Ancient and ArchaeologyΜύ permalink
Tomb of St Paul
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by Vinnievoyle (U2874080) on Friday, 8th December 2006
Does anyone know anything else about this remarkable find?
Four years of excavation have finally revealed the fianl resting place of St Paul the apostle. Surely the sarcophagus itself is not going to be opened? Bit of a bummer really as it would yield valuable clues - still think they should leave it well alone though. What would the pontiff say? -
Message 2
Posted by jllb0221 (U3587794) on Friday, 8th December 2006
I've read where they are considering opening it.
If they do, do you think they'll try to grab some DNA from it? -
Message 3
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Friday, 8th December 2006
Not sure it was ever lost to be honest with you. I can't help thinking that the sudden proliferation of relics found during the reign of Constantine is a touch suspicious, somehow we are supposed to believe that the titular head and the true cross were also found during the same brief period in the early fourth century AD.
-
Message 4
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 8th December 2006
The only 'remarkable' aspect to the story as presented is the fact that there are no plans to scientifically date the contents of the sarcophagus, or indeed test for other contextual clues to the origin of the corpse. This is standard procedure in such excavations and one does have to wonder aloud what exactly it is that they are afraid such a rigorous examination will reveal?
It is also worrying to hear archaeologists speak with such certainty of the provenance behind their 'find', without applying any noticeable degree of caution. That the sarcophagus appears to have been believed to contain the corpse of Paul in antiquity might - at a stretch - be admitted on a cursory examination given its situation. The release of news however concerning the find couched in terms that suggest that it actually did is a little unprofessional, to say the least, and does not smack of objective analysis in the slightest. -
Message 5
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Sunday, 10th December 2006
Nordmann
for once on a religious based topic, we agree.
How can one possibly prove it is the body of Paul?
Just assuming it was and assuming the tradition is correct concerning his death, then at best they would find a body that had been beheaded that it might be decided is of around the right age and around the right date.
I doubt if we will find a complete original set of all his letters, including all four to the Corinthians in this tomb (assuming he kept copies). -
Message 6
Posted by BeautifulGoddess (U2448486) on Monday, 11th December 2006
I read in the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ news that there's an inscription on the sarcophagus reading "Paulo Apostolo Mart" which is latin for Paul Apostle Martyr, and that the sarcohpagus dates to AD390, it's written that paul was beheaded in AD65, quite a gap between his death and resting place in this tomb!
-
Message 7
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 11th December 2006
I think it is generally accepted that the 'burial' amounts to the putting in place of a shrine containing remains believed to be those of Paul after christianity's adoption as the official religion of the empire. The question is of course the validity of the claim of those who interred the remains that they had in fact the corpse of the man himself. It would not be that difficult to test bones, if any are present, for their age, the sex and age of death of their past owner, and indeed if and when the remains might have been disturbed between their interral and now. All such information would be very valuable in piecing together the social milieu in which they were interred and subsequently venerated. It is odd for archaeologists not to want to pursue such matters, even those in the pay of the Vatican, I would say. Perhaps the pope has decided he has had enough debunking for now and wants to give uninformed blind faith a turn at the helm again. He knows his brand and the market it performs best in!
-
Message 8
Posted by jllb0221 (U3587794) on Tuesday, 12th December 2006
Very well put, Nordman! I would love for the good saint's bones to see the light of day & be tested, especially the DNA. But I seriously doubt that the good ole Papa would make any of the results public and/or let any professionals besides those that the Varican can control, take a look at those bones!
-
Message 9
Posted by Tim Of Aclea (U4517144) on Wednesday, 13th December 2006
I am not clear what the DNA would prove, one way or the other except the relative make up of the person in terms of racial groups.
But if the bones were tested and found to be 4th C is that really going to shake the faith of many Christains.
Was there a mass exodus from the church after the carbon 14 dating of the Turin shroud and hadsinterest in it lessoned? -
Message 10
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 13th December 2006
I would agree with you there Tim. There is no evidence that when a relic is proven to be a 'fake' that it dampens the enthusiasm of the faithful for its veneration one iota. It changes the relationship between the pilgrim and the relic to a certain degree in that the emphasis is placed on the symbolic importance of the artefact rather than its debunked provenance, but in this day and age the positive spin that is applied to this change is that the revelation that the object was, after all, a fake has simply rendered the whole procedure more honest (and honest is a good thing etc etc).
Which of course makes a ban on testing the contents of the sarcophagus all the more weird, in my view.
And anyway, even if it was found to contain archaeology linking its contents to first century Judaea or the Eastern Mediterranean it still wouldn't be a definitive verification of anything in particular. -
Message 11
Posted by BeautifulGoddess (U2448486) on Wednesday, 13th December 2006
Opening the sarcophagus and testing the bones would be great, (a giant leap for the vatican in fact!) but there'll never be 100% proof as to whether it is Paul as there's nothing to test the results against, so we're just really going round in cirlces over this.
-
Message 12
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Thursday, 14th December 2006
For my part I would be amazed if any bones have survived this long. The vast majority of bones do not survive 2000 years, but of course some do.
Given the inscription on the sarcaphogas, I will continue to assume that this was where the saint's body was placed, unless anything is found which proves otherwise. -
Message 13
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 14th December 2006
Given the inscription on the sarcaphogas, I will continue to assume that this was where the saint's body was placed, unless anything is found which proves otherwise
Μύ
Given the inscription on the sarcophagus it is even tenuous to assume that those who placed remains in it 300 years after the death of its supposed occupant believed that they were the remains of Saul/Paul. All that can be assumed is that the intention existed that others should do so, and given what is known about the relics that lie at the heart of many centres and cults of veneration, this a much safer (and archaeologically sensible) assumption than yours.
And as has been iterated a few times already on this thread, the true archaeological worth of conducting a full examination of the site does not rest with the identity of the occupant in any case, but the information that can be yielded from it with regard to the circumstances surrounding its establishment. -
Message 14
Posted by Tim Of Aclea (U4517144) on Friday, 15th December 2006
Nordmann
I would say that the above does not apply to religious 'relics'. Take the Piltdown forgery so beloved of 6 day creationists.
Although it was eventually exposed as a forgery in the 1950s it had been suggested that is was one from much early. Judging by the planted 'Piltdown cricket bat' someone realised it was a forgery right from the start.
By the time it was proved that it was forgery it had become an embarisment because other genuine fossils showed that the human brain and evolved after the jaw. Piltdown consisted of a human skull with an apes jaw. For a period people even tried having two different evolutionary paths.
If the forger had placed an apes skull with a human jaw then it might still be considered genuine.
A set of fossils that it might be interesting to test would be those are claimed to be of Edward the Martyr. -
Message 15
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Friday, 15th December 2006
nordmann, I think it can be taken as a fact, not just an assumption, that the inscription on the sarcaphogas is meant to lead others to believe that the remains of Paul are within it. Just the same as with a churchyard, all those tombstones are there to lead us to believe that the named dead persons lie there. When I read a gravestone, I do assume that the deceased is lying right there, unless it is shown otherwise. I am aware that bodies are sometimes discarded after some 100 years to make more space - but my working assumption is that the body is still there. Similarly with the sarcaphogas of Paul, there is no proof that his bones were ever there, but nobody has proved that they weren't. All the information we have is that somebody has said, in an inscription, that they were placed there, so the balance of information we have, as of now, enables an assumption (not proof) that this is Paul's grave.
-
Message 16
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 15th December 2006
Hi fascinating
As you should well know, normal rules do not apply when it comes to relics and shrines, especially those of early saints, and especially those close - geographically and politically - to the centre of the catholic church. A similar loss to true archaeological research happened only a few decades earlier with regard to Paul's 'twin' in the catholic hagiological hierarchy, when Peter's tomb was allegedly located under Vatican property. What was meant to be a publicity coup for the church turned rather foul when they very quickly became the target of much criticism from archaeologists, historians and others who could see that the semi-secretive methodology used to conduct the 'dig' effectively corrupted whatever data might have been objectively extracted from the site and cast doubts over everything subsequently published by the church in relation to the exercise. It has gone down in archaeology as a textbook case (along with a few Nazi 'excavations' allegedly proving Aryan theory) of how NOT to go about things! One would have thought they might have learned their lesson...
And in relation to your first point, if you begin a sentence "I think it can be taken as a fact", then that is also an assumption. The truth is always real divil to nail down, don't you know! -
Message 17
Posted by Dai Bath (U2444609) on Saturday, 16th December 2006
Not sure it was ever lost to be honest with you. I can't help thinking that the sudden proliferation of relics found during the reign of Constantine is a touch suspicious, somehow we are supposed to believe that the titular head and the true cross were also found during the same brief period in the early fourth century AD.Μύ
I am looking forward to my visit to Rome before long.I doubt whether it was ever lost. 300 years for knowing where things have been put is not a long time! My own ancestors' grave stones can be seen for that long with the names on them...just.
Rome was rather well recorded too.
The Amesbury archer's DNA is not going to be tested because it would be too difficult and prove very little. The agency excavating , also has told me in a private letter, that it would be too expensive for what it is.
What would St.Paul's DNA prove? That he has got 5,000 descendants? Three popes and two marytrs and a partridge in a pear tree? That's GM for you.
The Vatican authorities do have an eye for good tourism, and, in the words of the Old song," if I get there before you do", I shall certainly enjoy the big impression of the Real Thing!
See the Light and Be saved and forget about Relics!
This smiley will do as mine; a smiley relic for the future.
Digital Relics for sale. -
Message 18
Posted by Dai Bath (U2444609) on Saturday, 16th December 2006
This smiley will do as mine; a smiley relic for the future.
Digital Relics for sale.Μύ
Heck my sainted descendant will be up before the beak, if I don't get that GRIN right, and quite unable to prove from whom he is descended.
That's better. Do a bit of DVD too.
Did St.Paul do audio and video for his Time capsule? -
Message 19
Posted by stopmeandslapme (U1430972) on Monday, 15th January 2007
Shergar, do you believe that some bloke named Jesus was the son of some thing named God?
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.