How many heads?

[bbbbbbb]

PS

do you agree with the Forbidden knowledge folks that the teaching of the Holy Trinity is an attempt at mind control ?

Although this is also off-topic I will answer it. As a Nicene trinitarian I do not agree with the Forbidden knowledge folks that the teaching of the Holy Trinity is an attempt at mind control.

 

[Thekla]

How does my DNA relate to the number of heads (skulls) of John the Baptist?

Its from a site you reference as credible. We all have DNA; therefore we all have master numbers -- even John the Baptist ! So check the master numbers in your DNA, and you may likely find there a credible answer to your question supported by the credible site you cite

Please note that the OP was not addressed to either Church nor was it intended for members of either Church to defend or deny the others' relics. I assume that after all these centuries these matters have been satisified and that reasonable explanations are available.

Yeah, the RCs and EO have focused for centuries on satisfying your personal curiosity. We'll get back to Christ some other time.

My computer does not register holograms. I assume, of course, that these are photographs and not holograms. I also believe it when it is stated, for example concerning the skulls in Amiens and in Rome, that they are complete skulls and not partial skulls. Please expand on the meaning of symbolon and the realtionship of this concept to whole and part.

The ancient meaning of symbolon (roughly) is that the part makes present the whole. A part can be called the whole symbolically.

This is off-topic. However, as a former Mason I highly doubt that any Mason believes that nor is it taught by Freemasonry. There are other, much more bizarre ideas IMO, in Freemasonry. If you have an interest in that topic you may wish to start a thread in the Unorthodox Theology forum.

You linked the site. You introduced the Masons and the DNA. Hey, maybe the numerous heads are a Masonic plot

Move over DaVinci Code

 

[bbbbbbb]

Check this out (intro page to "The Forbidden Knowledge" site you linked):

This domain is dedicated to the teaching of knowledge that was hidden from the human race all through history.​

Your government is poised to inject you with a tracking chip manufactured by Applied Digital Solutions called, "Veri Chip". Don't believe me? Click below, I'll prove it to you.​

Ancient Egyptian Light Bulb​

The New World Order​

Freemasonry's connection to the creation of Mankind and his purpose​

​

Luciferic power structure and Government center Washington D.C.​

Master numbers encoded within your DNA​

Nikola Tesla​

And much more. . .​

Click on Adam & Eve to Visit . . .




​

Please note that in the previous post where I linked this site I explained that the skull claimed to be that of John the Baptist by this site has not been verified or authenticated by any Church or other objective source. It is a very recent discovery.

 

[Thekla]

Please note that in the previous post where I linked this site I explained that the skull claimed to be that of John the Baptist by this site has not been verified or authenticated by any Church or other objective source. It is a very recent discovery.

Hey, its your claim for evidence; its the site you linked.
Because you believe in the Holy Trinity you are subjected to mind control !

 

[Thekla]

I think this question is probably answered in my OP. The purpose is to answer the questions I posted in reference to the facts that I stated.

If some wish to call those facts into question I am willing to entertain that discussion, as well. Of course, one must admit that it is highly improbable that any person has ever had more than one head, much less at least seven. However, the probability is not in question here.

If I am not mistaken (and I am open to correction) both the Roman and the Eastern Orthodox Churches have not denied the authenticity of the others' relics in this case.

If someone has determined to the satisfaction of either body that some or all of the skulls in question are invalid I am quite interested in seeing the documentation to that effect.

Yup - that's the "letter" of the thread.

But what is the "spirit" in the letter of your OP; what is your purpose.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Its from a site you reference as credible. We all have DNA; therefore we all have master numbers -- even John the Baptist ! So check the master numbers in your DNA, and you may likely find there a credible answer to your question supported by the credible site you cite

Your evident sarcasm surprises me. I have found your previous replies on other threads to be relatively calm and reasoned. As you know, all of the sites I linked contain information which is not germane to this discussion. Wikipedia, for example, is full of information about all sorts of things. I neither agree or disagree with that information, but linked to the areas of these sites which do relate to the OP.

Again, your sarcasm is uncalled for. I sincerely doubt that I am the only person on the face of the earth that has some interest in holy relics.

I agree and understand that a part can easily represent the whole. Thus, there is little doubt that a skull (or any other bone) can represent the entire person.

