It appears that they've found what could well be St Paul's tomb. Having said that, personally I don't see the moral difference between excavating a 1900 year old tomb where people still remember and respect the person involved and excavating a 10 year old tomb. It sounds like what they've done at the moment is restored it closer to its condition 1700 years ago. That's ok, I guess. But the last paragraph of that article reads
His sarcophagus will be on public view for the foreseeable future but the church is yet to rule out the possibility that one day the interior itself will be opened and examined.
In what way is that different to, for example, opening Nelson's tomb? Or Reagan's tomb? Or Shakespeare's? Or Jane Austen's? Or Mother Theresa's?
There's a bit of me that's uncomfortable with seeing mummies and stuff in museums. If those around them buried them, why should we dig them up and put them on display? Would it be different if we knew them?
No comments:
Post a Comment