I found the claims odd as well. Since when are Carbon tests used to confirm identity?
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.
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. :-)
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).