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
Well, I may be reading the scale incorrectly. Since I'm not sure that square mileage is a big deal here (the population extended outside the walls at any rate), I'll grant the point for the sake of discussion and move on.
OK, the city on 2 mountains... not 7!
Alright -- Seven "peaks", if you will (Goath, Gareb, Acra, Bezetha, Zion, Ophel, and Moriah), which God considered in the aggregate to be Mountains (Psalms 125:2)
OK, you made a strong case for 11:8... but that city was destroyed in that chapter, and in a dissimilar way. And we ain't talkin' about chapter 11.
Sure we are. THE Great City is THE Great City -- you know, the one guilty of the blood of the Prophets -- that being Jerusalem. Revelation 11:12-13 directly corresponds to Revelation 16:17-18; Revelation 11:19 directly corresponds to 16:18-21 (I'll note that "the remnant" in 11:13 refers to "God's remnant", i.e., the fleeing Jerusalem Christians).
Revelation 16 just goes into a bit more detail, which is not uncommon for the Bible: summary followed by detail is a schematic we find in the First Book also -- Genesis 2 goes into more detail on the Genesis 1 creation of Man.
It's SILLY, do you Read me, SILLY, Downright PREPOSTEROUS to suggest that these descriptions fit Jerusalem, home of 1 God, worshipped at the time by 1 people, which was no longer accepting worship as part of the Partenon better than Rome, home of the Parthenon. OUTRAGEOUS! Snap out of it, man! You're comparing Sandusky to New York City; Helena to Washington, DC; Grenada to the Soviet Union!
The population of Rome before the Great Fire was perhaps 1 to 2 million -- of which tens of thousands died and hundreds of thousands left homeless. But the homes and buildings of Rome had to be rebuilt, and so massive relief and construction projects were undertaken (necessitating massive imports -- providing the merchants with much business).
By contrast, 1.1 million died in the Jewish Wars (remember, the population of Jerusalem during the Siege was recorded by Tacitus at 600,000, Josephus says more, as many Jews had fled to the City). But Jerusalem's markets were utterly destroyed, the city razed to the ground, her vast wealth utterly plundered. There would be no massive importing needs for the merchants to satisfy here -- the customers were ALL DEAD. An economic loss as great, in modern US terms, as if the City of Chicago and all its suburbs were suddenly annihilated and all her 6 million people slaughtered.
That was a great post, very enjoyable to read -- and a lot of interesting exposition on the equivalences between Jesus and Jonah and Peter and Jonah, particularly the latter part concerning Peter's Jonah-like mission to Jerusalem... but...
(And I just know that you're gonna sigh and smack your head against your keyboard)... it still doesn't say anything to contradict the International Bible Encyclopedia's observation that "Iona" may well be a contraction of "Ioannes".
I.E., if Bob's father generally goes by "Bill"; and Sam feels that, in reference to some point he is trying to make on Bob's behalf, he can drive the point home by using the formal "William"; that doesn't change the fact that "Bill" is just a contraction of "William". See what I mean?
Well, we should give the IBE credit for probably having a decent linguist or two on their staff, so they (hopefully) aren't inventing the "contraction" possibility out of thin air. And actually, some approximately-contemporaneous references from any Hellenistic source demonstrating the use of "Iona" as a contraction for "Ioannes" would serve as evidence.
But you're right, IBE should present such evidence -- instead, they just cite the authority of "Keim", whom I presume to be a linguist who has done such an etymological study but they don't give me any citation with which to study Keim's analysis. (Ugh!!)
Actually, (in fairness) -- the Roman Catholics have covered that point in pretty good detail; and their counter-arguments that Peter was commissioned to preach to "All men", did "open the gate" for the Gentiles, and did indeed preach to a lot of Gentiles are definitely supported by Scripture. That's a point I've granted them, although of course Scripture suggests that Peter may have had a ministerial focus as the "Apostle to the Circumcision" and Paul to the Gentiles.
