Vatican archaeologists may have found the tomb of the Apostle Paul

Asiaprod

ROME (AP) — 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.

BrianCalgary

That is exciting. I have to question the dating though. If it is supposed to be the tomb of Paul, that is fine but it can't be the body of Paul, because he would have died a long time before AD390.

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 thought of relics has always bothered me as people will tend to start to awe at it, then venerate it and eventually look to th erelic as bringing them closer to God and finally begin to worship the relic.

Takes the focus off who we should be worshipping, doesn't it?

Thanks for the report Asia.

lostexpectation

BrianCalgary wrote:

That is exciting. I have to question the dating though. If it is supposed to be the tomb of Paul, that is fine but it can't be the body of Paul, because he would have died a long time before AD390.

one presumes they moved him from his original resting place?

Asiaprod

BrianCalgary wrote:

The thought of relics has always bothered me as people will tend to start to awe at it, then venerate it and eventually look to th erelic as bringing them closer to God and finally begin to worship the relic.

I also agree with this. We have the same thing with the Buddha's hair, teeth and who knows what else. When I was a Catholic I always had problems with the veneration of relics. It always seemed to me to be somewhat demeaning.

Thanks for the report Asia.

Always a pleasure, I have a large interest in archeology.

BrianCalgary

Asiaprod wrote:

Always a pleasure, I have a large interest in archeology.

I have just started subscribing to the magazine that is associated with this link.

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/

I just got my first issue and don't have an opinion on it as yet.

Asiaprod

BrianCalgary wrote:

I have just started subscribing to the magazine that is associated with this link.

Some interesting stuff in there, just bookmarked it. If you come across anything interesting let us know, or better, post a thread on it. I am sure I am not alone in my interest in the archeological roots of Christianity, or any religion for that matter.