What we have here, however, is not a part representing John the Baptist, but at least three complete skulls and at least parts of four skulls. The enigma is how so many wholes can make up a symbol.

For example, if an obelisk is used to memorialize a person such as George Washington, many obelisks can be erected (there are at least two for George Washington) to symbolize the man. These are memorials and are not part and parcel of the man, himself. However, if, for example, there is a document such as the Declaration of Independence, of which only one copy was signed by all members of the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, but of which several copies were made at a later date, there is no problem as long as the others are understood to be copies and not the authentic document. If I were to present an "original" of the Declaration of Independence when most people know that the original is in the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. my "original" would be called into question. If I am able to show that my "original" has been fully verified and authenticated and accepted by the proper authorities, then there should be some reasonable explanation at to how two "original" Declarations of Independence exist.

Masonic plot

[/I]Move over DaVinci Code

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yup - that's the "letter" of the thread.

But what is the "spirit" in the letter of your OP; what is your purpose.

As you noted on a previous post, my purpose, according to you, is to satisfy my curiosity.

As the famed Dorothy Parker once said, "The cure for boredom is curiosity. There is no cure for curiosity."

 

[Thekla]

Your evident sarcasm surprises me. I have found your previous replies on other threads to be relatively calm and reasoned. As you know, all of the sites I linked contain information which is not germane to this discussion. Wikipedia, for example, is full of information about all sorts of things. I neither agree or disagree with that information, but linked to the areas of these sites which do relate to the OP.



Again, your sarcasm is uncalled for. I sincerely doubt that I am the only person on the face of the earth that has some interest in holy relics.

Then you desire to make a pilgrimage, and wonder where to go ?
For this, you should consult your spiritual father instead of the internet.

I agree and understand that a part can easily represent the whole. Thus, there is little doubt that a skull (or any other bone) can represent the entire person.

What we have here, however, is not a part representing John the Baptist, but at least three complete skulls and at least parts of four skulls. The enigma is how so many wholes can make up a symbol.

As this is not my question, I did not take the time to do so; but, you should timeline and map the various accounts. One may also consider who is holding the relic; my family (Christian) emigrated from Constantinople in the 20th century - thus I am biased. But as you are not, you may well want to include that claim in your timeline/mapping project.

For example, if an obelisk is used to memorialize a person such as George Washington, many obelisks can be erected (there are at least two for George Washington) to symbolize the man. These are memorials and are not part and parcel of the man, himself. However, if, for example, there is a document such as the Declaration of Independence, of which only one copy was signed by all members of the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, but of which several copies were made at a later date, there is no problem as long as the others are understood to be copies and not the authentic document. If I were to present an "original" of the Declaration of Independence when most people know that the original is in the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. my "original" would be called into question. If I am able to show that my "original" has been fully verified and authenticated and accepted by the proper authorities, then there should be some reasonable explanation at to how two "original" Declarations of Independence exist.

There are indeed several early copies of the Declaration (one discovered rather recently behind the exhibited picture bought, iirc, because of the appealing frame). The standard for "original" versus "copy" varies from 'first rendering' to 'rendered by hand as opposed to printed on a press'. I am more familiar with the standards for the latter (as refers to books in particular). It can be said, though, that all copies rendered by hand are originals. IIRC, the order of the signatures may vary ... (seems my son mentioned that).

 

[Thekla]

As you noted on a previous post, my purpose, according to you, is to satisfy my curiosity.

As the famed Dorothy Parker once said, "The cure for boredom is curiosity. There is no cure for curiosity."

Ah, here I must disagree with the esteemed Miss Parker (we used to carry her books in our bookstore, though ).

The cure for boredom is prayer
May God who is merciful grant that it will be more fruitful for us than curiosity ! Only Christ can truly satisfy our longing ...

YouTube - Elder Arsenios Papacioc - The Kinds of Temptations

 

[bbbbbbb]

Then you desire to make a pilgrimage, and wonder where to go ?
For this, you should consult your spiritual father instead of the internet.

Sadly, I am physically unable to make a pilgrimage. However, although the internet is hardly the best source of information, it is still a helpful source. You may find this difficult to believe, but I trust information from you and other sincere Christians, although at times I may not agree with it.

