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
On the contrary -- the Walvoord citation would best describe the condition of Laodicea in AD 65 -- a wealthy, self-sufficient and self-satisfied City which enjoyed such riches that they were able to rebuild their city without Roman assistance after the First Great Laodicean Earthquake of AD 65. While Walvoord believes that the Revelation was written in AD 95, his description is simply inapplicable to the Laodicea of that day -- the city itself had been levelled in the Second Great Laodicean Earthquake of AD 66, and would not be rebuilt until the time of Marcus Aurelius, at least six decades or so after the destruction of the Second Great Earthquake.
The textual evidence of Revelation itself confirms the AD 65 date, wherein John describes Laodicea thusly:
This passage aptly describes the Laodicea of AD 65, so wealthy and self-satisfied that they had rebuilt their city without Roman financial aid only five years before. It is completely inapplicable to the Laodicea of AD 95, which was laid utterly to waste in the Second Great Earthquake of AD 66 and which would not be rebuilt until the days of Marcus Aurelius, long after John's death. In fact, it's completely inapplicable even to a Laodicean "region" whose principal city had been destroyed in AD 95 and never rebuilt until deep into the next century; as the wealth of Laodicea was always attributed by all ancient writers particularly to the City of Laodicea itself, not to the surviving stragglers who might have remained in the general "region" after the devastation of AD 66.
The fact is, the only reason which one would apply John's description of Laodicea as "rich, and increased with goods" to the flattened ruin of AD 95 is a desire to preserve a Domitianic date for Revelation which is, after all, derived only from an incorrectly translated quotation from a writer (Irenaeus) whose dating of events is already known to be at least 25-30 years suspect, based on his decades-mistaken record of the Death and Resurrection of Christ in the same century as the Revelation itself!!
If not motivated by a desire to maintain the (incorrectly-translated and highly-suspect) Domitianic date, no-one would think to apply John's description of rich self-satisfaction to the flattened ruin of Laodicea in AD 95 -- the description itself only makes sense when applied to the wealthy and self-satisfied city of AD 65.
It is still obvious to me that the depths of apostasy seen in Pergamos and Thyatire could not have come about in a minuscule 3 years after Paul.
It only took the Corinthians some 3 to 5 years from Paul's apostolate there to descend into sexual immorality worse even than the pagans; so we really have no good reason to suppose that the similar apostasy could not have occurred in other Churches as well.
And your sense of Irenaeus timeline is not necessarily the issue either: the specific name Domitian IS used. If I confuse the time of William Henry Harrison's presidency, but use his name as the instigator of an event, my intent is clear in the use of the name. At a minimum, an observer after many years who does not know my mind should wonder if I did not mean the name that I did use.
At the very least, Irenaeus' flubbing the timeline of the most important event of the First Century (the Life, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ) by 25 to 30 years makes his dating of any event in that century highly suspect by a margin of two or three decades... enough to be dismissed as completely-unreliable evidence, at any rate.
Besides which, as noted before, if the Irenaeus quotation is correctly translated such that the Verb agrees with the Subject, then Irenaeus is referring to the last days of John himself (in AD 95-96), NOT the Revelation (which the Syriac manuscript attests, was received by John during the reign of Nero).
Let's rephrase the question.
John refers to Jerusalem as THE Great City in Revelation 11:8, describing her as Sodom and Egypt. He refers again to THE Great City in Revelation 16:19, describing her as Babylon. Now, given that he has already told his readers that THE Great City is Jerusalem, and has described her as Sodom and Egypt -- what internal textual evidence suggests to you that John is describing a different "THE Great City" than the one which he has already identified in Revelation 11:8? Having described her as Sodom and Egypt, why not also describe her as Babylon?
No one said that Domitian did not persecute Christians, if tortures and banishings and the like counts as "persecution". There just is not any contemporaneous evidence of any actual martyrdoms under the much-exaggerated Domitianic persecution. (A persecution can be exaggerated by later writers, and still have been a hard time for those who were persecuted). Re-Read the quotation.
First off, I already noted that Jerusalem was a Great City in the 1st Century AD whose "suburbs" extended well beyond the city gates. At the time of Passover, it's population quadrupled from 250,000 to over one million residents and pilgrims within a "Sabbath's day journey" of the city (not within the city walls itself).
