The tomb of St Paul in Rome
Posted on 06/29/2009 6:42:19 AM PDT by NYer
Pope Benedict XVI said last night that bone fragments found inside the tomb of St Paul in Rome had been carbon dated for the first time, "confirming the unanimous and uncontested tradition that they are the mortal remains of the Apostle Paul".
He said that archaeologists had inserted a probe into the white marble sarcophagus under the Basilica of St Paul's Outside the Walls which has been revered for centuries as the tomb of St Paul.
The pontiff said: "Small fragments of bone were carbon dated by experts who knew nothing about their provenance and results showed they were from someone who lived between the 1st and 2nd century. This seems to confirm the unanimous and uncontested tradition that these are the mortal remains of Paul the Apostle."
The Pope, who said the discovery "fills our souls with great emotion", made the unexpected announcement during Vespers at St Paul's Basilica last night, marking the end of the Pauline year held in honour of the apostle. He said that as well as bone fragments, archaeologists had found grains of red incense, a piece of purple linen with gold sequins and a blue fabric with linen filaments in the tomb.
Cardinal Andrea Cordero Lanza di Montezemolo, the archpriest of St Paul's, said that he had known for more than a year that the tests had shown that the bones were those of a man of the 1st century, but had been sworn to secrecy because it had been "up to the Holy Father to make this public". He said this was why the Vatican press office had denied last week that the bones had been identified. "Only the Pope can make such an important and solemn announcement," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
Why wouldn’t they be St Paul’s? Who else would be buried
under St Paul’s Basilica? Gen Grant?
At the beginning of the 4th century, with the end of the persecutions and the promulgation of the Edicts of Tolerance in favour of Christianity, Emperor Constantine ordered the excavation of the cella memoriae, the place where Christians venerated the memory of Saint Paul the Apostle, beheaded under Nero around 65-67 A.D. Above his grave, located along the Ostiense Way, about two kilometers outside the Aurelian Walls surrounding Rome, Constantine built a Basilica which was consecrated by Pope Sylvester in 324.
Of course the bones found in St. Paul’s tomb were St. Paul’s. If the bones hadn’t been those of St. Paul, it wouldn’t really have been St. Paul’s tomb, would it?
Please. We all know from the Crevo threads that carbon dating isn’t reliable. 8^)
Neat.
Carbon dating doesn’t reveal DNA. The Pope’s reliance
on this as if it proves these are the Apostle Paul’s remains
is insufficient. The best you can say is that it supports
the belief that these are the Apostle Paul’s remains.
Not quite infallible ...
This ha snothing to do with infallibility in any case.
I found the claims odd as well. Since when are Carbon tests used to confirm identity?
A fantastic opportunity for DNA sequencing. I hope they do it!
C14 alone will only say that the remains came from a particular time period.
Sequencing of “known” remains though could reveal a lot about origins and relationships.
Traditions of men
I suspect Paul would be wondering why we’re bothering to honor or venerate him. His work in Christ as the evangelist and his letters to the church are what are important, not the bones he happened to use up while in Christ’s service.
"Small fragments of bone were carbon dated by experts who knew nothing about their provenance and results showed they were from someone who lived between the 1st and 2nd century. This seems to confirm the unanimous and uncontested tradition that these are the mortal remains of Paul the Apostle."
Interesting if true, but it seems a bit of a jump from "someone who lived between the 1st and 2nd century" to "this is Paul".
Carbon dating doesn’t reveal DNA.
Not having a sample of Paul's DNA, a DNA sample would tells us what? Male. Middle eastern maybe, and not much more than that.
Does that basilica exist today? Is it St. Paul-Outside-the-Wall? With the chains? That was so moving.
The pope’s statement emphasized that the primary credibility rests on the pedigree of the veneration of the tomb. This is the basic way that all relics are authenticated. The carbon-14 dating is merely a corroboration. Had the C-14 dating given a date hundreds of years earlier or hundreds later it would have cast doubt on authenticity. But the C-14 dating of 1st-2nd century is at best mildly corroborative.
That’s what the pope said. What the media are making of this is something else—they accent the C-14 dating. If I were the pope, I’d have not even made this public. It’s asking for misinterpretation. But then, I’m not the pope.
DNA testing is impossible. You can’t do DNA testing unless you have authenticated descendents identified. In the case of St. Paul that’s absolutely impossible. He was unmarried and we know nothing, nada about his blood relatives.
So just put the DNA idea out of your mind. It’s totally irrelevant.
That this place as been venerated as the tomb of St. Paul from a time in which living memory of his execution still persisted (3 or so generations) is the main source of credence that the bones are St. Paul’s. The same applies to St. Peter’s bones under the altar at St. Peter’s Basilica—we have solid evidence that it was venerated as the site of his burial at least within 3 generations of his death, which suggests (but does not absolutely prove) unbroken veneration.