As this is not my question, I did not take the time to do so; but, you should timeline and map the various accounts. One may also consider who is holding the relic; my family (Christian) emigrated from Constantinople in the 20th century - thus I am biased. But as you are not, you may well want to include that claim in your timeline/mapping project.

That is an excellent idea and I would welcome any input from others in an effort to establish provenance. Provenance, as I am sure you know, is essential in establishing the value and veracity of antiques of all sorts. For the sake of the thread I have been willing to assume that sufficient provenance exists so that the consecrated skulls (excluding the recent one) can be discussed as valid. However, if provenance is suspect then I think that is also worth discussing.

There are indeed several early copies of the Declaration (one discovered rather recently behind the exhibited picture bought, iirc, because of the appealing frame). The standard for "original" versus "copy" varies from 'first rendering' to 'rendered by hand as opposed to printed on a press'. I am more familiar with the standards for the latter (as refers to books in particular). It can be said, though, that all copies rendered by hand are originals. IIRC, the order of the signatures may vary ... (seems my son mentioned that).

I am very pleased to discover your understanding of the issue. I did not cloud my example with the differences between printed and handwritten copies as you have discussed. However, you have provided the correct response regarding a very valid explanation for the existence of more than one "original" Declaration of Independence. In that case there is a reasonable explanation. In the case of the topic of this thread, I am hoping for a similar, reasonable explanation.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Ah, here I must disagree with the esteemed Miss Parker (we used to carry her books in our bookstore, though ).

The cure for boredom is prayer
May God who is merciful grant that it will be more fruitful for us than curiosity ! Only Christ can truly satisfy our longing ...

I agree with you . Although many may think the cure for boredom is curiosity, the true cure is prayer. Only Christ Himself can truly safisfy our longing.

 

[Thekla]

Sadly, I am physically unable to make a pilgrimage. However, although the internet is hardly the best source of information, it is still a helpful source. You may find this difficult to believe, but I trust information from you and other sincere Christians, although at times I may not agree with it.

I would still be wary; agendas are not as easy to expose without a face to refer to. Thus, just as you want to establish provenance for items, the same should be established for internet sources.

That is an excellent idea and I would welcome any input from others in an effort to establish provenance. Provenance, as I am sure you know, is essential in establishing the value and veracity of antiques of all sorts. For the sake of the thread I have been willing to assume that sufficient provenance exists so that the consecrated skulls (excluding the recent one) can be discussed as valid. However, if provenance is suspect then I think that is also worth discussing.

Provenance as we know and expect it is relatively recent. (On a side note, one of the most successful art forgers of the 20th century worked with a text forger who forged the provenances for the forged artworks; even when the paintings seemed clumsy, the forged provenances conferred authority to such an extent that no chemical analysis was done on the forged paintings.Critical analysis of the forged pieces was brushed aside based on the forged provenances.)

I am very pleased to discover your understanding of the issue. I did not cloud my example with the differences between printed and handwritten copies as you have discussed. However, you have provided the correct response regarding a very valid explanation for the existence of more than one "original" Declaration of Independence. In that case there is a reasonable explanation. In the case of the topic of this thread, I am hoping for a similar, reasonable explanation.

I cannot answer for the RC; I have not sufficiently researched the matter in the EO to give a knowledgeable answer. I do note that the Byzantine Church/s claim pieces (symbolon). The RC may have built onto their pieces rather than furnishing a complete reliquary for the part.

Given my family history, I will admit to the bias of treating with suspicion any claims made by Ottomans.

 

[Ave Maria]

Well obviously at least a few of these relics are false relics.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Well obviously at least a few of these relics are false relics.

That is a perfectly reasonable conclusion. However, it is not the conclusion reached by the various bodies which investigated each relic and declared them to be authentic beyond any doubt. Nor is it the conclusion of multitudes of Christians who have venerated these relics for many centuries.

Although my original premise did not question their authenticity, I am ready to entertain any discussion regarding that aspect, including the credibility of those who have made such claims.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Please forgive my delay in responding to your excellent reply. I have finally found the time to provide more than a quick response.

I would still be wary; agendas are not as easy to expose without a face to refer to. Thus, just as you want to establish provenance for items, the same should be established for internet sources.

