good historical evidence that John the Baptist, whom Christians believe baptized his cousin Jesus, did exist, said Paul Middleton, a senior lecturer in Biblical studies at the University of Chester. All four gospels and the contemporary Jewish historian Josephus say he was beheaded on the orders of the ruler Herod Antipas, Middleton said when the bones were found. The six small bones are far from the only relics purporting to belong to him. Four locations, from a mosque in Damascus, Syria, to a museum in Munich, Germany, claim to have his head, while the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul, Turkey, has a relic alleged to be his right arm. A monastery in Montenegro says it has his right hand, while another in Egypt has a crypt containing relics of the saint. Tom Higham says he can test them to see if they match. "We have a complete genome. It's possible that we could step this a step further and see if there is any similarity," in the genetic material of all the relics. "We've sort of got interested in this. It's not beyond the realms of possibility, and we know that there were relics moving out of the Middle East in the fourth and fifth century," he said. But for him, the project remains a purely scientific one. "I'm an atheist," he said. "I perceive this as an archeological dating problem. We have some bones and we're trying to get as much information out of them as we can." CNN's Simon Hooper and Susannah Palk contributed to this report.
« Previous entryBelief Blog's Morning Speed Read for Friday, June 22
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
The moral of the story?
SCIENCE works. And it is awesome!
If this was a newspaper I would say what a waste of ink. On par with money ti be sent from a Nigerian princess.
In case anyone was wondering, proving some particular item or person from the Bible existed, does not prove the existance of God. For example, the statement, "We have proven these are the bones of John the Baptist, therefore God exists" is not logically valid.
I agree with this. We have plenty of evidence Jesus existed (at least as a man) but that doesn't prove He was who He claimed He was.
So can I ask you how is your belief that God doesn't exist logical? When man can't out last the curse of death of our physical bodies and scientist are always searching for answers. Arrogant men always learning but never able to come to the knowledge of truth. So what do you believe or do you even know?
The Bible (Word of God) is based on truths. Science is based on facts and theories. Facts and theories can change, but the truth never does. It is what it is. So, therefore, science will always prove the Bible to be true. Just as it has in many instances before this.
@Sheridan said "So can I ask you how is your belief that God doesn't exist logical?"
So it is illogical to believe the Loch Ness Monster does not exist? Why is the lack of belief in a god any different?
@Angel
I would like one example of Science ever proving anything of significance in the bible to be true that would have us think it had anything to do with god or a divine being?
Angel ... Amen!
@Just Claims no Truth.
Do you own research. Let us know what you find. If you are not a chicken., I double dare you to do this simple thing. Ask God to reveal Himself to you. Are you brave enough to pull it off?
Sheridan, I made no claim as to whether or not God exists. But dem bones don't prove the existence of "your" God. As for your whining about how sad and meaningless life without a supreme creator is, the universe owes you no comfort.
Why are you jumping to that conclusion, nobody is proving the existence of god. They are just trying to prove that an important historical character was actually there. Are you scared that they may just discover that there is something called god ? Keep your mind open, there may or May not be God. but dont close down the possibility even before the experiments are to be done.
@Angel – The Bible (Word of God) is based on beliefs. Science is based on facts and theories. Theories can change, but the belief never does. It is what it is. – There, I fixed it for you.
The bible is based on belief, not fact. Science is based on fact. Soft science; i.e. psychology, philosophy is based on theory. To put science and soft science in one category is the equivalent of, to you, saying that Buddha and Jesus were the same person. As for John..his body and head were in separate locations, so this is just another current day fable to try to prove Christianity as true. This was done for Jesus too where he wasn't EVER mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls, until 35 years later where everyone was saying WTH? Miraculously, a few years later, an "undiscovered" scroll, found after all was emptied out of the cave(Carbon dated as much younger parchment and ink.) appeared that mentioned his name(A common enough name as Joe was in the 1970's) to try to prove that there was a Jesus Christ as history in his native land had no record of him. Faith is a fine thing, but where it comes to putting your faith into something that can be proven in history(Let's use Napoleon or Hitler as an example.) There isn't a proof of Jesus, other than guys name Joe, in history any more than there is proof that King Arthur(Another nice story.) EVER existed and did what was proclaimed he did.
Had to pop back in –
Numerous times Cocopuf posted that c14 was used to date fossils, that it was based on c12, and that c14 dating was wrong. I wanted to copy his citations to actual science that support these contentions. He was asked for these each time he posted.
For some reason, I can't seem to find where Cocopuf posted his science. This would really be rare – a fundiot posting lies about science and then refusing to back up those lies. I mean it never happens like this. Fundiots always post the science that supports their claims, don't they?
Are you saying that AIG is wrong?
They should leave science to the scientists and stick to arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
"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."
Enough said. They could also be the bones of several other million men alive at the time.
It's like those people that see the face of Jesus in toast. Well, it COULD be the real face of Jesus. We just don't know because there is no database containing a true picture of Jesus.
