Have they been found? You don’t know how badly I want to say they were inside Noah’s ark and now brought forth by the Chinese team. 🙂 (You do now).
A link to this article was sent to me today (thanks to Doug in Colorado). Here’s my favorite part of the piece:
“Further tests are now being carried out on the remains, and the country’s culture minister, Vezhdi Rashidov, declared that people should wait for results before making ‘emotional statements‘ about the identity of the bones’ original owner.”
Yes, by all means, let’s not rush to make emotional statements about the bones’ owner — or stupid ones, either.
I’ve seen a lot of CSI shows in the last few years, but I’m baffled as to how an exact identification with John the Baptist could be made from the remains (parts of a cranium, tooth and arm bone). Usually in CSI work, a DNA sample from the missing person or person of interest is compared to that of physical remains. Or perhaps comparisons on the basis of dental records. Last time I checked, neither method could be a possibility in this case. Even if they had all the neck vertebrae and could determine that one of the vertebrae had suffered an axe wound that wouldn’t point to John (he’d be a candidate, obviously). All we have here is a few bones and medieval tradition. And we all know how reliable medieval traditions are. I am reminded of the relic of the true cross of Christ and the spear of destiny right off the top of my head.
At least the article notes that dozens of other sites have claimed to have John’s head (or parts of it) or physical remains. I’ll bet the splinters from the true cross would be sufficient to build a museum for all the pieces of John’s body. The again they might require too much space.
DNA can be correlated with close family relatives. Jesus and John the Baptist were cousins, so it would be very interesting if the DNA from the Shroud of Turin could be matched up with these bones.
The constant disparagement, without considering possibilities, could reflect badly on you at some point.
the Shroud of Turin is FAR from being authenticated as a first century piece.
I enjoy reading you Blog and thought this story might end up being featured here!
Your thoughts were pretty much exactly mirror mine when I saw the story and heard about ‘tests’ they were going to conduct. In other words…’what the hell tests could possibly verify this persons identity.
Being overly kind to the researchers, I guess a decent date matched to something like some strontium isotope data might be conceivably used to pin the remains to a time and place consistent with John the Baptist (or not). Still, even were they do do this and get adequate data, it wouldn’t exactly be QED!
Frankly, the story just smacks of some of the slightly shady Balkan archaeology that seeks spectacular ‘finds’ so I won’t hold my breath for a follow up article with that sort of data.
If the DNA on these bones and the DNA on the Shroud of Turin showed a 25% match (cousins), the simplest, most logical explanation would be that the bones were John the Baptist and the Shroud is Jesus. There would be other possibilities, they would just be extremely unlikely.
The DNA comparison is obviously worthwhile. It is not expensive nor difficult. If the DNA matches, WOW! If it doesn’t, shrug and move on.
My real point here is that you will destroy your credibility by starting with ridicule and then waiting for a random internet schlub to debunk your debunkery. Sometimes other people really do know what they are doing.
actually it wouldn’t. It would say that two people whose blood was detected might be related. The testing says nothing about the dating or the identity. And please site your source for the 25% criterion. We wouldn’t want to lack credibility.
You already gave your source: the CSI TV show. Let me spell it out for you:
Mary and Elizabeth had the same parents. All their genes came from the same pool. Each particular gene has a 50/50 chance of matching between Mary and Elizabeth:
both have mom’s gene: 25%
both have dad’s gene: 25%
Mary has mom’s, Elizabeth has dad’s: 25%
vice-versa: 25%
So Mary and Elizabeth share 25% + 25% = 50% of their genes. This a phenomenal match, far beyond the wildest possibilities of “chance” (if such a thing exists).
Mary has a Son which has only her own genes. This topic and how it relates to the virgin birth is discussed in the book “The Physics of Christianity” by Dr. Frank j, Tipler. Elizabeth has a son who inherits 50% of her genes. So… 50% x 50% = 25% of the grandparent genes in John the Baptist. 50% * 100% = 50% of the grandparent genes in Jesus.
