6 ms·

Not to get all Indiana Jonesy about it, but 12 skeletons? From right around year 0? And they even show a picture of a weathered, ceramic cup? The article plays

Not to get all Indiana Jonesy about it, but 12 skeletons? From right around year 0? And they even show a picture of a weathered, ceramic cup? The article plays it straight, but I'm pretty sure this = Holy Grail confirmed.

pushupentry1219 2y ago
Year 0? I thought Petra was much much older than that. If year 0 is correct, these people were buried long after Petra was a bustling city then?
- kelnos 2y ago
  Yeah that bit doesn't pass the smell test. Petra had been around for about 400 years by the time Jesus supposedly held his last supper. It seems much more likely that these 12 skeletons date back to the earlier days of the city. (Nitpick: there was no year 0; 1 BC goes right into AD 1. And Jesus' supposed death was around AD 33, not AD 1. Sometimes people think "AD" means "After his Death", but it's really "Anno Domini", or "the year of the/our Lord", when he was supposedly born.)
  - ithkuil 2y ago
    Alternatively we can parse AD as "Advancing Dates" and BC as "Backward Counting"
  - tengwar2 2y ago
    Historians don't have a year 0, astronomers do. In fact the historical calendar is a bit messy for other reasons, e.g. the year beginning in April rather than January for a long time.
Telemakhos 2y ago
The article says the skeletons date to 400-100 BC, so, no. Year 0 doesn't exist (1 BC is followed directly by AD 1), and the holy grail would have to date from AD 33 or so, because Jesus didn't die in the year of his birth.
- auadix 2y ago
  Romans were like, what is this 0 you're talking about?
  - gerdesj 2y ago
    It's roughly 753 ab urbe condita, big nose!
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  How accurately can skeletons be dated? Within 100 years? 10 years? a year?
  - kelnos 2y ago
    They didn't actually date the skeletons, because they haven't excavated the site to physically examine them. The time range given by the article is just from the date the city was founded, until it was annexed by the Romans. It's a pretty safe assumption that they were buried there before the Roman annexation. My guess would be they were buried much closer to 400 BC than to AD 106.
- BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
  > The article says the skeletons date to 400-100 BC...and the holy grail would have to date from AD 33 or so It says "between 400 B.C. and A.D. 106". That encompasses all relevant dates.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
> And they even show a picture of a weathered, ceramic cup A cup that looks a _lot_ like the grail prop from the film.
- blackhaz 2y ago
  It's freaking identical. Definitely Spielberg's games.
skrebbel 2y ago
Your comment made my day!
_joel 2y ago
They have chosen wisely.
kelnos 2y ago
The cup they show isn't dated; it just says, "An ancient ceramic item discovered at the Treasury site". It's not even clear the cup was discovered during this particular expedition, or where it was found. It could be newer or older, and need not be related to the 12 skeletons. If the 12 apostles existed, it seems unlikely that they'd all be buried in the same place, in what may have been a "prestigious" tomb. Jesus isn't exactly described as a particularly popular figure in his time when it came to the authorities, and I would expect the 12 apostles would have died at different times, in different places, and wouldn't have been buried together. The time range is pushing it, too: between 400 BCE and 106 CE, though that's just the roughest of estimates based on when the city was founded and when it was annexed by the Romans, not based on any inspection of the remains. It feels more likely that this tomb was built, used, and sealed up well before Jesus and the disciples/apostles supposedly lived. Even if we assume the religious fairy tales are true, this doesn't pass the smell test: it's vanishingly unlikely that these are the remains of those men, or that any of this is related to the Holy Grail mythology.
- chasil 2y ago
  They are not all buried in the same place. Mark is famously in Venice. https://www.ncregister.com/blog/where-are-the-12-apostles-now https://www.ncregister.com/blog/where-are-the-12-apostles-no...
  - stvswn 2y ago
    Or, that _could_ be Alexander the Great.
  - ccakes 2y ago
    Peter is apparently underneath the Vatican. I’m not religious but I love history - they run a tour under the current city and it’s really quite cool if you’re into that sort of thing http://www.scavi.va/content/scavi/en/ufficio-scavi.html http://www.scavi.va/content/scavi/en/ufficio-scavi.html
    - dylan604 2y ago
ggambetta 2y ago
That's the cup of a carpenter.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
0xbadcafebee 2y ago
In movie reality, this is definitely the Holy Grail. In real reality (for those not familiar), the grail is a legend invented in the middle ages.
- Mistletoe 2y ago
  And it’s funny how much effort has been expended finding ridiculous items like this and ignoring the message of Jesus or following what he said. Imagine Jesus’ response if you showed him a cup he used or a splinter of the cross he died on. “Okay…” But I get it, humans like relics and totems, I think it is hard coded in our DNA.
  - panick21_ 2y ago
    > and ignoring the message of Jesus or following what he said. We have absolutely no idea what Jesus said. If we have any evidence at all of what Jesus said it would be 'Romans GTFO' because that's what gets you actually curlicued (ignore the nonsense in the gospels).
    - PepperdineG 2y ago
      I believe Brian wrote that in letters 30 feet tall before he was crucified
      - panick21_ 2y ago
        That movie is full of insight. That whole 'nobody can hear Jesus talking' is a great point as well. Those speeches are just pure fiction, just as the speeches from Alexander and friends are. Real ancient historians even admitted that they just made up the speeches to add some flavor. In fact that whole speech from the gospel was most likely simple something 'Matthew' (not actual Matthew the character from the bible, but some random author who's script was later titled 'Mathew' by the church) inserted into Mark. And funny enough in these speeches Jesus just happen to say some stuff that overrides a number of points from 'Mark'. Its almost as if 'Matthew' used Jesus to voice his own opinions.
mkl 2y ago
The "cup" looks more like the top of a bottle.