I agree entirely. The whole issue of provenance is fraught with agendas. The more valued the item the greater the temptation to create a forgery.

Provenance as we know and expect it is relatively recent. (On a side note, one of the most successful art forgers of the 20th century worked with a text forger who forged the provenances for the forged artworks; even when the paintings seemed clumsy, the forged provenances conferred authority to such an extent that no chemical analysis was done on the forged paintings.Critical analysis of the forged pieces was brushed aside based on the forged provenances.)

Yes, exactly. I work in the scientific analysis of architectural paints and mortars and have found myself involved in lawsuits which require forensic investigation which was quite unknown a century ago.

I cannot answer for the RC; I have not sufficiently researched the matter in the EO to give a knowledgeable answer. I do note that the Byzantine Church/s claim pieces (symbolon). The RC may have built onto their pieces rather than furnishing a complete reliquary for the part.

That is an interesting possibility. I think further investigation is warranted to ascertain what claims may be made as to completeness.

Given my family history, I will admit to the bias of treating with suspicion any claims made by Ottomans.

Although I, fortunately, have not suffered from the Ottomans, I still share a deep distrust of them and any other religion which has perverted the teachings of Christianity.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Believing that provenance is worthy of investigation I propose examining each of the skulls in that light. I will give my own evaluation based on a score of 1 through 10 with one being extremely probable, and 10 being extremely improbable.

I will start with probably the easiest skull to begin with is that described in the Forbidden Knowledge website. It reads as follows:

[SIZE=+4]John The Baptist's Cave -
And Head? - Believed Found[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]12-28-00[/SIZE] http://www.rense.com/general6/johnbaptist.htm
[SIZE=+1]
AMMAN [/SIZE][SIZE=+1](AFP) - A cave unearthed last year under the remains of a fourth century Byzantine church on the east bank of the Jordan River was the winter home of the Christian New Testament prophet John the Baptist, project director Mohammad Waheeb said Wednesday.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]But experts are still investigating the identity of a human skull found near the cave to determine if it could also belong to John, who the Bible says was the cousin of Jesus Christ, Waheeb told AFP.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]He was commenting on a report published Wednesday by Al-Dustour newspaper, which said the skull found near the cave in Jordan's Wadi Kharrar "could be that of St. John the Baptist".[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]

"The cave and the skull were unearthed last year," Waheeb said. "Reseach has determined that the cave belonged to St. John the Baptist, but experts led by Dr. Abdullah al-Nabulsi are still examining the skull," Waheeb told AFP.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]"Until now, testing on the skull has not been completed, so we can only say it belonged to a hermit, because the region of Wadi Kharrar was inhabited by many hermit," he said.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]The cave carved into the rock was dated to the 1st century A.D., Waheeb said.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]The skull was found "directly next to the cave, buried on its own," he said.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]

Remains of three other ancient churches were found around the cave, demonstrating the "sacredness" of the site, where Waheeb and the Jordanian ministry of tourism say Jesus Christ was baptised.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Over the past few years, Jordanian archeologists led by Waheeb have uneartherd ancient churches and huge baptismal pools in Wadi Kharrar, known in antiquity as Bethany Beyond the Jordan.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]It is located just east of the Jordan River and opposite Jericho. The gospel of Saint John the Evangelist says Jesus crossed to the east bank of the river to be baptised by John the Baptist.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Further east is located the biblical site known as Machaerus, where John the Baptist is said to have been beheaded on the orders of Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]

Fearful of John's great influence over the people, Herod had him arrested and imprisoned at Machaerus on the Dead Sea when John denounced his adultrous and incestuous marriage with Herodias, wife of Herod's half brother, Philip.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]John was beheaded at the request of Salome, daughter of Herodias, who asked for his head on a plate at the instigation of her mother after dancing for the king and being promised a reward.[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Israel and the Palestinians claim that Jesus was baptised in a spot on the western bank of the river known as Qasr el-Yahud.
[/SIZE]
The Boston Globe also printed the following article:

Article: A CLASH OF CLAIMS IN HOLY LAND

Article from:The Boston Globe (Boston, MA) Article dateecember 8, 1999Author:Charles M. Sennott, GLOBE

STAFFCopyrightCopyright 1999 The Boston Globe. (Hide copyright information) WADI KHARRAR, Jordan - Five years ago, this was a front line in the Arab-Israeli conflict - a barren desert landscape interrupted only by barbed wire, an infantry battalion's watchtower, and a field of small flags marking land mines buried beneath the chalky terrain.