Normally the overlap would be exactly 25%, but this case is even higher because Jesus is a male clone of Mary (physically). Two random people have zero statistical probability of a 25% gene match. With true cousins, it is assured.
You are absolutely right about the dating and also the identity, in an absolute sense. But you are completely. obviously and totally wrong in practical reality. The chances that a random person from a random time (claimed to be Christ) is a *genetically proven* cousin of another random person from another random time (claimed to be John the Baptist) is so close to zero that there is no point in computing it.
This is high school stuff.
hey, Mr. high school – time for some Sunday School. You said “Mary and Elizabeth had the same parents” – how would you know? The text never says this (surprise – gotcha). Luke 1:36 calls Elizabeth Mary’s “kinswoman” (Greek: syngenis). To quote one biblical reference source “Luke calls Elizabeth a “kinswoman” of Mary (6) the mother of Jesus. The Gk syngenís indicates that they were relatives, but not necessarily cousins [Geoffrey W. Bromiley, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1988; 2002), 2:73]. And my school biology notes remind me that cousins (the closest match the Greek term could denote) do not have the same parents. Oops.
Sorry, substitute the word “matching” for “grandparent” in the above.
@BWM
In making your own snide remarks, you ignore all the scientific work on the dating of the shroud. You also seem unaware of the history of sham relics (see Erasmus’ colloquay on this subject — he ridiculed sham relics 500 years ago and his credibility seems to have remained intact). Some subjects are worthy of ridicule.
Your suggestion of DNA testing might sound reasonable but on closer examination is not. Before we start matching disparate DNA samples in wild and desperate fashion, based only on hearsay and credulity, let’s establish a few facts. First, what are the ages of the samples and are they even within 1000 years of each other? I might want to get under that number before I suggest the two samples are from cousins. Second, whose DNA is on the shroud? Even if it were 2000-year-old DNA — which is not established — that’s not proof it belongs to Jesus.
Also, where do you get the 25% figure? Let me remind you, Mary and Elizabeth are cousins in the KJV, making Jesus and John second cousins at best. Also, the word translated as “cousin” in Luke does not seem to be so precise in Greek, meaning Jesus and John could be more distantly related. You are now very far from 25%. (This is setting aside that only Luke reports the two men are related by family, and that Luke is an after-the-fact report, not an eyewitness account. Their family relation is not established.)
In future, BMW, please refrain from challenging the credibility of others when you know not much yourself.
This is what BMW does — and it’s quite useful for this blog. He/She is a living illustration of what the blog is about.
You both seem willing to go to ANY LENGTHS to avoid this simple, cheap comparison. Is Larry seriously asking me where the 25% came from? Can he not read?
I have never seen ego stand so forcefully in front of basic scientific inquiry. How much more irrelevant, abstract noise will pad around my entirely sound proposal? You would much rather call me stupid, mock me, and insult me than simply do the test.
Luckily, the people who are examining these bones are not totally close-minded and ego-driven. THey don’t need to be right every time. They will do the test, and we will see what they find. Regardless if these are complete shams or true relics, your total insistence on NOT CHECKING is absolute proof that you are unfit for the scientific enterprise.
You know nothing about genetics, you know nothing about the providence of the bones, but you have ample time to ridicule those who simply want to test them on their time, at their expense.
You have shown your hearts. You are the Pharisees of our time. If Christ returned tomorrow, you would test Him relentlessly and find fault with every miracle. “He’s breaking the Torah! He is of the Devil!” you would shout. Relentless and pointless skepticism, which does not even allow scientific inquiry to occur. At least the original Pharisees had a worldly motive – they wanted to be the top religious dogs. You don’t even have that. You only worship at the altar of your own egos.
I am far from perfect, and I am sometimes wrong. MSH will never write that in this blog. He switches positions and backpedals so frequently that he stands for nothing, ever. Learning his character has been one of the great disappointments of my spiritual life. I now have to reconsider all his assumptions, which I took at face value. Why? Because he does not work for the love of God or the furtherance of the Gospel. He works for self-satisfaction. He is no different than 90% of atheists. His real thrill is always being right and always calling others wrong. That is what drives him.
