True. Who even knows how tall Paul was? Or what Jesus looked like? The conventional picture of him – slender ectomorph with a high forehead, long narrow nose, long chin, long brown hair and beard – is based on the Shroud of Turin, IIRC, which has been dated to the Middle Ages. For all we know, Jesus was a short, fat redhead with a clubfoot and a hunchback. (“Now is the Winter of our Discontent/Made glorious Summer by this Son of God!”)
I believe it is the other way around with Jesus. The Shroud of Turin was based on common medieval artistic depictions of Jesus that predated it. This was one reason many early on doubted the shroud. It would be quite a coincidence that artists centuries later would correctly guess what Jesus looks like. Plus, the image on the shroud to me looks too European. More likely that Jesus would have looked like modern day Palestinians, as these people have been native to area continuously since the time of Jesus. (Modern day Jews have interbred a lot with other ethnic groups after they left the area of Israel.)
However, while any body found in the sarcophagus couldn’t be determined to be that of Paul, there is the possibility that there could also be relics buried with it that would be hard to explain away. Can anyone think of any relics like the letter sent by the Corinthians to Paul that would tend to confirm this is indeed the body of Paul?
Or rather, the ossuary was a MODERN made forgery. Even if this isn’t “our” Paul in there, it tells us a lot more about 4th century worshipers and what they were in to
Jeez, you think?! No one ever considered that an ancient marker reading “Apostle Paul, Martyr” might concievably be related to the burial site of Paul? This does not reflect terribly well on the Vatican Museums archaeology staff.
"Museum specialists have stated that this find has encouraged new research in previously neglected areas of the Vatican collection, including a large 1st century scroll case labeled with a plaque reading, “‘The Way: A Proposal for a Religious Reform Movement’ by Jeshua bar Joseph (preface by Mary Magdalene).” A Vatican representative cautioned against opening the case merely to satisfy curiosity about the contents. An enormous black ‘X’ on the floor of the Vatican Library has also begun to elicit speculation.
“The Vatican spokesperson informed reporters, ‘Investigation of these matters has been greatly facilitated by the recent discovery that the doors labeled ‘Men’ and ‘Women’ here in the Vatican Museums actually conceal bathroom facilities. This has freed up a great deal of time for the museum staff, who no longer have to walk over to the CitGo station across from the Vatican.’”
“In other news, Vatican specialists announced their intent to perform carbon-14 dating tests on the “Martha Stewart Collection” tag attached to the Shroud of Turin…”
While they’re at it they might want to take a look inside that box that says “Holy Grail” on it. They’ve just been using it as a door stop.
And that pesky crate that leaves a charred outline of a box flanked with two cherubim on top wherever its stored.
I think DNA *might * be able to identify the likelihood of him having Semitic heritage. They already can, if there are teeth, identify fairly closely where it is he most likely grew up.
**If ** they could identify him as growing up near Tarsus and, at least not likely rule him out as a Jew, or better if he had some (typically) Jewish markers in his genes, & if it looked like he was first century, then and only then am I even thinking of biting on it — maaaaaybe.
Emperor Theodosius was 300 years after Paul. It’s location could have been preserved by tradition, but more it is far more likely the location was pinpointed by the equivalent of someone showing up today in Jamestown and demanding to know where Pocahontas or Capt. John Smith are buried (I know they are both buried in England) – and the very eager to please locals oblige.
Which rather misses the point. The Catholic Church has long regarded this as Paul’s burial site. That was why the basilica was built there in the first place. A sign identifying the high altar as the site of his grave is therefore exactly what one would expect. Even if there was no grave there.
The issue is therefore not why didn’t they think there might be a tomb there - they did think that there was a tomb there - but why they didn’t excavate before now. But the ethics of archaeological excavation are rarely simple. Responsible archaeologists never regard excavation as automatically the most appropriate option, even (or especially) when a site promises to be significant. The better question to ask might be why they thought now, rather than the future, was the time to excavate.
It also needs to be remembered that the Vatican recovered bones from what they claimed was the tomb of St. Peter beneath the high altar of St. Peter’s in the 1940s. And what was the result of that discovery? Nothing really. Few go beyond claiming that those bones might be genuine and over the years the Vatican seems to have been content to leave it at that.
Well, it was kind of a joke. On the other hand, if they did think that there was a tomb there, then in what sense can they claim to have “found” or “positively identified” said tomb as the article cited in the OP states? Wouldn’t this be, at best, a form of confirmation? If I buy a house with a septic tank, and then one day years later that septic tank breaks down and I have to dig it up, is it reasonable for me to announce that I have just made the discovery that my house indeed has a septic tank instead of some other form of magical waste disposal mechanism? True, I may have never observed it directly before, but on the other hand there was no real reason to doubt it was there either. For that matter, I’ve never actually been presented with concrete evidence that my grandfather is buried underneath his headstone, and yet I feel no real need to “positively identify” the fact. Granted, I’d be intensely pissed if he *weren’t *there, but if for whatever reason the grave was excavated and he actually was, just as expected, then it would make little sense for me to announce that his resting place has just been “found.”
Don’t get me wrong, even the possibility that such a massively important figure’s final remains have been preserved is intriguing to me, and I don’t think it’s at all out of the realm of possibility. As every Catholic should know, relics are way cool.