Posted on 12/07/2006 11:08:06 AM PST by TaraP
ROME — Vatican archaeologists have unearthed a sarcophagus believed to contain the remains of the Apostle Paul that had been buried beneath Rome’s second largest basilica.
The sarcophagus, which dates back to at least A.D. 390, has been the subject of an extended excavation that began in 2002 and was completed last month, the project’s head said this week.
“Our objective was to bring the remains of the tomb back to light for devotional reasons, so that it could be venerated and be visible,” said Giorgio Filippi, the Vatican archaeologist who headed the project at St. Paul Outside the Walls basilica.
The interior of the sarcophagus has not yet been explored, but Filippi didn’t rule out the possibility of doing so in the future.
Two ancient churches that once stood at the site of the current basilica were successively built over the spot where tradition said the saint had been buried. The second church, built by the Roman emperor Theodosius in the fourth century, left the tomb visible, first above ground and later in a crypt.
When a fire destroyed the church in 1823, the current basilica was built and the ancient crypt was filled with earth and covered by a new altar.
“We were always certain that the tomb had to be there beneath the papal altar,” Filippi told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.
Filippi said that the decision to make the sarcophagus visible again was made after many pilgrims who came to Rome during the Catholic Church’s 2000 Jubilee year expressed disappointment at finding that the saint’s tomb could not be visited or touched.
The findings of the project will be officially presented during a news conference at the Vatican on Monday.
How will they be able to determine if the remains are indeed those of the Apostle Paul?
I believe because he was the only Aposotle there at that time.
Pretty easy, really. The thorn in the side will be a dead giveaway...
It bothers me greatly that one would verate the skeletal remains of a human. One should only venerate the one who rose from the dead, Christ.
DNA? /whimsy
Are there any relics of his around?
"It bothers me greatly that one would verate the skeletal remains of a human."
Would that apply to 'Skull & Bones' too? :-)
I believe because he was the only Aposotle there at that time.
Peter was (supposed to have been) killed in Rome about the same time as Paul.
Given that the sarcophagos could turn out to be dated to hundreds of years after Paul's death, then it is highly likely we will never be able to prove it beyond all doubt.
Not that it will stop millions of people believing it to be him.
Interesting discovery nonetheless.
It's kind of like having a autographed ball from your favorite baseball player....saints don't tend to sign baseballs though.
why would this have been burried in the first place?
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
I have to ask this, as it always bothers me how (apparently) non-Catholics are always "bothered" by "veneration".
Do you venerate George Washington? Abraham Lincoln? John Kennedy?
Are there not tombs to visit? Are there not monuments that even literally represent these people for the public to see and remember? And they are not even religious figures.
Is it OK to "venerate" them but not great religious leaders?
There's another thread full of that stuff.
Why don't we save this one for discussion of archaeology?
There was a fire in the early 1800s ... when they rebuilt the place, they were apparently in a bit of a hurry. They filled in the crypt (dumb, but they didn't ask me) and built the main altar over it.
It does seem bizzare to me that if they felt it was the final resting place of St Paul they wouldn't have immeadiatly set to work trying to restore it (its not like Catholics suddenly forgot they generally hold relics of Saints in high esteem...) Still (as an Orthodox Christian) I'm glad to see them being recovered now.
"Would that apply to 'Skull & Bones' too? :-)"
Only if it's Geronimo's head.... (sarcasm)
From the archaeological point of view, I agree. Very interesting. i just object to the veneration part.
PAUL WAS BEHEADED 65-70
PETER WAS CRUCIFIED 80-85
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.