The nail that crucified Jesus

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p0dgxldq/the-enormous-steel-nail-that-crucified-christ

Beginning of archaeology.....

Cheers.

Sriram

[ProfessorDavey]

Hi everyone,

https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p0dgxldq/the-enormous-steel-nail-that-crucified-christ

Beginning of archaeology.....

Cheers.

Sriram

The short film is about the earliest archaeology - there is, of course, no evidence whatsoever that either the tunic not the nail are 'genuine', in the sense of actually being linked to Jesus. That is purely belief not history or archaeology. And reliquary was huge business - if you put together all the pits of Jesus, saints etc purported to be from them (but with no evidence to back that up) they'd probably weigh more than the original people themselves.

So I'm not sure what this is doing in the christian section rather than, perhaps in the science section.

[Anchorman]

Hi everyone,

https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p0dgxldq/the-enormous-steel-nail-that-crucified-christ

Beginning of archaeology.....

Cheers.

Sriram

   

Looks like pseudoarchaeology to me - from your link at any rate.
I haven't bothered to click it.

[ProfessorDavey]

   

Looks like pseudoarchaeology to me - from your link at any rate.
I haven't bothered to click it.

Well, yes and no.

Sure the whole reliquary is guff and pseudo archaeology. But actually the guy presented is kind of interested in the history of archaeology - when and why did people start digging around for physical 'evidence' from the past. And his view (others are available) is that the attempts to find physical evidence of Jesus was a very early stage in archaeology. Of course it wasn't archaeology as we know it as it was trying to find evidence to support a pre-formed conclusion, rather than using then evidence you find to develop a conclusion.

[Anchorman]

Well, yes and no.

Sure the whole reliquary is guff and pseudo archaeology. But actually the guy presented is kind of interested in the history of archaeology - when and why did people start digging around for physical 'evidence' from the past. And his view (others are available) is that the attempts to find physical evidence of Jesus was a very early stage in archaeology. Of course it wasn't archaeology as we know it as it was trying to find evidence to support a pre-formed conclusion, rather than using then evidence you find to develop a conclusion.

     
It was the 'steel nail' which turned me off clicking: the idea of steel in first century Palestine smacked of Joseph Smith to me.

[ProfessorDavey]

     
It was the 'steel nail' which turned me off clicking: the idea of steel in first century Palestine smacked of Joseph Smith to me.

There is no credible suggestion that it is actually as described.

However that doesn't change the notion that this represents an early approach to use physical evidence in support of a historical claim. Complete non-sense in this case, but interesting in the way that those studying the history of medicine may be interested in the development of early interventions - e.g. trepanning - to understand the approaches and mentalities of earlier peoples. That doesn't mean that trepanning has any therapeutic credibility.