Now then -- Howzabout we look to Infallible Scripture for some evidence as to the Population of Jerusalem and Israel in the 1st Century AD? In the first place, since the 2 Samuel informs us that the able-bodied men of Israel numbered some 1.3 million in David's day (II Samuel 24:9), we can estimate a total population of at least 4-5 million in the Israel of King David. Thus, an estimate of 2-3 million in the general area of 1st-Century Syro-Palestine is not unreasonable, nor is an estimate of 250,000 in the City of of Seven Mountains (Jerusalem) and its suburbs.
Furthermore, Acts 21:20 informs us that there were "many myriads" of believing Messianic Jews in the area of Jerusalem alone (Acts 21:17,20; "they" being contrasted to the "Jews which are among the Gentiles" in Acts 21:21) -- literally, many tens of thousands (a plural "myriad" giving us at least 20,000, but "many myriads" giving us more like 30-50,000).
If there were at least 20-50,000 believing Messianic Jews in the area of Jerusalem and its suburbs by the time of Acts 21, just what do you suppose was the total population? Certainly vastly higher than your paltry estimate of 10,000; again, an estimate of 250,000 is reasonable, and here the testimony of Josephus and Tacitus enjoys support from the direct testimony of Scripture itself.
best, OP
I'm not familiar with your Tertullian quote. By chance, do you know the citation? Thanks.
I completely understood your reference.
Frankly, ET illustrates why a correct understanding of Revelation -- and specifically the correct identification of the Whore of Babylon with Apostate Jerusalem -- is so important. I know, because I've been there myself, not so very many years ago -- as long as a Protestant conceives of Revelation as a futuristic book (never mind John's insistence on "things which must shortly come to pass) and conceives of Roman Catholicism as the Whore of Babylon, he's going to fall victim to the temptation of eisegetically interpolating any stitch of "evidence" he can find into the service of his pet theories regarding Romanism as the Mother of Harlots, etc. etc. etc.
By contrast, the correct indentification of the Whore of Babylon with Apostate Jerusalem enjoys two cardinal (hah! pun!!) virtues:
Tantumergo and I disagree on the precise dating of Revelation (I say AD 65, about a year before the "time, times, and half a time" of the 3.5-year Jewish Wars; he favors AD 69, within a year of the Destruction of the Temple itself), but I suspect he'd agree with me on those points.
Thanks. I don't own the Jurgens book, but Tertullian's five Books Against Marcion are available at http://www.gnosis.org/ (itself a heretical pro-Gnostic website, but with an extensive Library of the anti-gnostic Patristics).
Well, yes, I'd agree -- but bearing in mind that the Last Day and the Second Advent is prefigured at several points in the Iconography of Revelation...
...But I would reserve that as a Narration of future events, we only really see John's viewpoint start to "telescope out" towards the very end of Revelation:
For the most part, as a Narration of future events (temporarily laying aside the Iconography sprinkled throughout the Book), John stays very true to his promise to Reveal the "things which must shortly come to pass" (Rev. 1:1) and concentrates upon God's "Covenant Lawsuit" against the Apostate Whore Jerusalem, and the fulfillment of her Judgment in AD 70.
As to whether John predicted this Judgment by 3.5 years ("time, times, and half a time") as I maintain, or with even more immediacy -- approximately 1 year, as you maintain Tantumergo -- hmmm. Off the top of my head, I would point out that Laodicea was laid waste by the Second Laodicean Earthquake of AD 66, which makes an AD 69 date for Revelation (or any date after AD 66) most unlikely; but it's not impossible that the date of the Second Laodicean Earthquake is "off" by a couple of years (I've seen estimates for the First Laodicean Earthquake ranging from AD 60 to AD 63). So that's a good question; I'll get back to you on that.
Best, OP
D'oh -- yes, of course. I should not have overlooked that.
Good catch. The Seven Trumpet Judgments are precursors to the final "Vials of Wrath" (or as Chilton translates them, the "Seven Chalices of Wrath") -- "The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly." (Revelation 11:14)
Harlot makes no sense with respect to Rome as Rome was never in a covenant with God - not before or during St. John's lifetime anyway.
Bingo. Exactly correct.
Also we have the important designation of the city as "HARLOT" (which is one major difference in the Petrine and Johannine designation of Babylon IMHO).
Out of curiosity, do you see something in the Petrine "Babylon" which clearly distinguishes his usage from the Johannine "Babylon"?
Or are you simply pointing out that John is particularly focused upon the fact that "The Great City Babylon" which he describes is a God-forsaking Whore, whereas (I will admit) Peter describes no such particular focus in his own passing reference to "Babylon"? Just curious.