As troops redeployed after the peace agreement between Jordan and Israel in 1994, a tank rolled over what appeared to be an ancient foundation, and its treads revealed a mosaic tile floor.

Following the chance find, Jordanian archeologist Mohammad Waheeb waited for specialists to finish the tedious task of clearing the land mines, then began his work. After two years of studying biblical texts and dating archeological artifacts, ...

Here is another brief article from a 2000 edition of Christianty Today.

John the Baptist's grave reported found

"Last year, archaeologists discovered a cave beneath the remains of a fourth-century Byzantine church on the east bank of the Jordan River. Now they're trying to figure out if a skull found there belonged to John the Baptist. "Research has determined that the cave belonged to St John the Baptist, but experts ... are still examining the skull," said project director Mohammad Waheeb. "Until now, testing on the skull has not been completed, so we can only say it belonged to a hermit, because the region of Wadi Kharrar was inhabited by many hermits," he said. Expect the results to be controversial—Israel claims that John the Baptist wasn't at Wadi Kharrar, but instead baptized on the western bank of the river in a spot called Qasr Al Yahud (The Jewish Palace). Still, it won't be as controversial as a Japanese town that claims to have the body of Jesus Christ"

Analysis

There are three sources cited above. The Forbidden Knowledge website is, at best, improbable, as a site. Much of its other information is either provable false or absurd, as noted by Thekla in previous posts. The other two sources cited here, although reliable, mere report the facts of the matter without comment regarding veracity.

Source credibility - 1

Other authenticating sources. The only other known authenticating source is the project director, Mohammed Waheeb. It can be safely assumed that this gentleman is a Muslim and not a Christian and may have other motives which are suspect. He is an archaeologist by profession. A brief internet search did not reveal any further details regarding his professional credentials nor did it reveal any peer-reviewed articles by him concerning this find or any other work by him.


Other authenticating sources - 2

Provenance. The provenance is, as stated in the articles, that the skull was unknown until Dr. Waheeb discovered it in 1999. No further provenance is available via internet sources. It is unknown as to whether any scientific examination was performed or its current location.

The best thing that can be said is that it is probably the skull of a hermit living in a cave in that location. There is a great deal of doubt as to whether the skull, following the beheading of John the Baptist in Jerusalem was transferred to this location.


Provenance - 1

Overall score - 1 1/3

This score is my personal evaluation based upon my limited knowledge and is open to discussion/

 

[TheCatholic]

I wish to discuss several indisputable facts which raise several questions in my mind. The facts are as follow:

1. The Bible makes no mention whatsoever concerning the number of heads possessed by St. John the Baptist.
2. At present there are at least seven skulls of John the Baptist which have been fully authenticated, verified, and consecrated and now reside in various churches.
3. Many centuries have passed since the events of #2 and none of the skulls has ever been discredited or disowned.

Now, for the questions:

1. Did John have seven heads simultaneously or did they appear in sequence on his neck?
2. Given the very remarkable nature of having seven heads (at the least) why did the writers of the gospels fail to mention it?
3. If these things are not true in any aspect, how do we know they are not?

Thank you.

This OP seems a bit sarcastic.
What is its point?

 

[bbbbbbb]

This OP seems a bit sarcastic.
What is its point?

Thekla raised the very same question earlier and I addressed it. I suggest that you read the thread to find the answer. If the answer does not satisfy you, please post again.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Now, I will continue my discussion regarding the veracity of the various skulls and pieces thereof of John the Baptist which are authenticated as being genuine.

The next skull is described on Wikipedia (for what it is worth) as:

The Ummayad Mosque, also known as the Grand Mosque of Damascus (Arabic: جامع بني أمية الكبير, transl. Ğām' Banī 'Umayyah al-Kabīr), is one of the largest and oldest mosques in the world. Located in one of the holiest sites in the old city of Damascus, it is of great architectural importance.
The mosque holds a shrine which is said to contain the head of John the Baptist (Yahya), honored as a prophet by Muslims and Christians alike. The head was supposedly found during the excavations for the building of the mosque. There are also many important landmarks within the mosque for the Shī‘ah, among them is the place where the head of Husayn (the grandson of Muhammad) was kept on display by Yazīd I. There is also the tomb of Saladin, which stands in a small garden adjoining the north wall of the mosque.
In 2001 Pope John Paul II visited the mosque, primarily to visit the relics of John the Baptist. It was the first time a pope paid a visit to a mosque.

