An inscription, found on a first century coffin bearing the sign of the cross, reads: "Shimon Bar Yonah" = "Simon [Peter] son of Jonah".
Posted on 11/23/2003 3:39:24 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
JERUSALEM, Israel - Does your heart quicken when you hear someone give a personal testimony about Jesus? Do you feel excited when you read about the ways the Lord has worked in someone's life? The first century catacomb, uncovered by archaeologist P. Bagatti on the Mount of Olives, contains inscriptions clearly indicating its use, "by the very first Christians in Jerusalem."
If you know the feeling of genuine excitement about the workings of the Lord, then you will be ecstatic to learn that archaeologists have found first-century dedications with the names Jesus, Matthias and "Simon Bar-Yonah" ("Peter son of Jonah") along with testimonials that bear direct witness to the Savior. A "head stone", found near the entrance to the first century catacomb, is inscribed with the sign of the cross.
Where were such inscriptions found? Etched in stone - in the sides of coffins found in catacombs (burial caves) of some first-century Christians on a mountain in Jerusalem called the Mount of Olives.
An inscription, found on a first century coffin bearing the sign of the cross, reads: "Shimon Bar Yonah" = "Simon [Peter] son of Jonah".
Like many other important early Christian discoveries in the Holy Land, these major finds were unearthed and the results published many decades ago. Then the discoveries were practically forgotten. Because of recent knowledge and understanding, these ancient tombs once again assume center stage, and their amazing "testimonies in stone" give some pleasant surprises about some of the earliest followers of Jesus.
The catacombs were found and excavated primarily by two well-known archaeologists, but their findings were later read and verified by other scholars such as Yigael Yadin, J. T. Milik and J. Finegan. The ossuaries (stone coffins), untouched for 2,000 years, as they were found by archaeologist P. Bagatti on the Mt. of Olives.
The first catacomb found near Bethany was investigated by renowned French archaeologist Charles Clermont-Ganneau. The other, a large burial cemetery unearthed near the modern Dominus Flevit Chapel, was excavated by Italian scholar, P. Bagatti.
Both archaeologists found evidence clearly dating the two catacombs to the first century AD, with the later finding coins minted by Governor Varius Gratus at the turn of the millenium (up to 15/16 AD). Evidence in both catacombs indicated their use for burial until the middle part of the first century AD, several years before the New Testament was written.
The first catacomb was a family tomb investigated by archaeologist Clermont-Ganneau on the Mount of Olives near the ancient town of Bethany. Clermont-Ganneau was surprised to find names which corresponded with names in the New Testament. Even more interesting were the signs of the cross etched on several of the ossuaries (stone coffins).
As Claremont-Ganneau further investigated the tomb, he found inscriptions, including the names of "Eleazar"(="Lazarus"), "Martha" and "Mary" on three different coffins.
The Gospel of John records the existence of one family of followers of Jesus to which this tomb seems to belong: "Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha. (It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick)..." (11:1,2)
John continues by recounting Jesus' resurrection of Lazarus from the dead. Found only a short distance from Bethany, Clermont-Ganneau believed it was not a "singular coincidence" that these names were found.
He wrote: "[This catacomb] on the Mount of Olives belonged apparently to one of the earliest [families] which joined the new religion [of Christianity]. In this group of sarcophagi [coffins], some of which have the Christian symbol [cross marks] and some have not, we are, so to speak, [witnessing the] actual unfolding of Christianity." A first-century coffin bearing cross marks as it was found by archaeologist P. Bagatti in the catacomb on the Mt. of Olives. The Hebrew inscription both on the lid and body of the coffin reads: "Shlom-zion". Archaeologist Claremont-Ganneau found the same name followed by the designation "daughter of Simon the Priest."
As Claremont-Ganneau continued to investigate the catacomb, he found additional inscriptions including the name "Yeshua" (="Jesus") commemoratively inscribed on several ossuaries. One coffin, also bearing cross marks on it, was inscribed with the name "Shlom-zion" followed by the designation "daughter of Simon the Priest."
While these discoveries were of great interest, even more important was another catacomb found nearby and excavated by archaeologist P. Bagatti several years later.
One of the first-century coffins found on the Mt. of Olives contains a commemorative dedication to: "Yeshua" = "Jesus". Bagatti also found evidence which clearly indicated that the tomb was in use in the early part of the first century AD. Inside, the sign of the cross was found on numerous first-century coffins.
He found dozens of inscribed ossuaries, which included the names Jairus, Jonathan, Joseph, Judah, Matthias, Menahem, Salome, Simon, and Zechariah. In addition, he found one ossuary with crosses and the unusual name "Shappira" - which is a unique name not found in any other first-century writtings except for the Book of Acts (5:1).
