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
Has more panache than "keeper of the bridges." ;-)
SD
Two serves you won't answer: "And the woman which thou sawest is the great city which hath kingdom over the kings of the earth." (Revelation 17.18) Jerusalem never ruled the earth, Rome did. You can't address or refute this point. - ACE! "And there came one of the seven angels who had the seven vials and spoke with me, saying: Come, I will shew thee the condemnation of the great harlot, who sitteth upon many waters: ... And he said to me: The waters which thou sawest, where the harlot sitteth, are peoples and nations and tongues." (Revelation 17.1, 15) Jerusalem did not sit upon many peoples, Rome did, not only being the confluence of all peoples, but also their dominator and even betimes their opressor (as the worthy Hermann the Cherusker would know). - ACE! Game, set, match OP.
You wanna talk about "False Equivalences"? How about the way that, despite the fact that Revelations 17:2 (and many other citations) makes clear that Babylon's crimes against God are foremost SPIRITUAL in nature, you keep presuming that she "hath kingdom" of a POLITICAL in nature?
The Great City's kingdom was a SPIRITUAL kingdom.
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")
But the Great City used her religious power to raise up the peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues against the Saints of Jesus Christ.
Thus, the Old Covenant bride of God, Jerusalem, whose Temple was esteemed holy by all mankind -- had made of herself a filthy, blood-drunken Whore of Babylon.
So there's your two serves... and now you answer one of mine:
"Two serves you won't answer", Hermann.
Um... not that I'm qualified to criticize, but...
...don't you think that's a little harsh, editor?? (and I say that I someone who is impressed with your arguments for the Pauline authorship of Hebrews).
I'll jump in uninvited here and respond to Jude's arguments on my own, if I may.
Beyond that, editor-surveyor still receives some points for his arguments that the Paul was closely associated with Timothy (Hebrews 13:23) and was the Apostle sent to Italy (Hebrews 13:24); editor's arguments there remain unanswered and do suggest Pauline authorship for the Epistle to the Hebrews.
JMHO. Thoughts?
best, OP
Dangus, I have said from way back in Post #40 that Jerusalem is Mystical Babylon. The reason I didn't deal with the Beast (i.e., Rome) until Post 203 (well before 262) is that Post 203 was my first opportunity to properly respond to Hermann's lengthy #60, in which he claimed that Rome was Mystical Babylon. You will note that as early as Post #203 I maintained the same theological position which I have maintained throughout:
So what's this "late in the conversation" business?
1. The whore is a queen, not a priestess.
Actually, the Whore is a Whore.
In Revelation 18:7, the Whore is saying in her heart that she is a queen -- but God sees her as a Whore.
That said, who was the Old Covenant bride of God, if not Jerusalem? And what is the bride of a Great King, if not a Queen?
But this Bride of the Greatest of all Kings had made of herself a Whore, fornicated with the kings of paganism and murdered the Messiah.
2. The world's traders mourn her, not the world's priests. (although scandalizing in the evil done to the poor, the money-changers wouldn't have an impact on the world trade that they'd notice it, while Rome was just burnt.)
I don't say that the traders did not mourn the burning of Rome. I'm sure that they did.
But I do say that the traders mourned the desolation of Jerusalem, as John prophesied:
3. The event you say precipitated the war was one of purifying Jerusalem from its "adultery", zealots refusing to permit Yahweh being lumped in with pagan gods!
The action of the Zealots did nothing to "purify" Jerusalem from her crime of murdering the Messiah; nor did it purify her of raising up the peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues against the Saints of Jesus Christ.
Jerusalem's spiritual duty at that point was to repent of her persecution of God's People and repent and turn to the Messiah. That the Whore refused to turn a Trick for her Roman Beast did nothing to absolve her of her crimes against "Jesus, whom thou persecuteth"; it just made the Beast angry.
4. The metaphor still does not fit. In what way is Jerusalem like Babylon?
She had become a center of hatred for God and spiritual adultery. Or what would you call raising up the peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues against the Saints of Jesus Christ?
Hatred for God, maybe? Spiritual Adultery, perhaps? That is what God calls it: "And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. (Revelation 17:6)
In what way does Jerusalem ride on the back of Rome once the zealots have won politically?
Jerusalem, the Whore of Babylon, has prostituted herself to the Beast of Rome when John is writing. She is presently "riding upon the Beast" at the point of John's authorship (AD65). THEN she enrages the Beast, who turns on her and destroys her (AD66-70).