For an interesting description of the mosque and its history you can go here - Umayyad Mosque

There is also an interesting discussion of the mosque here - MuslimHeritage.com - Features
Interestingly, the site claims that the relics of John the Baptist were not at this site, but were somewhere else in Damascus. It does not state where they are now.

Analysis

There are three sources cited above. The last website is probably the least reliable as it flatly contradicts the other two websites on a number of issues, not the least of which is the current location of the skull. The other two websites agree that a skull of John the Baptist is believed to be in the mosque. This claim appears to have been strong enough that Pope John Paul II made a pilgrimage to it (leaving one to wonder what he thought about the Catholic skulls of John the Baptist), In any event, there is no doubt that there is, at the present time, a skull (actually more than one skull) in the mosque and that one is believed by Muslims to be that of John the Baptist.

Source credibility - 6

Other authenticating sources. This skull has apparently never been examined of authenticated by non-Muslim sources or even Muslim sources.


Other authenticating sources - 1

Provenance. The provenance is old, as stated in the articles. If there was a church on the site as early as the fourth century, then the skull may have been venerated as early as that date. In any event the mosque which now houses it was constructed in the eighth century and it can probably be safely assumed that the skull dates at the very latest from that period. Thus, provenance would place the known date of the skull from between the fourth and the eighth centuries.


Provenance - 8

Overall score - 5

 

[bbbbbbb]

Now, I will continue my discussion regarding the veracity of the various skulls and pieces thereof of John the Baptist which are authenticated as being genuine.

The next skull is described on Wikipedia (for what it is worth) as:

The Ummayad Mosque, also known as the Grand Mosque of Damascus (Arabic: جامع بني أمية الكبير, transl. Ğām' Banī 'Umayyah al-Kabīr), is one of the largest and oldest mosques in the world. Located in one of the holiest sites in the old city of Damascus, it is of great architectural importance.
The mosque holds a shrine which is said to contain the head of John the Baptist (Yahya), honored as a prophet by Muslims and Christians alike. The head was supposedly found during the excavations for the building of the mosque. There are also many important landmarks within the mosque for the Shī‘ah, among them is the place where the head of Husayn (the grandson of Muhammad) was kept on display by Yazīd I. There is also the tomb of Saladin, which stands in a small garden adjoining the north wall of the mosque.
In 2001 Pope John Paul II visited the mosque, primarily to visit the relics of John the Baptist. It was the first time a pope paid a visit to a mosque.

For an interesting description of the mosque and its history you can go here - Umayyad Mosque

There is also an interesting discussion of the mosque here - MuslimHeritage.com - Features
Interestingly, the site claims that the relics of John the Baptist were not at this site, but were somewhere else in Damascus. It does not state where they are now.

Analysis

There are three sources cited above. The last website is probably the least reliable as it flatly contradicts the other two websites on a number of issues, not the least of which is the current location of the skull. The other two websites agree that a skull of John the Baptist is believed to be in the mosque. This claim appears to have been strong enough that Pope John Paul II made a pilgrimage to it (leaving one to wonder what he thought about the Catholic skulls of John the Baptist), In any event, there is no doubt that there is, at the present time, a skull (actually more than one skull) in the mosque and that one is believed by Muslims to be that of John the Baptist.

Source credibility - 6

Other authenticating sources. This skull has apparently never been examined of authenticated by non-Muslim sources or even Muslim sources.


Other authenticating sources - 1

Provenance. The provenance is old, as stated in the articles. If there was a church on the site as early as the fourth century, then the skull may have been venerated as early as that date. In any event the mosque which now houses it was constructed in the eighth century and it can probably be safely assumed that the skull dates at the very latest from that period. Thus, provenance would place the known date of the skull from between the fourth and the eighth centuries.


Provenance - 8

Overall score - 5