Huffington Post is reporting:
LONDON — It’s a tantalizing find in a Biblical mystery – Oxford University researchers have concluded that a set of skeletal remains which many Bulgarians attribute to John the Baptist probably belonged to a first century male from the Middle East.
While that doesn’t prove that the bones belonged to the man revered by Christians as the forerunner to Jesus, it does mean that those who believe the relics are the remains of the first century saint have a scientific case.
But it’s radiocarbon dating, so the answer can’t be right. The sample was not representative of the entire John the Baptist. There must have been contamination with modern bone. One has to look at the entire historical record of this artefact and not rely purely on just one totally discredited methodology …
Oops, sorry, it’s the right age. I take back everything I just said… I say, this radiocarbon methodology has really come on in recent years…
I’ve read somewhere that the dating of bones via carbon dating is much precise and sure than ancient pieces of cloths. I don’t know if it’s a real fact, but it’s interesting. I think it’s due to the fact that cloths are much more easy to get contamined than bones. Also, concerning this bones dating versus the dating of the Shroud, we have to understand one most important difference between the 2 objects : the Shroud had been manipulated a lot and suffered many accidents throughout his long history, on the contrary to these bones (I assume). In that context, the Shroud is an object that have much more chances to have been contaminated… And since the work of Rogers, we know it has been contaminated by some medieval materials serving for textile a repair.
I felt sure you would work in a mention of St. Raymond somewhere…
Don’t bother Yannick, it’s obvious Colin has his sciencebod ‘nonscientific’ binders on. The fact he would even try to compare the two ‘completely different situations’ proves it. It actually is well known that materials such as cloth, linen etc; are known to be very difficult to carbon date, usually giving erroneous results. Plus the facts mentioned that the Shroud’s contamination history is not fully known, has been handled for millenia, burnt etc; escapes scienbod’s mind. One must also question the absolutely unconventional process of the 1988 carbon dating and the total lack of procedures and protocols followed, and furthermore the many questions raised by the non-peer-reviewed Nature paper. Considering Colin’s continuously cuttin-up of other’s scientific work I have no issue in pointing out his very non-scientific stance on this issue. If he is a true scientist he would agree the c14 dating done in 1988 was flawed and should be nullified till further tests can be done.
R
No comment, now or at any time where Ron Anon is concerned.
Colin Berry aka sciencebod
Retired scientist
The most interesting link between this finding and the Shroud of Turin got to be the relationship between Mary and Elizabeth, the mother of John. A DNA test is supposed to indicate this.
If you mean comparing the DNA of the bones versus the DNA of the Shroud, I guess that’s impossible in the present state of our knowledge. It is a well-known fact that the DNA of the Shroud is so degrated that it’s impossible to get a full profile from it. Too bad for a comparison with other DNA samples from other objects or from bloodstains on other ancient cloths like the Sudarium… I’m not even sure if one day it will be possible to do that. Since the DNA of the Shroud is so degrated, how in the world can you rebuild something with so much missing parts ?
Just a precision : The expression “missing parts” I used refers to the DNA profile that can be found on the Shroud, not the relic itself !!!