>A news report from Rome says that the analysis conducted on the remains found in a tomb in Rome believed to be Paul’s body is not conclusive. The following is an excerpt from the news report:
ANSA) – Vatican City, July 3 – A recent scientific analysis on a tomb Vatican officials believe belongs to St Paul does not ”confirm or exclude” that the relics inside are those of the apostle, the head of the Vatican Museums’ diagnostics laboratory said Friday.
Speaking at a Vatican press conference Ulderico Santamaria, who is also a science professor at Tuscia University, said the analysis did not offer conclusive proof.
However, Cardinal Andrea Cordero Lanza di Montezemolo, archpriest of the basilica of St Paul’s Outside the Walls where the tomb was found in 2006, said the results made him optimistic.
”Nothing is contrary and everything seems to point towards the tomb being that of the apostle, in line with a 2,000-year tradition,” he said.
Pope Benedict XVI announced on Sunday that a probe inserted through a small hole in the tomb revealed pieces of purple and blue material, incense grains and small fragments of bone that were carbon dated to between the first and second century.
Although the Pope said that the tests “confirm the unanimous and uncontested tradition that these are the mortal remains of Paul the apostle,” it is doubtful that a definite identification is possible with the evidence available to archaeologists.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tags: Archaeology, Archaeology, Paul, Paul’s Body
var addthis_pub = ‘claude mariottini’;
Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament 
>Hello Professor,Actually what the Pope said was:''This seems to confirm the unanimous and uncontested tradition that these are the mortal remains of Paul the apostle,''Your quote leaves out the qualifying aspect of his statement.Pax,John
LikeLike
>Have you seen this Prof?http://biblicalpaths.wordpress.com/2009/07/04/philip-davies-%e2%80%98when-memory-meets-the-past-archaeology-and-amnesia%e2%80%99/
LikeLike
>John,Thank you for the correction. Even with the qualifying words in the statement, what I wrote in my post stands: we may never know for sure whether the remains are the actual remains of Paul.Claude Mariottini
LikeLike
>To Anonymous,Thank you for the link. It is an interesting review of Davies' minimalist views.Claude Mariottini
LikeLike
>"Even with the qualifying words in the statement, what I wrote in my post stands: we may never know for sure whether the remains are the actual remains of Paul."Hello Professor,Of course, I totally agree. Even if they ran DNA tests that proved the person was of Jewish decent. It wouldn't be proof positive.Though it would seem to confirm the tradition.Pax,John
LikeLike
>Excuse me,that should read: "Jewish descent."Pax,John
LikeLike
>John,Do not worry about mistakes like that. I make them all of the time and my readers are very forgiving when it comes to my mistakes.As they saying goes: "to err is human, to forgive divine"Claude Mariottini
LikeLike