Yes .. it is still there and a popular destination of pilgrims to Rome.
With the chains?
The chain that, according to the most ancient tradition, attached the Apostle Paul to the Roman soldier assigned to guard him while in prison in Rome, is the most precious among the relics and objects on display in this chapel. Already in the 5th century, Pope Leo the Great made mention of it.
I should add that pedigree of veneration is EXACTLY the same way that any historical artifact is verified. How do we know that the bed in which Abraham Lincoln died is identical with the one housed at the Chicago Historical Society? By checking as best one can the records of its transfer from the rooming house to whatever waystations it has occupied.
How do I know that that suit of armor supposedly worn by Edward the Black Prince and on display in Canterbury Cathedral’s museum is authentic? By tracing the pedigree of who owned it when and where. How do I know that the Oval Office desk made from timbers of HMS Victory is authentic (and now turfed out by Zero)? By tracing the records of its manufacture and transfer to Washington. How do I know that the ship at Portsmouth said to be HMS Victory is authentic? By tracing the records in the Admiralty archives. Yes, one can do other sorts of forensic investigations and sometimes forensic investigations rule out claims of authenticity. But they rarely by themselves prove beyond any doubt the authenticity of the artifact. An unbroken pedigree of people/documents saying, “this object is X” is the most credible authentication for artifacts found in museums around the world.
All such authentications are fallible. History is not an exact science. But then neither is physics or chemistry. Our major scientific theories are explanatory models, the best explanations we can come up with for the piles of data collected. From time to time the explanatory models get majorly revised or even overturned. The same can happen with artifacts: evidence can emerge that de-authenticates, evidence can emerge that corroborates but proof is always inexact.
One has to exercise faith (credit, belief). How do I know that Barack Hussein Obama is a natural born US citizen? By examining the pedigree of custody of his birth certificate. Since that has not yet been done, ergo, I don’t believe his claim that he is. But evidence corroborating his claim could turn up. Then again, it might not. :-)
Crazy and irresponsible. Have these tests been evaluated by an independent party? And even so, how can that prove the bones belong to Paul?
Like carbon dating, this can not be conclusively used to confirm identity. Rather it can be used to exclude other possible identities. In the case reported here for instance, carbon dating excludes the possibility that the individual buried in the tomb reported to be St. Paul's dates from a later time period. This therefore, is consistent with the hypothesis that the body is that of St. Paul but does not definitively prove it.
Definitive proof is a far more rigorous and difficult proposition. It would require a knowledge of St. Paul's family tree and extant DNA samples from known relatives. Alternatively, forensic evidence in the remains for some pathology from which St.Paul was known to suffer, would also be convincing.
That’s very true about DNA. But how would a person obtain it and how would you know it was St. Paul’s? I’d say there is a 99% chance the remains are those of the saint.
I could be wrong but I thought he was
a Roman (that is an proto-Italian).
“Not having a sample of Paul’s DNA, a DNA sample would tells us what? Male. Middle eastern maybe, and not much more than that.
exactly!
Back in the 4th century, they didn't have dna analysis; what they did have was common sense, something most folks lack today. Once the persecution of christians ended, they took the bones of St. Paul, erected a Church and buried his remains, with dignity and respect. No one can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that these bones belonged to St. Paul. It is presumed that those early christians who suffered unmercifully under the Roman empire, safeguarded the bones of this beloved disciple until such time as they could erect a memorial. I suggest you familiarize yourself with Persecution of early Christians in the Roman Empire, for a better understanding of the early Church.
Bravo! But you beat me to it. ;^)
Rome Catacomb Reveals "Oldest" Image Of St Paul
Pope: Scientific analysis done on St. Paul's bones
Oldest Icon of St. Paul Discovered
On St. Paul and Justification
On St. Paul and the Second Coming
On St. Paul and the Resurrection
On St. Paul and the Cross
On Paul's Christology
On How St. Paul Knew Christ
St. Paul's Teaching on the Church
On Paul's Dealings With Peter
On Paul and the Other Apostles
On Paul, an Apostle of Christ
St. Paul's Faith Based Not on Conversion of Thought, but Personal Meeting With Christ, Pope Says
Paul's Conversion
[St.] Paul's Biography
On Paul's World and Time Period
Pope Benedict said to plan examination of St. Paul
The Conversion of St. Paul
Remains of St. Paul may have been found
Paul's Teaching on the Church
Vatican archaeologists unearth St. Paul's tomb
Paul's Teaching on the Holy Spirit
Paul of Tarsus, Continued: He Lives From Christ and With Christ
Paul of Tarsus: Be Imitators of Me, As I Am of Christ
HOMILIES PREACHED BY FATHER ALTIER ON THE FEAST OF SAINTS PETER AND PAUL
St. Paul's Vision
Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul -- January 25
Original Sin According to Saint Paul
St. Paul the Eccentric
Either we believe in carbon dating or we don’t. Since it seems every few years, the Carbon Dating Society (sounds kinda kinky, doesn’t it?) changes their calibrations, I do not believe in carbon dating. I also do not need the Pope to “prove” anything to me. I believe. That is one of the basic tenants of our religion, isn’t it? We just believe. (that is not to say that I don’t question certain things, but those are of a contemporary matter, not these ancient items).
