Tomb of Paul Found?

[Rusty T]

Vatican archaeologists have unearthed a sarcophagus believed to contain the remains of the Apostle Paul, buried beneath Rome's second-largest basilica.

The sarcophagus, which dates at least as far back as 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.

[furay]

Cool beans. Didn't they just find St Peter's during World War 2? Oh, how I long to pilgrammage to Rome...

[Bill the Cat]

Was he executed in Rome? I thought he was executed elsewhere... :huh:

[Piebald]

Now that I think of it, I don't know the answer to this: Do we have any of the bones or remains of the first generation Christians?

Who are the oldest Christians we have the remains of?

[NeilUnreal]

Was he executed in Rome? I thought he was executed elsewhere...

Though no one knows 100%, most people think he was executed by beheading in Rome c. AD 65.

-Neil

[Bill the Cat]

Though no one knows 100%, most people think he was executed by beheading in Rome c. AD 65.

-Neil
:hrm: I swore I read that he was executed outside of the gates of Rome from somewhere... :nsm:

Anyway, thanks for the info! :thumb:

[NeilUnreal]

I swore I read that he was executed outside of the gates of Rome from somewhere...

Oh, I see what you mean. I meant "in the vicinity of Rome," (or wherever capital punishment was applied in Rome).

There are also legends that he escaped beheading in Rome and went to Spain or somewhere else. I thought that's what you were referring to.

-Neil

[James Peter]

Now that I think of it, I don't know the answer to this: Do we have any of the bones or remains of the first generation Christians?

Who are the oldest Christians we have the remains of?

That depends. Do you mean 'What are the oldest christian remains that we can identify beyond speculation?' or simply 'What are the oldest claimed christian remains?'

Suffice it to say that there is a big difference between the two. I'm very sceptical about this, it will probably turn out to be second or third century.

[Piebald]

That depends. Do you mean 'What are the oldest christian remains that we can identify beyond speculation?' or simply 'What are the oldest claimed christian remains?'


Oldest remains as claimed by a lot of people, I guess. The "disputed" disclaimer can be attached to the information. I don't know much about biblical archaeology.


I'm very sceptical about this, it will probably turn out to be second or third century.

I hope it does not become another bone-box fiasco.

[furay]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061211-saint-paul.html?source=rss

[Bill the Cat]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061211-saint-paul.html?source=rss
The sarcophagus dates back to about A.D. 390

How can this be Paul's??

[Rusty T]

How can this be Paul's??

The tradition I've read says that the body of Paul was in a bone box (assuary??) for a long time (I'm just going by memory), and later moved to the sarcophagus. They're hoping to open the box.

rusty

[James Peter]

I'd still be inclined to think it very unlikely. What we have is a body that was venerated as Paul's from the second or third century onwards... thats all. Proving more than that will be a pretty difficult task. Considering that the evidence suggests that Paul was largely ignored for quite a while by most Christians (Hermas, for example, seems to have no knowledge of Paul's epistles even though he was writing from Rome in the early second century) I doubt the Church at Rome would have kept it. Maybe a few individuals but... I just don't see it.

[praxeus]

Considering that the evidence suggests that Paul was largely ignored for quite a while by most Christians (Hermas, for example, seems to have no knowledge of Paul's epistles even though he was writing from Rome in the early second century) Hi James,

You don't give any reference for this claim, and the actual scholarship articles readily available make no such claim at all.

First let us be clear that the Shepherd of Hermas is a poor choice for studying knowledge of Paul's epistles compared to other early works -- something of a 'selection of convenience' - as the Shepherd is not in the mode of quoting scripture, variously called an ethical teaching, or a (mini)-novel, an 'innocent fiction'. There is simply nothing in the way of direct NT quotation and referencing.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07268b.htm
Shepherd of Hermas
There is but one direct quotation in the "Shepherd", and that is from the apocryphal book of "Eldad and Modat,

On the allusion level your claim also fails.

"He shows acquaintance with one or other of the Synoptic Gospels, and, since he also uses that of St. John, he probably knew all three. He appears to employ Ephesians and other Epistles, including perhaps I Peter and Hebrews. But the books he most certainly and most often uses are the Epistle of St. James and the Apocalypse."

Possibly the claim is made on a purely doctrinal basis, obviously a weak basis, and the next discussions would be the counterpoint, if anybody in scholarship really made the claim and it was being considered by other NT scholars.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/info/shepherd.html (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07268b.htm)
Introductory Note to the Pastor of Hermas

It has been objected, indeed, that the morals of Hermas have a legalizing tone. The same is said of St. James, and the Sermon on the Mount. Most unjustly and cruelly is this objection made to The Shepherd. Granted its language is not formulated Augustine, as it could not be: its text is St. James, but, like St. James, harmonized always with St. Paul.

Anyway, more important than the weakness of your claim about Hermas is your selectivity in taking one writing which has no direct scripture referencing - rather than all the various writings with scripture referencing that have usages from Pauline writings.

