FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-07-2006, 07:46 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: vancouver, bc
Posts: 30
Default Saint Paul Revealed...

... or so they say.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6219656.stm

i'm not clear on the history behind this tomb or the belief that it was the resting place of Paul. does anyone here have any information about this?

thanks

ghi
ghiangelo is offline  
Old 12-07-2006, 07:59 PM   #2
Moderator -
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
Default

The inscription is intriguing. I guess it's possible but I don't know how it could be proven.

I think the most it would mean, though, is that Paul existed historically -- not exactly an earth shattering revelation.

Of course, it could have easily have been an ancient fake reliquary as well. It would be interesting to see what's in the sarcophagus. If there are any bones, I'd want to see them dated.
Diogenes the Cynic is offline  
Old 12-07-2006, 08:04 PM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
Default

I don't know the history of this, but if he were actually beheaded in 65 CE, then how does he end up in this tomb a few hundred years later??
Malachi151 is offline  
Old 12-07-2006, 08:40 PM   #4
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Orions Belt
Posts: 3,911
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malachi151 View Post
I don't know the history of this, but if he were actually beheaded in 65 CE, then how does he end up in this tomb a few hundred years later??
Well, he got better....

I think this explains quite clearly where this would have suddenly come from:

Quote:
The holes through which the ancient pilgrims would have pushed pieces of cloth to touch the relic are clearly visible
Kosh is offline  
Old 12-07-2006, 08:58 PM   #5
Moderator -
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malachi151 View Post
I don't know the history of this, but if he were actually beheaded in 65 CE, then how does he end up in this tomb a few hundred years later??
I believe the 390 date only means that the sarcophagus has to date at least to the time that the medieval basilica was first built. The tradition is that the 4th Century basilica was built over the site of Paul's alleged burial site but that the tomb had already been a site of veneration and pilgrimage since the 1st Century.
Diogenes the Cynic is offline  
Old 12-07-2006, 09:05 PM   #6
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
I believe the 390 date only means that the sarcophagus has to date at least to the time that the medieval basilica was first built. The tradition is that the 4th Century basilica was built over the site of Paul's alleged burial site but that the tomb had already been a site of veneration and pilgrimage since the 1st Century.
This is interesting because either way there are some tough questions to answer.

#1) If he were killed as a criminal, then how it is that he had a burial site that was able to be a place of worship for these 300+ years in Rome?

#2) If he was indeed buried and his place of burial was marked and people went there as a shrine from the beginning, then why didn't the same thing happen to Jesus' place of burial, or "empty tomb"....
Malachi151 is offline  
Old 12-07-2006, 09:24 PM   #7
Moderator -
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malachi151 View Post
This is interesting because either way there are some tough questions to answer.

#1) If he were killed as a criminal, then how it is that he had a burial site that was able to be a place of worship for these 300+ years in Rome?
The details of Paul's death are so obscured that it's hard to really answer any questions about it or the early history of the shrine. I don't think it's a given that Paul was executed by the Romans but even if he was, I don't think there would automatically be any reason his burial place couldn't have been known. Since the first church over the site (which predated the two subsequent basilicas) was built by Constantine, we can't rule out the possibility that he faked up a tomb, but there seems to have been some kind of belief that the site was Paul's burial place well before Constantine.
Quote:
#2) If he was indeed buried and his place of burial was marked and people went there as a shrine from the beginning, then why didn't the same thing happen to Jesus' place of burial, or "empty tomb"....
Easy. Because there never was an empty tomb .

If any kind of HJ was really crucified, the whereabouts of his remains were probably never known to anyone who cared. I don't think that necessarily means that Paul's burial site couldn't have been known, though.

For the record, I'm not trying to make an argument that this new discovery is authentic (I think the possibility of a Constantinian fake deserves serious consideration), but I don't think it's impossible. Paul almost certainly really existed. That doesn't prove a thing about Jesus, of course.
Diogenes the Cynic is offline  
Old 12-07-2006, 10:00 PM   #8
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
For the record, I'm not trying to make an argument that this new discovery is authentic (I think the possibility of a Constantinian fake deserves serious consideration), but I don't think it's impossible. Paul almost certainly really existed. That doesn't prove a thing about Jesus, of course.
There are other interesting questions that also may be considered
such as "Is Apollonius of Tyana - Paul of Tarsus?", and related questions such as:

* Is the shortened version of "Apollonius" "Pol" or "Paul"?
* The name "Apollonius" is mentioned in the Codex Bezae.
* Who is "Paul" mentioned on the Inscription of Abercius?
* How is this "Paul" chizzled in Greek?




Pete
mountainman is offline  
Old 12-08-2006, 12:43 AM   #9
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,370
Default

The sarcophagus is probably empty. Rome was attacked by the Moslems in 846 who smashed up all the Christian sites.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Roger Pearse is offline  
Old 12-08-2006, 08:59 AM   #10
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 246
Default Paul's Alleged Tomb Discovered in Rome MERGED w St Paul revealed

In case you hadn't heard... a head's up (I guess this is a day late anyways)

From the BBC.com article...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6219656.stm

"Archaeologists working for the Vatican have unearthed a sarcophagus containing what they believe are the remains of St Paul the Apostle.
The tomb dates back to at least AD390 and was found in a crypt under a basilica in Rome.

It has long been thought that the crypt contained the tomb of St Paul but the altar had hidden it.

St Paul was an influential early Christian who travelled widely in the Mediterranean area in the 1st Century.

Excavations at the site began in 2002 and were completed last month.

..The original inscription on the top reads: Paulo Apostolo Mart - Latin for "Paul Apostle Martyr".
dzim77 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:06 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.