5. Rome (the Beast), in your supposition, would have turned on Jerusalem (the whore). But nowhere in Revelations does this come through.
The Beast has Seven Heads and Ten Horns. The Ten Horns receive Power with the Seven-Headed Beast and give their power and strength to the Beast and hate the Whore and burn her with fire and give their kingdom unto the Beast. (Revelation 17:10-17)
If you'd like, I can post a whole bunch of pictures of the Arch of Titus and the other celebrations of the Destruction of Jerusalem under Nero, Galba, and Vespasian (and Titus)... which were erected by the Senate, they of the Ten Senatorial provinces, who received power again for "one hour" with the Beast when Galba who "continued for a short space" restored their Senatorial privileges and honors.
How many would you like to see?
The map shows Jerusalem as about 2-3 miles wide by 5 miles north-south. I don't know how that adds up to 1 square mile in your book... and 1 square mile certainly doesn't allow for the large population of Jerusalem described by Tacitus and Josephus, et al.
Of the Seven Mountains, two out of the three you referenced were specifically identified as "Mounts"; and as noted, Psalm 125:2 establishes that God considers the Mountains of Jerusalem to be, in the aggregate, "Mountains". Hence, if Revelation 17:9 refers to the geographic position of the City Babylon, the "Seven Mountains".
On the other hand, rereading it over and over again, I can't accept that they Babylon and the Beast are seperate cities. The beasts heads are 7 hills; she sits on the hills. She doesn't sit on the beast, which sits on the hills. But to say that the scarlet beast is Jerusalem sounds, well, satanic. Jerusalem was corrupted, but the beast itself is evil (hence, the Bishop of Rome serves from outside it!).
The Beast is Rome and the Seven Caesars (and, presumably, the Ten Senatorial provinces with the Imperium).
The Whore who rides upon the Beast, OTOH, is THE Great City (Revelation 11:8) who is guilty of the murder of the Saints and, specifically, guilty of the murder of the Prophets. Now where in Scripture, anywhere in Scripture, is ROME said to be guilty of the blood of the Prophets?? Name that Scripture!!
What city does God judge guilty of the blood of the Prophets, dangus? "For it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem" (Luke 13:33).
On reflection, I can see the ten horns turning on the woman corresponding to the beast itself turning on the woman, if not for the fact that the horns are kings. I can't grasp how *ten* kings attack Jerusalem, which is why I never bought it earlier. Nor can I picture the kings of the earth mourning her, nor did she deceive the nations with her sorceries, nor were her merchants the great men of Earth.
At the end of the day, Jerusalem is THE Great City (remember, you have never cited any textual reason why Revelation 16:19 is speaking of a different "THE Great City" than the one already established in Revelation 11:8), who deceived the nations into attacking the Church of Christ, the Old Covenant bride of the Greatest King who had made herself a Babylonian-clad Whore, who was guilty of the blood of the Saints and the Prophets.
I did think it the weaker of editor's arguments; but I still like his Hebrews 13 argument.
The references to people who know Paul are understandable, due to the fact that the church wasn't all that large in those early days.
True, but Paul seem to be the sort of authority who could command "Salute all them that have the rule over you" (Romans 13 deja vu?) and speak on behalf of "They of Italy". And "our brother Timothy" seems to be a close friend of the author, again suggesting Paul. (Heb. 13:23-24)
Wouldn't it be a hoot if the author(ess) of Hebrews is Priscilla? (I once heard an argument that this is the reason why the book is anonymous).
Well... since the author is anonymous, I can't say for certain that she's not.
I've always been partial to the Pauline theory and I do like editor's argument from Hebrews 13 -- but, I guess we'll all find out someday.
By the way, Jerry, my fellow ex-premillenialist -- have you been reading my "Babylon/Jerusalem" posts on Revelation? The Roman Catholics are giving me a good workout; I'm finding more and more info to use on my eventual (long-delayed) Revelation thread.
That's my sense also... it has the "ring" of Paul to it (I don't claim I can say with any certainty, and you and Jerry could both comment on the Greek whereas I cannot).
Unfortunately for you, you didn't check deep enough. The Popes did not always confirm every Canon from every Council, especially the ones where Bishops in the Eastern Church were trying to extend the authority of Peter's throne to Constantinople. In another early Council, the Council of Chalcedon, (451 AD), Canon # 28 was never confirmed by the Holy See because it appeared derogatory to Papal primacy.