Good scholarship should be above such "single-set selections" that are solely designed to give a false impression.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

[Rusty T]

Thanks, Steven. I just can't get over the fact of I Clement - it's rife with quotes from Paul.

rusty

[praxeus]

Thanks, Steven. I just can't get over the fact of I Clement - it's rife with quotes from Paul. rusty Your welcome, Rusty. Your example is excellent, I didn't bother because I wanted to focus on the Shepherd and used the strange assertion as a base to study and learn. I'm sure there are others but I didn't check, perhaps Pauline references or illusions in Justin or Barnabas or Ignatius. Plus of course the significant reference in 2 Peter and the history given in Acts. Yours however should close the issue, even for most not that familiar. It refutes the attempt to invisibilize Paul since it is so early.

Also on this type of absurd method of argumentation is quite common in 'liberal Christian', skeptic, mythicist circles. Build an argument on word-parsing and/or careful selection. Imply that the careful selecton is really significant when it is transparent on a little examination. Just assume that no examination is coming, who wants to spend time tracking down or discussing the significance of the Shepherd of Hermas or what type of text it is ? Perhaps the poster never really considered it themselves - often one person is simply copying an argument from another without thinking it through.

So it becomes more significant to show the nature of such impoverished arguments (since they pop up all over these forums) than to discuss every detail.

Shalom,
Steven Avery (Praxaluh on Paltalk)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

[James Peter]

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/info/shepherd.html (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07268b.htm)
Introductory Note to the Pastor of Hermas

It has been objected, indeed, that the morals of Hermas have a legalizing tone. The same is said of St. James, and the Sermon on the Mount. Most unjustly and cruelly is this objection made to The Shepherd. Granted its language is not formulated Augustine, as it could not be: its text is St. James, but, like St. James, harmonized always with St. Paul.

Not sure quite what you are quoting from ECWs...but pulled from its main introduction to Hermas...


The Shepherd of Hermas, a strange allegory written sometime in the second century, had a great vogue in orthodox circles and was even included in some copies of the New Testament (it is found in the Sinaitic Codex). The theology of the Church must have been very elastic at a time when such a book could enjoy popularity and implicit, if not explicit, ecclesiastical sanction, for its Christology does not seem to square with any of the Christologies of the New Testament, or with those of contemporary theologians whose occasional documents have reached us. The Shepherd speaks of a Son of God; but this Son of God is distinguished from Jesus. "That Holy Spirit which was created first of all, God placed in a body, in which it should dwell, in a chosen body, as it pleased him." This is Martini's translation. F. C. Conybeare renders the passage: "God made His Holy Spirit, which pre-existed and created all creation, to enter and dwell in the flesh which He approved." In this text the Holy Spirit appears to be a divine substance. But we must not suspect Patripassionism. The "flesh" is spoken of as a person who "walked as pleased God, because it was not polluted on earth." "God, therefore, took into counsel the Son and the angels in their glory, to the end that this flesh might furnish, as it were, a place of tabernacling (for the Spirit), and might not seem to have lost the reward of its service. For all flesh shall receive the reward which shall be found without stain or spot, and in it the Holy Spirit shall have its home." This passage appears to make the "tabernacling" of the Holy Spirit in Jesus a reward for the purity of his life. Jesus then becomes divine through the power of God, after consultation with the Son of God, who elsewhere in The Shepherd is identified with the Holy Spirit. "The most venerable angel," "the glorious angel," "the holy angel" are titles that Hermas gives to Jesus in his allegory; but it is understood that the angelic status of Jesus is not his by nature. His labours on earth to save and to cleanse have gained him a co-inheritance with the Holy Spirit, God's primary Son, so that Jesus now is the second Son of God.

Is that really a position that somebody who had access to the Pauline letters and considers them authoratitive could hold?


By no knowledge of Paul I was not meaning it did not quote Paul but rather that the soteriology and christology of Hermas is incompatible with that of Paul. You can know a work without quoting it and it is not the lack of Pauline quotes that causes problems. It is the theology of Hermas that causes issues.

[praxeus]

...By no knowledge of Paul I was not meaning it did not quote Paul but rather that the soteriology and christology of Hermas is incompatible with that of Paul. You can know a work without quoting it and it is not the lack of Pauline quotes that causes problems. It is the theology of Hermas that causes issues. Hi James Peter,

Nope, that was not your point on the thread. You were specifically trying to show the unimportance of Paul by his words not being known.

"Considering that the evidence suggests that Paul was largely ignored for quite a while by most Christians (Hermas, for example, seems to have no knowledge of Paul's epistles even though he was writing from Rome in the early second century) I doubt the Church at Rome would have kept it."

You originally claimed the Shepherd seemed to have no knowledge of Paul's epistles -- now you do a 180 to the Shepherd having a different doctrine, a totally different question. Not sure at all why that would even be relevant, if true (personally I would read the full Shepherd carefully with that in view before commenting). We see even James and others accused of having a different doctrine. And while the Shepherd was popular for a season among some, it was ultimately fully and completely rejected as scripture.

And you completely ignore the question of other early writers knowledge of Paul (eg. Clement, Justin, Barnabas, Ignatius, Peter) have knowlege of Paul. To the extent they do your original claim is falsified. So now you do the 180.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic