A. Who cares?
B. What kind of 'scientist' wastes their time on this kind of shit?
It annoys me how people spend time bandying about details of things that were quite possibly made up from scratch, in the first place, or at the very least were heavily added to and glorified by the guy's followers, long after his death.
Sort of like this useless nonsense?
Heh, yeah, something along those lines.
Two Roman nails dating back 2,000 years ...
I mean, really? What's the margin for error on any dating method that goes back 2,000 years? At least +/- 150 years?
Well, that's not entirely accurate. Dendrochronology can give you an exact year, dating back about 12,000 or 15,000 years, in some areas, but strangely, dendrochronology doesn't work on nails, unless they're stuck in a tree.
And now I've read the rest of the article ... holy crap, that's some weak evidence. This is the sort of weak shit that all religious 'science' is based upon, isn't it?
"... uncovered a family tomb believed to be that of Caiaphas ... One nail was found inside one of 12 limestone coffins found inside the cave, while the second was lying on the floor of the tomb ... stumbled across two iron nails dating back to the same era, which were discovered in Jerusalem 20 years ago -- which he believes were the ones found in Caiaphas's tomb ..." (all emphasis mine)
Leigh, that is uber-useless nonsense.
1. A priest is said to have handed Jesus over to the Romans.
2. Two thousand years later, two nails are found in a tomb thought to belong to this priest (but containing at least 12 coffins).
3. The nails are lost.
4. 20 years later, a documentary maker looking for a story comes across two 1st century nails and decides these could be the lost nails that could have been buried with the guy who could have handed Jesus over to the Romans.
5. Assuming that these were in fact two of the nails used in Jesus' crucifixion, no-one can offer a plausible explanation for why the priest would choose to be buried with them.
And they're basing a whole documentary series on this? Now that's one to miss.
Amusing given that the events described in the gospels are historically unverifiable
The kind of "scientist" whose only concern is the inerrancy of the Bible. Even most Christian academics think there's a real contradiction here, that whoever wrote the Gospel of John changed the day of the crucifixion for theological reasons (to better show Jesus as "Lamb of God," it helps if he dies while the lambs are being slaughtered for Passover).
And about those nails... There doesn't seem to be any evidence to support those nails, and it's hard to imagine how there would be, unless he also claims to have found them with a Post-It note stuck to them that says they were Jesus' nails. An ancient Post-It note, of course.
Embarrassingly, I actually knew the scholar who worked with the guy who discovered "Jesus' Tomb," James Tabor. I had him for religion courses in college and am surprised he's been supporting, uh, odd things like this.
And about those nails...
It's the same sort of thing they did all of the dozens of times they've found Noah's Ark. They find (or fabricate) something that could even vaguely fit into the narrative of the Bible story, no matter how loosely, then declare that their scientists have proven that it's 99.7% certain to be the true article ... then refuse to let other scientists verify their findings.
Every so once in a while, we'll get something like the Shroud of Turin, which was tested with real science ... and we see how well that turned out for them. I think most of the religious types have learned better, from that one. Either you bring your own, purchased 'scientists' or you just completely dispense with the scientific charade and make things up wholesale, for your 'proof'.