John the Baptist, Jake the Soldier, Tom the Scribe, Bill the Eunuch, Harry the Streetsweep, or Mervyn the Barber....who cares!! A relic from the age of gross ignorance and illiteracy.
"But the mere fact that the testing didn't prove the bones are fakes is unusual."
How sad is it that religious claims are so often fake that it is considered unusual to find something that isn't immediately recognizable as a fake? And how sad that it's the pious that are so often being dishonest. Surely that observation should be telling us something.
Radiocarbon dating showed that the bones were from the right period to be from John the Baptist, Higham said, while genetic testing showed it was a man and all the bones were from the same person.
WHOA! WHOA! WHOA HERE!!!
"Radiocarbon Dating?"!?!
It's that the VERY SAME METHOD that Christians always – ALWAYS – A-L-W-A-Y-S complain is "Inaccurate" whenever WHENEVER – W-H-E-N-E-V-E-R it's used to show the TRUE age of the Earth?!?!
"Radiocarbon Dating?"!?! Age of the Earth?
Radiocarbon dating only works on organic material, such as wood and only to about 50K-60K years. Other radiometric methods are used to determine the arge of the earth.
Unless the body's neck was severed and his head is missing it is a fake.
CNN moderators, is there any chance that you will ever let me post a comment?
its not the moderators, there are no moderators.
It is a filter that censors words. Words like "Consti.tution" because it has "t.it" in it. Or "circ.umstance" because it has c.um in it. Frustrated me for quite a while as well.
slow news day ...time to dig up cultish folklore....again....
Seriously? Are you disappointed that this article isn't exciting enough for you? So much so, that you'd actually take the time to comment that you're bored with it and to criticize CNN's decision to write it? Poor baby. It must be hard being so jaded. Clearly, your vast intellect must make so much that happens in this world seem trite to you - requiring you to troll around this site leaving little pearls of cynical wisdom in the comments until you finally reach a report of something 'exciting' such as someone being blown to bits.
This reminds me of the fake "James" ossurary over a decade ago. There is no way to prove this one way or the other...
I disagree. If you can prove that the bones or ossuary could not possibly come from the time period in question, you would prove that they were not the bones of Jesus or John the Baptist. Btw, Dr. Jodi Magness, one of the world's leading experts on 1st century Palenstine, came up with some pretty convincing arguements why the Talpiot cannot be Jesus and his family.
Jim's right, and it gets right to the heart of scientific "proof." You can never prove something, you can only fail to disprove it despite repeated tests, and eventually resolve that the best explanation is that it is true. This one test of the idea that the bones belonged to John the Baptist demonstrated that they are from a male from the right region and the right time period. So thus far, the idea stands up because it is not disproved.
The article said,
"But the mere fact that the testing didn't prove the bones are fakes is unusual."
LOL
We can't prove it is true BUT at least we know they are not faked like most.
Finally resolved the problem
That is one big chunk of bone, very thick and quite flat, I don't see it as being part of a 1st century human burial, are they just demonstrating with an elphant bone or does the person holding it just have very small hands?
I'm pretty sure that is the box, not the bones.
That makes sense, I was looking for something more complicated ha!
@ Junior et al.
Faith is NOT freedom. Any religion that teaches children that anyone who does not believe exactly as prescribed by said religion will go to hell is by definition indoctrinating new bigots.
Bigotry is evil. Religious bigots are not benign as you imply, no matter how much alleged love is preached along with all the hatred.
Religious bigots even create the concept of "hell" just to have a terrible place to condemn folks to who fail to comply with the indoctrination of some particular religion.
Marxist athiesm the most bigoted religion of all...just ask the 100,000,000 it's killed in a mere 100 yrs
@Common Sense: Unfortunately your name does not apply to yourself. The death and suffering in the last 100 years was not "in the name of atheism". It makes about as much sense to blame it on atheism as it does to claim that it is because Adolph Hitler, Joseph Staling and Pol Pot all have an 'O' in their names. Further, if you read Mein Kampf or listen to many of Hitler's speeches, he frequently invoke the name of God as justification for his atrocities. Nazis solderies evne had belt buckles with "God with us" on them.
On the other hand since Christianity was founded, more people have died **in the name of Jesus* than all of these tyrannts combined. The core problem in all of these cases, like Christians and Nazis, is that they simply turn off their common sense. When their leaders (pope, pastor, Hitler) tell them what is right and what to do, they fail to use their common sense and blindly follow orders. They simple stop thinking.
That is why in every case dictators first eliminate the intellectuals and only if necessary the religious people. The intelligent people think for themselves. That is why they are a greater threat to dictators than religious people. The religious people will always act like sheep.
Common Sense,
They were not killed in the 'name' of atheism, they did not justify it because they did not believe in god(s). They did it to get or maintain power. The same reason religion has killed people, to maintain power. The difference is religion has justified the killing FOR their god.
but its ok to teach kids live is random mess of nothing?!
Bubbles,
It is better than teaching them an all loving god should be feared because he may decide to burn you forever for a finite crime. It is like parents teching their kids the boogie man is real and may come and get you at any time. It is child abuse.
