Dealing with so many wild claims about religions (both traditional and alternative), articles like this one about the potential bones of John the Baptist always catch my attention.
The article is careful to know what we can and cannot learn from the bones. First, obviously there's nothing in the bones that tells us specifically who they come from. Many saintly relics can be proven as as false simply because dating techniques can prove they don't come from the time period in which the saint lived. Most often, they are much newer. So the fact that these come from the correct time period is very significant. The DNA also indicates this man was of Middle Eastern descent. It's also helpful that historians already consider John a likely historical figure.
This illustrates the limitations of Biblical scholarship, as well as scholarship of other ancient topics. Limitations of evidence become more prominent the farther back one goes. People who demand specific, defining evidence are often simply asking for the impossible. All we can do is judge likelihood or lack of likelihood.