As he continued his excavations, Bagatti also found a coffin bearing the unusual inscription "Shimon bar Yonah" (= "Simon [Peter] son of Jonah").
An inscription, found on a first century coffin bearing the sign of the cross, reads: "Shimon Bar Yonah" = "Simon [Peter] son of Jonah".
Copyright © 1998 Jerusalem Christian Review
Below are Ten major New Testament proofs, which completely disprove the claim that Peter was in Rome from the time of Claudius until Nero. These Biblical points speak for themselves and ANY ONE of them is sufficient to prove the ridiculousness of the Catholic claim. Notice what God tells us! The truth IS conclusive!
PROOF TWO:
Paul specifically told the Gentile Romans that HE had been chosen to be their Apostle, not Peter. "I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable" (Rom. 15:16). How clear! Paul had the direct charge from Christ in this matter. He even further relates in Romans 15:18 that it was Christ who had chosen him "to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed." PAUL Established The Only TRUE Church at Rome.
PROOF THREE:
We are told by Paul himself that it was he -- not Peter -who was going to officially found the Roman Church. "I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established" (Rom. 1:11). Amazing! The Church at Rome had not been ESTABLISHED officially even by 55 or 56 A.D. However, the Roman Church would have us believe that Peter had done this some ten years before -- in the reign of Claudius. What nonsense!
PROOF FOUR:
We find Paul not only wanting to establish the Church at Rome, but he emphatically tells us that his policy was NEVER to build upon another man's foundation. "Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, LEST I SHOULD BUILD UPON ANOTHER MAN'S FOUNDATION"(Rom. 15:20). If Peter had "founded" the Roman Church some ten years before this statement, this represents a real affront to Peter. This statement alone is proof that Peter had never been in Rome before this time to "found" any church – because Peter was not in Rome.
PROOF FIVE:
At the end of Paul's Epistle to the Romans he greets no fewer than 28 different individuals, but never mentions Peter once! See Romans 16 --read the whole chapter! Remember, Paul greeted these people in 55 or 56 A.D. Why didn't he mention Peter? -- Peter simply wasn't there!
PROOF SIX:
Some four years after Paul wrote Romans, he was conveyed as a prisoner to Rome in order to stand trial before Caesar. When the Christian community in Rome heard of Paul's arrival, they all went to meet him. "When THE brethren [of Rome] heard of us, they came to meet us" (Acts 28:15). Again, there is not a single mention of Peter among them. This would have been extraordinary had Peter been in Rome, for Luke always mentions by name important Apostles in his narration of Acts. But he says nothing of Peter's meeting with Paul. Why? Because Peter was not in Rome!
PROOF SEVEN:
When Paul finally arrived at Rome, the first thing he did was to summon "the chief of the Jews together" (Acts 28:17) to whom he "expounded and testified the kingdom of God" (Verse 23). But what is amazing is that these chief Jewish elders claimed they knew very little even about the basic teachings of Christ. All they knew was that ``as concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against" (Verse 22). Then Paul began to explain to them the basic teachings of Christ on the Kingdom of God. Some believed -- the majority didn't. Now, what does all this mean? It means that if Peter, who was himself a strongly partisan Jew, had been preaching constantly in Rome for 14 long years before this time, AND WAS STILL THERE -- how could these Jewish leaders have known so little about even the basic truths of Christianity? This again is clear proof Peter had not been in Rome prior to 59 A.D. There is no mention of Peter in Paul's Letters.
PROOF EIGHT:
After the rejection of the Jewish elders, Paul remained in his own hired house for two years. During that time he wrote Epistles to the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, Philemon, and to the Hebrews. And while Paul mentions others as being in Rome during that period, he nowhere mentions Peter. The obvious reason is -- the Apostle to the circumcision wasn't there!
PROOF NINE:
With the expiration of Paul's two year's imprisonment, he was released. But about four years later (near 65 A.D.), he was again sent back a prisoner to Rome. This time he had to appear before the throne of Caesar and was sentenced to die. Paul describes these circumstances at length in II Timothy. In regard to his trial, notice what Paul said in II Timothy 4:16. "At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men [in Rome] forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge." This means, if we believe the Romanist Church, that Peter forsook Paul, for they tell us Peter was very much present at Rome during this time! Peter thrice denied Christ, but that was before he was indwelt by the Spirit at Pentecost. To believe that Peter was in Rome during Paul's trial, and FORSOOK Paul as he forsook Christ, is absolutely untenable. Peter did not forsake Paul; PETER WAS NOT IN ROME.