100,000,000? I'd really like you to break that down, tell us where those figures came from, because that is twice the number of deaths in World War II.
"There is zero evidence for Jesus actually existing.. that is a fact Christians must face(No, the bible is not proof)"
See my other post. You quite obviously, and demonstrably do not know what you are talking about.
OK, let's see your contemporary, extra-biblical evidence for the existence, let alone the divinity of Jesus.
Nothing to do with your post but for some reason I can't comment directly!
That is one big chunk of bone, very thick and quite flat, I don't see it as being part of a 1st century human burial, are they just demonstrating with an elphant bone or does the person holding it just have very small hands?
Why do you insist it is "contemporary". You are placing a greate requirement on the evidence than historians. Do you know something they don't?
Divinity? Who said anything about divinity. First, simply existing does not imply you are divine, in case you hadn't notice. Second, the use of the term "divine" in the 1st century is vastly different from how we use it today. Why would you even expect a 1st century source to describe something in 21st century terms?
I didn't think there would be an argument on the existence of a man named Jesus... I don't see THAT would be hard to believe... I mean we got records and artifacts proving that but that is just plain denial now... like supernatural acts sure I can see how one could be skeptical... but this? Now that is just ignorant lol not many historians disagree on His existence.
You wouldn’t ask for evidence for a crime 100 or 200 years after the crime was committed would you? Even 50 years after the crime. If you are going to evoke Josephus, Tacitus, or Pliny the Younger you are doing just that.
The Romans kept VERY GOOD records. There was NO written account of any of these supposed miracles such as the healings or of hundreds of people getting up out of the grave and walking around.
It’s almost as if the new testament was written hundreds of years after the fact in order to create a new religion.
So what? Are the Catholics running out of things to venerate so they dig up bones?
I don't see any mention of Catholics doing the digging. Atheists and Protestants trying to cash in on some old bones, yes. Catholics don't "venerate" the Saints as you are describing. Honored, yes; venerated no. They are just examples of how we should live or how to overcome problems they had.
This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:
John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."
Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His ass?"
John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the guts out of you."
Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"
John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever He wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss His ass."
Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."
Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"
Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."
John: "Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"
Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."
Me: "And has He given you a million dollars?"
John: "Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town."
Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"
Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the guts
out of you."
Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the million dollars?"
John: "My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."
Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"
John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."
Me: "So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"
Mary: "Well, He gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street."
Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?"
John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'"
Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."
John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass He'll kick the guts out of you."
Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from Him..."
Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."
Me: "Then how do you kiss His ass?"
John: "Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His ass. Other times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on."
Me: "Who's Karl?"
Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."
Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His ass, and that Hank would reward you?"
John: "Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."
From the Desk of Karl
1. Kiss Hank's ass and He'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.
2. Use alcohol in moderation.
3. Kick the guts out of people who aren't like you.
4. Eat right.
5. Hank dictated this list Himself.
6. The moon is made of green cheese.
7. Everything Hank says is right.
8. Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
9. Don't use alcohol.
10. Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
11. Kiss Hank's ass or He'll kick the guts out of you.
Me: "This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."
Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."
Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."
John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."
Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"
Mary: "Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."
Me: "I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the guts out of people just because they're different?"
Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."
Me: "How do you figure that?"
Mary: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!"
Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."
John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."
Me: "But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."
John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."
Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."
Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."
Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon was somehow 'captured' by the Earth has been discounted*. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."
John: "Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"
Me: "We do?"
Mary: "Of course we do, Item 7 says so."
Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"
John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."
Me: "But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"
Mary: She blushes.
John: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong."
Me: "What if I don't have a bun?"
John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."
Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"
Mary: She looks positively stricken.
John: He's shouting. "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"
Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?"
Mary: Sticks her fingers in her ears."I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la."
John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..."
Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time."
Mary: She faints.
John: He catches Mary. "Well, if I'd known you were one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the guts out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."
With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.
the above is from Jhuger.com. it is a great site for all thinking people.
Funny!
Awesome.
Says it all 🙂
I prefered my Wieners in the oven
Colin,
great post, you have some of the best. I will check out the site.
Great post!
One thing that we do know is that John the Baptist was not Bulgarian.
It will be a MAJOR set back when you find out that you have arrived at the wrong gate. LOL 🙂 🙂 🙂
Cocopuf: Your comment is not unexpected. You have run out of arguments and resort to comments like this or "you only want to sin" or "I will pray for you" or some other desperate nonsense. You have no evidence for your claims. Your holy books is filled with contradictions and errors. The majority of scholars (even Christians scholars) say it contains forgeries. However, you still believe it. The facts point clearing to you being wrong, yet you still keep your beliefs.
delusional: "maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts, usually as a result of mental illness"
Some question whether a kind and loving God could have made a hell. Louis of Grenada speaks of the justice in store for those who in their lifetimes despised the mercy of God. But as St. Thesese said,"He's God and He can do whatever He wants."
Sortakinda,
Might does not make right, even if I thought the god you are describing existed I would not worship him. Just because he can do whatever he wants does not mean his actions are moral. I don't worship tyrants or dictators.