Thanks!! OP
There were certainly "Old Testament saints" -- I never maintained otherwise. After all, the Predestinarian Church has been around for six thousand years.
But what Great City is adjudged by God, in Scripture, as guilty of the murders of Saints and Prophets? Jerusalem -- always Jerusalem. God Himself says so, in Luke 13:33: "for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem".
Using "Scripture to interpret Scripture" (an exegetical maxim which you have previously endorsed), there is one Great City which is held by God in Scripture as particularly guilty of the murder of Saints and Prophets -- Jerusalem. Always Jerusalem.
Ergo, "Babylon" of Revelation = Jerusalem.
'Nuff Said.
Having posted this thread "for discussion" (and I am not some "post-and-run" Disruptor; I have posted the article, and I have discussed it), I think that the discussion of the "Simon Bar-Jonah" Ossuary has very nearly reached a Stalemate.
Did Simon Peter write from Jerusalem... or from Rome?
Was Simon Peter buried in Jerusalem... or did he merely purchase his Ossuary therein, only to later be crucified in Rome?
I consider myself stalemated on these questions... but I have enjoyed the thread immensely. At the very least, I have relished the opportunity to prove and buttress my argument for an important dichotomy of the Johannine Revelation:
I am thrilled with the Proofs of Revelation which have developed on this Thread. Be assured, my Romanist "separated brethren" (ye wayward brethren, who have strayed from the Predestinarian Faith) -- when I post my "Commentary on Revelation", there shall be no more Vain and False Imaginings of Roman Catholicism as the "Mother of Harlots".
We shall know you as you are... the "prodigal brethren" of the 6,000-year-old Predestinarian Church -- who shall be greeted with joy, and celebration, and fatted calf, when finally you Romans return to the 6,000 year-old Church of Absolute Predestination. For the Final loosing of Satan yet approaches.... and we must then stand together....
best, OP
Again, there are two Roman Laodicea's. One in Asia, and one in Galatia. The one in Asia is near Colossae. The one in Galatia is near Iconium and Lystra. After the one in Asia was destroyed by an earthquake, do you have any evidence that it was uninhabited? What evidence is there for us to determine which city is referred to?
Look at any history atlas, and you can find the ten German kingdoms that destroyed Old Rome and the West, and the provinces they took over. Again, 1) Saxons (Britain), 2) Franks (Gallia, Germania Inferior), 3) Burgundians (Narbonensis, Germania Superior), 4) Bavarians (Noricum), 5) Lombards [Langobards] (Pannonia), 6) Ostrogoths (Italia, Illyricum), 7) Visigoths (Hispania), 8) Suevians (NW Hispania), 9) Vandals (Africa, Numidia, Sardinia, Corsica, Mauretania), 10) Allemannians [Lothringians] (Germania Superior).
However, within the interpretive rule that we must identify the Ten Horns as ten powers which give their power and strength to the Caesars, there we can identify ten powers which had received no kingdom yet but receive power as kings one hour with the beast and give their power and strength unto the beast. While, in terms of administrative divisions, there were a varied number of Imperial Provinces, as a rule, there were always Ten Senatorial Provinces .
I'm afraid you are wrong in what you are talking about. Here is a list of Senatorial provinces at that time:
1) Italia, 2) Sicilia, 3) Narbonensis, 4) Baeltica, 5) Numidia, 6) Africa, 7) Cyrenaica, 8) Creta, 9) Achaia, 10) Macedonia, 11) Noricum, 12) Asia, 13) Bithynia and Pontus, 14) Cyprus. ("Der grosse Atlas Welt-geschichte", pp. 34-35, Orbis-Verlag)
Please let me know whan you determine which four of these were not really Senatorial provinces.
However, under the imperium of Galba (who continued for a short space during the Jewish Wars) and also Vespasian and Titus (the two generals most responsible for the desolation of Jerusalem, and who later came to power as Emperors) the privileges of the Senate were respected for a short time.
Galba (and Otho and Vitellius) was not a real Emperor of the Romans. The Emperor who continued for a short space was Titus (AD 79-81). The book was written in the reign of Vespasian (AD 69-79). Thus "five have fallen" is Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero (Julius Caesar was not an Emperor, and did not rule a Roman Empire). "One is" is Vespasian, in whose time the book would appear to have been written (supporting Tantumergo's claim of AD 69-70). The future eighth is Domitian, who in his cruelty and bestiality, was considered a reincarnation of Nero.
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.