PROOF TEN:
The Apostle Paul distinctly informs us that Peter was not in Rome in 65 A.D. -- even though The Romanist Church says he was. Paul said: "Only Luke is with me" (II Tim. 4:11). The truth becomes very plain. Paul wrote TO Rome; he had been IN Rome; and at the end wrote at least six epistles FROM Rome; and not only does he NEVER mention Peter, but at the last moment says: "Only Luke is with me." Peter, therefore, was never Bishop of Rome!
Near 45 A.D., we find Peter being cast into prison at Jerusalem (Acts 12:3, 4). In 49 A.D., he was still in Jerusalem, this time attending the Jerusalem Council. About 51 A.D., he was in Antioch of Syria where he got into differences with Paul because he wouldn't sit or eat with Gentiles. Strange that the "Roman bishop" would have nothing to do with Gentiles in 51 A.D.! Later in about 66 A.D., we find him in the city of Babylon among the Jews (I Pet. 5:13). Remember that Peter was the Apostle to the CIRCUMCISED. Why was he in Babylon? Because history shows that there were as many Jews in the Mesopotamian areas in Christ's time as there were in Palestine. It is no wonder we find him in the East…. scholars say Peter's writings are strongly Aramaic in flavor, the type of Aramaic spoken in Babylon. Peter was accustomed to their Eastern dialect.
At the times the Romanists believe Peter was in Rome, The Bible clearly shows he was elsewhere. There are, of course, many supposed historical accounts of Peter in Rome -- but none of them are first-hand accounts, and none of them should be put above the many accounts of The Bible.
The Sword of the Spirit: On the Apostles Peter and Paul
"There is a hundred times more evidence that Peter was buried in Jerusalem than in Rome." ~~ Rev. Father J.T. Milik, Roman Catholic Priest and archaeologist
"Well, we will have to make some changes... but for the time being, keep this thing quiet." ~~ Pope Pius XII, the Bishop of Rome
I was just teasing, I knew you had a reason for the awkwardness.
SD
Nero is personally identified with the Beast, but he is also identified as one of the seven heads of the Beast.
Five are fallen (Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius), and one is (Nero), and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space (Galba, who reigned from June, 68 to January, 69).
These are the Seven Heads of the Beast upon whom the Whore sits (and, of course, Nero is the reigning Head when John writes; hence Nero's direct personal identification with the Beast).
The whore Babylon, who is the “Great City” (Revelation 18:10) whom John tells us specifically is Jerusalem (Rev. 11:8), ~~ This is a false equivalence and total baloney. "And the woman which thou sawest is the great city which hath kingdom over the kings of the earth." (Revelation 17.18) Rome had kingdom over the kings of the earth, not Jerusalem. Rome is the great city referred to here. Thus, Rome is mystical Babylon.
Tsk, tsk -- You are confusing the political power of the Beast of Seven Hills (Rome) with the religious power of the Harlot Great City (Jerusalem).
Josephus points out repeatedly that the nations had historically recognized the sanctity and centrality of the Temple: “This celebrated place . . . was esteemed holy by all mankind” (The Jewish War, v.i.3; cf. v.ix.4; v.xiii.6). In fact, the action of Jewish rebels, in the summer of A.D. 66, of halting the daily sacrifices for the Emperor (in violation, Josephus points out, of long-standing practice) was the single event which finally precipitated the Roman war against the Jews (ii.xvii.2-4). Even at the very end, as Titus prepared to raze the city to the ground, he was still pleading with the Jewish priests to offer up the sacrifices, which by now had been entirely discontinued (vi.ii.1). (Chilton, "The Days of Vengeance")
And so again we see -- The Whore Babylon is the Great City Jerusalem (Revelation 11:8) who is seated upon the Beast of Seven Hills (Revelation 17:3,9) who has Seven Heads (the Caesars), the Whore who will come to be hated and ruined by the Beast.
"Because all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication: and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her; And the merchants of the earth have been made rich by the power of her delicacies." (Revelation 18.3) - Jerusalem was not a major city and not a place of great merchandising.... "And they cast dust upon their heads and cried, weeping and mourning, saying: Alas! alas! that great city, wherein all were made rich, that had ships at sea, by reason of her prices. For, in one hour she is made desolate." (Revelation 18.19) - Jerusalem had no ships, and made no one rich.
Hermann, now you're just being silly.