This contention over primacy from the East is precisely why so many of the contemporary Saints and bishops from the East confessed Rome to hold the primacy, they were clearly helping to settle the dispute. You have seen the many quotes I posted earlier.
I posted many powerful pieces of evidence to Rome's primacy, not just the one you decided to respond to. I will take this to mean you have no answer for them.
pax Christi
Why don't you re-read the thread and see just how many Responses I had to answer? #203 was my response against the first argument that "Rome = Babylon". I respnded that "Rome = Beast; Jerusalem = Babylon" and have maintained that position throughout.
* That Jerusalem had foreign trade is not in dispute. That it would cause global horror that its trade ended is what is in dispute. Compared to Rome burning, no one would notice the loss of Jerusalem. Get real!
But John is not comparing Jerusalem's burning to that of Rome. He is simply stating that the merchants of the (New Testament) World would lament the loss of the Jerusalem markets.
Are you saying that death of 1.1 million Jewish customers and the loss of a market (Jerusalem) which swelled to over 1 million people at Passover would go un-noticed in an Empire of perhaps 50 million? That would be like the loss of a city of a market of 6 million here in the USA -- say, the complete and utter annihilation of the greater Chicago metropolitan area, Chicago and all its suburbs. No one would notice? The merchants would not mourn?
"Get Real!"
* Yes, God sees her as a whore, but there still is considerable royal imagery with her.
The Old Covenant bride of God -- what would you call the bride of the Greatest of all Kings?
But this Bride of the Great King has made of herself a Whore, by her murder of the Messiah (Revelation 11:8) and the Saints and Prophets (Revelation 16:6). What Great City does God judge guilty of the blood of the Prophets, dangus? ROME?? Name one citation in Scripture.
Fact is, "it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem" (Luke 13:33)
* The actions of the zealots did not purify Jerusalem, no, nothing could remove the stain of the killing of Christ (to which the killing of the saints in nothing!), but it did mean she was no longer committing adultery, which is the point of the metaphor.
She is raising up the peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues against the Saints of Jesus Christ. That doesn't strike you as Spiritual Faithlessness?
* Babylon was known neither for hatred of God, nor committing adultery, that's not how Jerusalem relates to Babylon. Babylon was transformed when it learned of God through Daniel; it had never been wed to God, so how did it commit adultery in any way than the hundreds of other cursed cities in the OT did? Nor did it hate the God it knew not, in any way that any other pagan country did. AT least Babylon was changed.
"Babylon" was nonetheless a metaphor for hatred of God and spiritual fornication -- of which Jerusalem was wholly guilty when John was writing.
* Glad you can pinpoint the time of the writing by John. No-one else is so certain.
Well, you're welcome. Glad I could help.
John's writing of Revelation preceded the Jewish Wars of AD66 by a short span ("things which must shortly come to pass"); writing from Patmos, where he was exiled (for the first time) during the Neronic persecution of AD64.
Since the fall was imminent, none of his other readers would have recognized the exact time of the writing, either.
I don't know what you are talking about here. There's historical evidence that many Christians of Jerusalem did indeed "come out of her, My people... that you may not receive of her plagues" (Revelation 18:4-5) and fled to Petra to escape the coming "double repayment of her deeds" (Revelation 18:6)
Listen, we can go on and on and on endelessly. You can offer your reasons for thinking Jerusalem=Babylon while Rome=the beast. Point is, Peter's writing wasn't meant by Peter to establish proof of where he lived; it just simply fits into a large historical record which establishes Peter was in Rome; it's significant because it fits a pattern. You've got nothing but an whack-job priest insanely ranting about secrets the Pope whispered to him, and who obviously thinks he needs to tell such fantastic stories because no-one took his "discovery" seriously. And who was too much of a nut job to simply find Peter's bones, but also had to find the entire cast of Godspell.
Actually, priests Bagatti and Milik did as they was told -- and chose not to published their discoveries very widely at all until given the go-ahead (which never came).
These articles are by those who have followed up on their work; Bagatti and Milik themselves didn't "rant" at all, and in fact gave relatively few interviews on the subject.
This is your cue to say, "Well, if they were so convinced of the authenticity, why didn't they make a big deal of it?!" The answer being, the Pope told them not to -- so they didn't. But significantly, no Roman Scholar has ever questioned the authenticity of the cave and the ossuaries, either. They have been measured, but have not been found wanting.
...keeping in mind that, especially on an early Saturday morning, Moderation can be a Virtue. ;-)
best, OP
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.