Thanks... Like I said, I think it's entirely plausible that 1st-Century Christians might have employed "Babylon" as a metaphor for Rome, it's just that it occurs to me that I've never seen any actual evidence that they did.
And, I will admit in advance that even if Peter wrote his Epistles in John's "mystical Babylon" (i.e., Jerusalem), that would not in itself preclude the possibility that he journeyed to Rome thereafter... it's just that, at such point, we're getting Peter to Rome awfully late in his ministry (although admitting as possible the claim of Eusebius, 250 years later, that Peter spent time in Rome AD42-AD49 -- a claim neither anywhere supported, nor directly contraverted, by anything in Scripture).
Meet # 2, as I don't either!
Here is your text for 4 Esdras 3. You'll note that it is marked "2 Esdras", but if you'll check the table of contents you'll note that this follows the Slavonic, which in your Vulgate would be -- 4 Esdras.
Scholars date 4 Esdras to approximately AD97, which means that the author's "In the thirtieth year after the destruction of the city, I was in Babylon" definitely refers to Rome. That gives us a 1st-Century Jew -- which isn't exactly the 1st-Century Christian reference we are seeking, although I'm told that Ambrose quotes from 4 Esdras a lot so that gives us at least a tangential connection.
I can't find "Apocalypse of Baruch", just "Baruch", which I presume is the same book... as Baruch 2 does talk about Babylon, and seems to be referring to Rome, assuming a date in the Maccabean period (which, I guess, is reasonable).
Obviously, the Sibylline Oracles is probably your best, clearly "Rome = Babylon" is blatantly obvious therein; and the conception of Messiah as a "Heavenly Joshua" (section 346-350) at least puts it in the philosophical vicinity of Christian theology, suggesting a possible connection.
You can mess with the Text of Jubilees if you like... since this somewhat-painfully formatted copy is the best I could find, I don't want to. ;-)
Personally I think the Apocalypse was written between September AD 69 and March AD 70, but am prepared to be convinced of an earlier date if good reason is presented. ;) I have not read Chilton's book, but have heard very favourable reviews of it from orthodox Catholic sources.
IMHO, John was (first) exiled to Patmos in AD64, and wrote the Revelation prior to the onset of the Jewish Wars in AD66 -- after all, the reason that the Beast of the Seven Heads and Ten Horns "hates the harlot" is that in AD66, the Zealots interrupted the Temple Scarifices for the Emperor in Jerusalem (as noted in prior posts, this was the single most-important event which brought the legions of Vespasian and Titus to make war on Jerusalem).
So, with an early date of AD64 and a late date of AD66, I put John's Apocalypse in AD65, just about a year before the "time, times, and half a time" of the three-and-a-half year Jewish Wars.
Yeah, I know -- the Author was just teasing Protestants who equate Babylon with the Vatican (that citation is from the Roman Catholic "APOLOGIA" website, which argues that John's "Babylon" refers to Jerusalem).
Hrmmmmph....
Okay, I've considered it. Now I'll argue.
First off, complacency and downright apostasy is definitely possible as early as AD65 -- gosh, the Corinthians did a bang-up job of it well before then!! So let's move to the Irenaeus quote.
4.) Furthermore, the occurence of the 616 gematriya in the Latin mss. of Revelation proves Nero Caesar as the Beast of Revelation 13:18. "The name Nero Caesar transliterated into Hebrew from Greek yields the number 666. If it is put into Hebrew from Latin it gives the number 616, which is read in some early manuscripts of Revelation." -- New Bible Commentary, by Wenham, Motyer, Carson, France, 21st Century Edition, page 1443
And finally, in summation, the Title Heading of the Apocalypse preserved in the Syriac Manuscript of the New Testament:
Best, OP
No. Laodicea was a wealthy city, able to pay for its own reconstruction, not needing the offered Roman aid. (Tacitus, Annales, 14.27)
Xzins, you can continue to hold your head high...
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.