In the midst of a lengthy passage describing Jerusalem’s extensive commerce, Edersheim reports: “In these streets and lanes everything might be purchased: the production of Palestine, or imported from foreign lands – nay, the rarest articles from the remotest parts. Exquisitely shaped, curiously designed and jewelled cups, rings, and other workmanship of precious metals; glass, silks, fine linen, woolen stuffs, purple, and costly hangings; essences, ointments, and perfumes, as precious as gold; articles of food and drink from foreign lands – in short, what India, Persia, Arabia, Media, Egypt, Italy, Greece, and even the far-off lands of the Gentiles yielded, might be had in these bazaars. Ancient Jewish writings enable us to identify no fewer than 118 different articles of import from foreign lands, covering more than even modern luxury has devised.” (Chilton, ibid.)
"And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived in delicacies with her, shall weep and bewail themselves over her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning:" (Revelation 18.9) - no kings wept for the burning of Jerusalem.
As we have already seen, the Temple of Jerusalem "was esteemed holy by all mankind" and Titus himself was begging the Jews to offer up the Sacrifices for the Emperor even as he razed the Whore City to the ground.
"And saying: Alas! alas! that great city, which was clothed with fine linen and purple and scarlet and was gilt with gold and precious stones and pearls." (Revelation 18.16) - a description of imperial majesty.
A description of the Temple of the Whore Jerusalem, whose splendor virtually defied Josephus' power to describe:
Josephus described the luxurious wealth of the Temple’s facade (cf. Luke 21:5): “The first gate was 70 cubits high and 25 broad; it had no doors, displaying unhampered the vast expanse of heaven; the entire face was covered with gold, and through it the arch of the first hall was fully visible to an onlooker without in all its grandeur, and the surroundings of the inner gate, all gleaming with gold, struck the beholder’s eye.... The gate opening into the building was, as I said, completely overlaid with gold, as was the whole wall surrounding it. Above it, moreover, were the golden grapevines from which hung grape clusters as tall as a man. In front of these hung a veil of equal length of Babylonian tapestry embroidered with blue, scarlet and purple, and fine linen, wrought with marvelous craftsmanship.... The exterior of the sanctuary did not lack anything that could amaze either mind or eye. Overlaid on all sides with massive plates of gold, it reflected in the first rays of the sun so fierce a flash that those looking at it were forced to look away as from the very rays of the sun. To strangers as they approached it, it seemed in the distance like a mountain clad with snow; for any part not covered with gold was of the purest white.” (Chilton, ibid.)
The carnal grandeur of the Whore City Jerusalem, clad in the finest scarlet and purple of Babylon itself.
"And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, who have not yet received a kingdom: but shall receive power as kings, one hour after the beast. ... And the ten horns which thou sawest in the beast: These shall hate the harlot and shall make her desolate and naked and shall eat her flesh and shall burn her with fire." (Revelation 17.12, 16) ~~ Continuing, since the Harlot is Rome, why not interpret the ten kings as the ten German tribes which invaded and destroyed Rome - say the Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Vandals, Seuvi, Burgundians, Franks, Saxons, Lombards, Allemanians, and The Whore Babylon is the Great City Jerusalem (Revelation 11:8) who is seated upon the Beast of Seven Hills (Revelation 17:3,9) who has Seven Heads (the Caesars), the Whore who will come to be hated and ruined by the BeastBavarians.
Why, you've left out Attila the Hun!! How many times does a guy have to sack Rome to get a mention on your list? Of course, you have to leave out the Huns -- if we counted all the tribes who descended upon the carcass of the Western Empire, we'd end up with a lot more than ten in a hurry.
No, Hermann -- the Ten Horns "have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast"; these being the ten Imperial provinces of Rome: Italy, Achaia, Asia, Syria, Egypt, Africa, Spain, Gaul, Britain, and Germany. "And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire."
I will grant that there is something to be said for a secondary interpretation of some of these prophecies for Jerusalem, but I think the primary meaning is with Rome.
The Beast is Rome.
The Whore, as John states (the Greek ov Rev. 17 is emphatic with a definite article), is THE Great City -- whom he identified specifically in Revelation 11:8 as "the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified". The Old Covenant bride of God who had made of herself a Whore, clad in Babylonian scarlet and purple, fornicating with the kings of the earth, riding upon the Beast of Rome, drunken with the blood of the Saints: Jerusalem.
See #262
(/plagiarism off)
Council Of Nicea
CANON VI.
LET the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.
NO PRIMACY!
Come now, OP, as a good sola scriptura Protestant, it is you, of all people, who should be downright offended that someone is trying to pass off an ossuary labelled, "Simon bar Jonah," as Peter's.
Deborah raised this issue early on. Our Lord changed Simon bar Jonah's name to Peter. And all Christians should be just a little offended at the suggestion that after that man died, either Peter, himself, or the early Christians would take it upon themselves to change his name back to Simon bar Jonah.