While this is interesting information, it has no impact on my faith.
“Not having a sample of Paul’s DNA, a DNA sample would tells us what? Male. Middle eastern maybe, and not much more than that.
Exactly. We cannot KNOW. The Pope simply gave an opinion
that may or may not be correct. Same old same old.
The bones could be anyones’s since there is no way to identify Paul’s bones as belonging to Paul.
condition of the skeleton would be of interest, as would its contents, but I guess that is asking too much (exhumation).
Catholics seem to really love old bones and relics.
And it must be true because the DNA tests are fprth coming. This is the difficulty of having relics
And how are these remains known? Tradition and oral history are nice enough but please folks this just says we have some bones and they may come from the time of Paul
Amen. If someone really wants to venerate Paul, he should read all the Epistles attributed to him. If you really absorb and honor their content, you are a Christian beyond a doubt. Also, the carbon date indicates someone who lived 100-200 A.D. Paul died before 100 A.D.
There is a test that can be done to measure trace elements found in the body (I think usually from teeth). These trace elements are absorbed into the body from drinking water. Since these trace elements vary from place to place it can fairly reliably determine where the individual came from. If the traces in this body were to match those of people in the area of Tarsus it wold be extremely convincing.
It is evidence consistant with the tradition that Paul’s remains have been interred in the tomb since the first century. That’s not a small thing.
Roman citizenship, not birth. Believe he was of the tribe of Benjamin.
If, if if.........not too convincing.
I definitely believe in Carbon Dating
It may not be for everybody- but a good friend of mine met his new wife this way.
BWAHAHAHA
“Catholics seem to really love old bones and relics.”
I get more excited about an empty tomb.
Will Wallace
Forgive me, but this debate is ridiculous my evangelical friends. If this was a rock some secular archaeologist said was from the first temple it would be nothing but hurrahs from you. However, since the Roman Catholic church has something to do with this it’s nothing but harumph harumph! If unbelievers want to poo poo the relevence of this then that’s fine, but don’t call yourselves christians then act like the man never existed or his gravesite is unimportant to christians.
“It is evidence consistant with the tradition that Paul’s remains have been interred in the tomb since the first century. That’s not a small thing.
Sure. It narrows it down to someone alive at the time
Paul was alive. That is a small thing, but at least we
know it wasn’t someone from the 1800s...
As a Christian, I really don’t care about someone’s
bones - whether the person was the Apostle Paul or
whoever.
Neither did Paul care about his bones!
“We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.”
2 Corinthians 5:8
Paul isn’t in Rome! He is with Christ in heaven.
Bone fondlers, kissers, worshippers, adorers, etc.
all miss the meaning of the resurrection, of salvation
and of what it means to be with the Lord.
It is meaningless for Christians.
EXCELLENT. Me, too.
Whats the big deal? The debates on FR in the past
have been whether or not Peter lived in Rome.
Matter of fact have the Pope proclaim they are Peters’ bones and then ya’ll can have a party and say I told ya so.
AMEN, AMEN, AMEN!
“Veneration” isn’t idol worship - it’s simply ascribing someone special with appropriate respect because of the generally accepted importance of their life. They were special. Like Billy Graham, Like Abraham Lincoln. Like William Wilberforce. Like John Wesley. Like John Calvin. Like Martin Luther. Like the Venerable Bede. Like Augustine of Hippo. Like Paul of Tarsus. Although human and flawed, we thank God they were special and we remind ourselves why they were special that we might model ourselves on their example.
As Christians we can pride ourselves that we don’t need to go looking for bones. But if the remains of Paul do turn up, we shouldn’t be so keen to send them to land-fill but should give them the respect our Christian hero deserves.
Go on....venerate someone really holy. Someone really set apart by the Lord. Someone really special. Someone really ‘sanctified’ (made righteous as an effect of receiving unmerited grace) as well as ‘justified’.
Really,That would be cool.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.