Rollston Debunks Stupid ‘John the Baptist’s Bones’ Claim


I’m glad he did.  The news report to which he refers certainly deserves my newly found widely to be used sticker-

Chris observes

I would contend that for someone to suggest that these bones could be those of John the Baptist, a figure of 1st century CE Palestine, is tenuous in the extreme.  In this connection I should note that Popkonstantinov (knowing that his understanding of the evidence is strained to the breaking point) is quoted as saying “Here, I believe, the science stops.  Since we cannot prove the attribution of any of the relics with scientific methods, we have to be tolerant of those who want to believe that they are” (Popkonstantinov).  I would gently suggest, though, that archaeological and literary analyses are about evidence, not about authority, faith, or piety.  Thus, with all due respect, it is necessary to state that Popkonstantinov’s conclusions do not follow from the evidence.  His interpretation must be dismissed.

Read the whole.

One thought on “Rollston Debunks Stupid ‘John the Baptist’s Bones’ Claim

  1. Mixed Nuts « Spritzophrenia 16 Aug 2010 at 4:37 am

    […] You may have heard the recent news that the bones of John the Baptist have allegedly been found. Barth’s Notes has an amusing piece— amusing because of the language and feisty-ness of the Bulgarian officials, who it seems need tourist dollars. Hence they’re eager to proclaim authenticity. The evidence seems pretty flimsy to me, see Rollston Debunks Stupid John the Baptist’s Bones Claim. […]


Comments are closed.