Old Reggie has strained mightily to offer the arguement Jesus, himself, changed Peter's name back after the Ressurrection.
Sorry, Reg, but that "dog won't hunt." And here's why.
If your theory were true, if it were true that Jesus specifically intended to change Peter's name back to Simon bar Jonah, then the man known as Peter should be referenced ever after the Ressurection as Simon bar Jonah.
But he's not. Instead, in all the Epistles and in Acts, in all the writings describing Peter's actions after the Ressurection, Peter is always called Peter.
Granted, in two instances the name "Simon" is variously attached. In Acts 10, as pointed out by Deborah, Peter is referred to as Simon, known as Peter. Though throughout other verses in Acts Peter is just called Peter.
The second place Simon shows up in connection with Peter comes in, ironically enough, 2nd Peter where Peter, himself, introduces himself as "Simon Peter."
Otherwise, in 61 other instances in the Epistles and Acts, when Peter is mentioned by name, he is called, "Peter." Indeed, Peter calls himself, "Peter," at the beginning of his first epistle. Paul calls Peter, "Peter," five times in Galations alone. Nowhere, post-Ascension, does anyone ever refer to Peter anywhere as Simon bar Jonah. Always the name Peter is attached.
Hence, OP, it is the Bible which testifies against this ossuary. It strains credulity that such an important Apostle could have his name changed by Our Lord, could be called by that name by virtually everybody for decades, could call himself by that name for decades, and then be interred without any mention of that name showing up on his ossuary.
I have a feeling you don't understand what it is you are reading.
SD
I don't think that Reggie is trying to claim that Jesus "changed Peter's name back"; Old Reggie was simply pointing out that in the last recorded conversation between Jesus and Peter, Jesus Himself called him by the name "Simon".
I.E., the man had a couple of names -- Peter, (the name given him by Jesus), and Simon (the name given him by his mom & dad). If Simon Peter died and was buried within the region of Jerusalem, it's not unimaginable that his "headstone" would have borne his "family" name. The Sons of Zebedee had the "descriptive" name Boanerges or "Sons of Thunder"; but if we found a "Yaakov-bar-Zebedee" (James of Zebedee) ossuary I honestly don't know enough about 1st-century burial customs to know whether or or not we'd expect to find "Boanerges" on the ossuary as well.
Seriously, OP, to continue to equate these two things is to discount the testimony of Sacred Scripture. There is a difference between these two instances. And I think you know that.
Secondly, to try to lay my argument off on 'we don't know enough about 1st century funeral customes' is a bit disingenuous. Surely the ancient Christians would have found some way of honoring the wishes of Our Lord by somehow indicating the Simon bar Jonah in question was called, "Peter." Even if this were to 'break' custom. That's sort of what they were all about, anyway.
Here's what it comes down to, OP. With respect to this ossuary, who are you going to believe, the speculations of some post-modern archeologist, or the Bible?
John 21:
"Simon, son of John,".
Maybe you have to strain to deny the words of Jesus. I don't. Did Jesus call him Peter?
Not in this one specific instance, no. However, if you believe all of the New Testament was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and if you believe that wherever the Holy Spirit is, there, too, is Jesus and God the Father, then it follows that Jesus called Peter, "Peter," at least 63 times after His Ascension given that's how many times Peter is called Peter in the Acts and the Epistles.
Dear God, please let it happen... the Korean Presby's I've met were awesome.
The Bible simply doesn't tell us what Simon Peter had inscribed on his ossuary. Fact is, my understanding is that oft-times ossuaries were purchased in middle age or so (which Peter may have been when first called by Christ) on account of the uncertain life expectancy in the first century.
If that's the case, Simon bar-Jonah may have already purchased his intended ossuary before he was ever called to the Apostolate.
Brings to mind a similar declaration:
"The Bishop of Constantinople shall hold the first rank after the Bishop of Rome, because Constantinople is the new Rome".
"There is one God, and Christ is one, and there is one Church, and one chair founded upon Peter".
"And when all were silent, for it was beyoned man's reach to learn, Peter, leader of the Apostles, and chief herald of the Church, uttering no refinement of his own..."
"He who deserts the chair of Peter on whom the Church has been founded, does he still believe that he is in the Church"?
"Peter, the leader of the choir, the mouth of all the apostles, the head of that tribe, the ruler of the whole world, the foundation of the Church, the ardent lover of Christ"
"The Savior confided to this man [Peter], as some special trust, the whole universal Church, after having asked him three times: 'Dost thou love me'?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.