If you want to quibble about the relationship of Mary and Elizabeth, then take the genetic match down to 5%. It’s still an absolute indicator in any practical situation.
Thanks for letting me know who/what you are. Be warmed and filled.
You both seem willing to go to ANY LENGTHS to avoid this simple, cheap comparison. Is Larry seriously asking me where the 25% came from? Can he not read?
I have never seen ego stand so forcefully in front of basic scientific inquiry. How much more irrelevant, abstract noise will pad around my entirely sound proposal? You would much rather call me stupid, mock me, and insult me than simply do the test.
Luckily, the people who are examining these bones are not totally close-minded and ego-driven. THey don’t need to be right every time. They will do the test, and we will see what they find. Regardless if these are complete shams or true relics, your total insistence on NOT CHECKING is absolute proof that you are unfit for the scientific enterprise.
You know nothing about genetics, you know nothing about the providence of the bones, but you have ample time to ridicule those who simply want to test them on their time, at their expense.
You have shown your hearts. You are the Pharisees of our time. If Christ returned tomorrow, you would test Him relentlessly and find fault with every miracle. “He’s breaking the Torah! He is of the Devil!” you would shout. Relentless and pointless skepticism, which does not even allow scientific inquiry to occur. At least the original Pharisees had a worldly motive – they wanted to be the top religious dogs. You don’t even have that. You only worship at the altar of your own egos.
I am far from perfect, and I am sometimes wrong. MSH will never write that in this blog. He switches positions and backpedals so frequently that he stands for nothing, ever. Learning his character has been one of the great disappointments of my spiritual life. I now have to reconsider all his assumptions, which I took at face value. Why? Because he does not work for the love of God or the furtherance of the Gospel. He works for self-satisfaction. He is no different than 90% of atheists. His real thrill is always being right and always calling others wrong. That is what drives him.
If you want to quibble about the relationship of Mary and Elizabeth, then take the genetic match down to 5%. It’s still an absolute indicator in any practical situation.
Thanks for letting me know who/what you are. Be warmed and filled.
The only problem with BSM’s flight of fancy is (1) other than the NT, there is no comtemporary evidence of the existence of Jesus the Christ (2) other than the NT (written generations after the supposed facts) there is no evidence that Jesus was indeed the son of god and was indeed virgin born (3)Early Christians did not have a virgin birth story as evidenced by Paul’s writings (4) If Joseph was indeed the father of Jesus, the Jesus would have both Mary and Joseph’s DNA
The rumors of no evidence for Jesus are greatly exaggerated. There is evidence outside the NT (but of course committed Jesus deniers will find ways to dismiss it). The logic of the “it can’t be factual since it was written a few decades afterward” position is demonstrably inconsistent in literally hundreds of examples of other figures known across history from only one (non-contemporary or insecurely dated) source. But people single Jesus out and leave hundreds of other figures pass either because they hate him, or that his existence might make some claim on their lives, or both.
> “If you want to quibble about the relationship of Mary and Elizabeth..”
Quibble? Even though it was a crucial premise to YOUR argument, I did something you didn’t bother to do — I looked it up!
You still haven’t answered why a DNA match should be performed between a sample allegedly 2000 years old and a sample established to be less than 1000 years old?
> The constant disparagement, without considering possibilities, could reflect badly on you at some point.
It’s too late for you to take your own advice on this post. But tomorrow is another day.
I’ve lost track of the context of your question – ?
I forgot to note I was responding to BMW.
ah – hence my question; thanks for the note of clarification.
The arguments seem needless and time waisting. Look at these: If he was omni in every
aspect, then why god would make stupid mistakes as written in the bible: send his son to save
humanity,. kill non jews, cause disasters at left and right. An omni would know the present
past and future, therefore it could not think as a mere human who is trying to project himself as got. Your minds are all pestilence
can’t recall what this pertains to. It appears to assume (wrongly and badly) that God dictated the New Testament – ??