pushupentry1219 2y ago

Year 0? I thought Petra was much much older than that. If year 0 is correct, these people were buried long after Petra was a bustling city then?

kelnos 2y ago
Yeah that bit doesn't pass the smell test. Petra had been around for about 400 years by the time Jesus supposedly held his last supper. It seems much more likely that these 12 skeletons date back to the earlier days of the city. (Nitpick: there was no year 0; 1 BC goes right into AD 1. And Jesus' supposed death was around AD 33, not AD 1. Sometimes people think "AD" means "After his Death", but it's really "Anno Domini", or "the year of the/our Lord", when he was supposedly born.)
- ithkuil 2y ago
  Alternatively we can parse AD as "Advancing Dates" and BC as "Backward Counting"
- tengwar2 2y ago
  Historians don't have a year 0, astronomers do. In fact the historical calendar is a bit messy for other reasons, e.g. the year beginning in April rather than January for a long time.

Telemakhos 2y ago

The article says the skeletons date to 400-100 BC, so, no. Year 0 doesn't exist (1 BC is followed directly by AD 1), and the holy grail would have to date from AD 33 or so, because Jesus didn't die in the year of his birth.

auadix 2y ago
Romans were like, what is this 0 you're talking about?
- gerdesj 2y ago
  It's roughly 753 ab urbe condita, big nose!
SoftTalker 2y ago
How accurately can skeletons be dated? Within 100 years? 10 years? a year?
- kelnos 2y ago
  They didn't actually date the skeletons, because they haven't excavated the site to physically examine them. The time range given by the article is just from the date the city was founded, until it was annexed by the Romans. It's a pretty safe assumption that they were buried there before the Roman annexation. My guess would be they were buried much closer to 400 BC than to AD 106.
BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
> The article says the skeletons date to 400-100 BC...and the holy grail would have to date from AD 33 or so It says "between 400 B.C. and A.D. 106". That encompasses all relevant dates.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

BugsJustFindMe 2y ago

> And they even show a picture of a weathered, ceramic cup A cup that looks a _lot_ like the grail prop from the film.

blackhaz 2y ago
It's freaking identical. Definitely Spielberg's games.

skrebbel 2y ago

Your comment made my day!

_joel 2y ago

They have chosen wisely.

kelnos 2y ago

The cup they show isn't dated; it just says, "An ancient ceramic item discovered at the Treasury site". It's not even clear the cup was discovered during this particular expedition, or where it was found. It could be newer or older, and need not be related to the 12 skeletons. If the 12 apostles existed, it seems unlikely that they'd all be buried in the same place, in what may have been a "prestigious" tomb. Jesus isn't exactly described as a particularly popular figure in his time when it came to the authorities, and I would expect the 12 apostles would have died at different times, in different places, and wouldn't have been buried together. The time range is pushing it, too: between 400 BCE and 106 CE, though that's just the roughest of estimates based on when the city was founded and when it was annexed by the Romans, not based on any inspection of the remains. It feels more likely that this tomb was built, used, and sealed up well before Jesus and the disciples/apostles supposedly lived. Even if we assume the religious fairy tales are true, this doesn't pass the smell test: it's vanishingly unlikely that these are the remains of those men, or that any of this is related to the Holy Grail mythology.

chasil 2y ago
They are not all buried in the same place. Mark is famously in Venice. https://www.ncregister.com/blog/where-are-the-12-apostles-now https://www.ncregister.com/blog/where-are-the-12-apostles-no...
- stvswn 2y ago
  Or, that _could_ be Alexander the Great.
- ccakes 2y ago
  Peter is apparently underneath the Vatican. I’m not religious but I love history - they run a tour under the current city and it’s really quite cool if you’re into that sort of thing http://www.scavi.va/content/scavi/en/ufficio-scavi.html http://www.scavi.va/content/scavi/en/ufficio-scavi.html
  - dylan604 2y ago

ggambetta 2y ago

That's the cup of a carpenter.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

0xbadcafebee 2y ago

In movie reality, this is definitely the Holy Grail. In real reality (for those not familiar), the grail is a legend invented in the middle ages.

Mistletoe 2y ago
And it’s funny how much effort has been expended finding ridiculous items like this and ignoring the message of Jesus or following what he said. Imagine Jesus’ response if you showed him a cup he used or a splinter of the cross he died on. “Okay…” But I get it, humans like relics and totems, I think it is hard coded in our DNA.
- panick21_ 2y ago
  > and ignoring the message of Jesus or following what he said. We have absolutely no idea what Jesus said. If we have any evidence at all of what Jesus said it would be 'Romans GTFO' because that's what gets you actually curlicued (ignore the nonsense in the gospels).
  - PepperdineG 2y ago
    I believe Brian wrote that in letters 30 feet tall before he was crucified
    - panick21_ 2y ago
      That movie is full of insight. That whole 'nobody can hear Jesus talking' is a great point as well. Those speeches are just pure fiction, just as the speeches from Alexander and friends are. Real ancient historians even admitted that they just made up the speeches to add some flavor. In fact that whole speech from the gospel was most likely simple something 'Matthew' (not actual Matthew the character from the bible, but some random author who's script was later titled 'Mathew' by the church) inserted into Mark. And funny enough in these speeches Jesus just happen to say some stuff that overrides a number of points from 'Mark'. Its almost as if 'Matthew' used Jesus to voice his own opinions.

mkl 2y ago

The "cup" looks more like the top of a bottle.