Jerusalem Burial Cave Reveals: Apostle Simon Peter buried in the Patriarchate of Jerusalem

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".

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!

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.

"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

Moving along (you already responded to my first-half response, but lemme finish up with my second-half first)...

OP's article does concede that there is non-biblical, historical evidence to suggest that Peter was in Rome. This is somewhat of an understatement. Often Catholics say "the unanimity of the Church Fathers." This often means that certain Church Fathers have written on a subject without being opposed, or, if opposed, having shown that they had settled the matter with authority. In this case, however, when I looked it up, I was surprised to find that all of the most ancient church historians that I most commonly came across had specifically mentionned Peter in Rome: Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Gaius, Origen, Eusebius, etc.

Well, you're surprised, I'm surprised -- now we're both surprised!

In my case, I'm surprised that when you looked it up, you were able to be surprised at Clement's and Ignatius' specific mentions of Peter in Rome, considering that neither of them ever mention Peter in Rome. For the sake of brevity I'll repost my response to "TheCrusader":

At least five Early Church Fathers, historians and Bishops wrote of Peter's death in Rome. Testimony of his martyrdom in Rome is extensive, including writings by Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, St. Clement I of Rome, St. Ignatius, and St. Irenaeus.

Let’s take a look at the Fathers whom you mention:

First Century

Clement of Rome -- No mention of Peter in Rome at all
Ignatius -- No mention of Peter in Rome at all

Second Century

Irenaeus -- Mentions only that Peter visited and preached in Rome (not denied by this article)

Third & Fourth Centuries

Tertullian & Eusebius – We now begin to see mentions of Peter’s martyrdom and burial in Rome. However, to accept these references as accurate, we are reduced to accepting the word of a Montanist heretic (Tertullian) who wrote about 140 years after the events in question, and Eusebius (whom Catholic Encyclopedia calls “provokingly ill-informed about the West”) writing some 250 years after the fact.

So we can see that a century-and-a-half or two after the fact a tradition began to develop to support the claim that Peter was martyred in Rome, but the development of a tradition a couple hundred years after the events is not really very sound evidence for the accuracy of the claim.

On the other hand, we have testimony in stone, from the first century AD, that Simon bar Jonah was buried near Jerusalem, along with Mary, Martha, and Lazarus, in a cemetery for Jewish Christians. Now, it may be claimed that this is not the “Simon bar Jonah” and not the “Mary, Martha, and Lazarus”, but the fact remains that as evidence for the claim it is much earlier and much more concrete (bad pun, sorry) than the traditions claimed as evidence by Roman Catholicism.

And that closing quote is a beaut... an unsourced "secret" quote from a Pope... "Don't tell anyone this, but it was dem critters from Roswell that killed Jack in Dallas!" -- President Lyndon B. Johnson. Even the UFO wierdos would at least make up a story for the source of such a quote.

Actually, the quotation is sourced to (Roman Catholic) Rev. Father P.B. Bagatti, author of Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit. See the second link provided above, scroll to "Saint Peter's Tomb".

As for Peter not wishing to be buried in a cemetary... After Peter was executed, his bones were unceremoniously dumped across the River Tiber, outside Rome, as a deliberate sign of disprespect. And it is there, outside Rome, where the Chair of St. Peter has remained to this day; The Vatican can never be identified as "Babylon," for it is not in Rome, but in exile across the Tiber.

As noted in my first response, I'm not arguing for Rome as the "Babylon" of Revelation; I'm pointing out that the Vaticanus was a cemetery reserved for the higher Pagan Magicians of the Mystery Religions. For Rome to allow a Jewish Christian who directly assaulted the Rome-endorsed Pagan Mystery religions to be buried therein -- would have been the height of irregularity (and therefore, probably didn't happen).

As for the Article which deceptively headlined this screed: Is it the assertion of the article that this cave is the burial place of Peter, son of John, and also of Mary, Martha, Lazarus, Mathew, Jude, and Salome? Given 1. the uproar of James' ossuary last year*, and 2. the presence of 1st-century attestations of Peter's death in Rome, 3. the weak source and lack of review I'm not impressed. (*For those of you who do not remember, within the past year, every major newspaper across the country ran sensational headlines about an ossuary which was found, saying, "James, son of Joseph, and brother of Jesus." What it actually said was "James of Joseph, of Jesus" which would imply nothing of the sort. The whole matter was quickly rendered moot when it was discovered that although the ossuary was 2,000 years old, the scratchings were fresh.)

There was always suspicion about the James ossuary, on account of the fact that it was (if memory serves) discovered in a private collector's hoard. Not so the burial cave and ossuaries referenced in the article, which by all accounts had been undisturbed and untampered since around AD70.

It's sorta like the difference between a fellow offering you a bottle of wine with the original cork on which the seal has never been broken, versus his offering you a bottle of wine which has obviously been opened and re-corked although he gives you his personal assurance that the wine is of the proper vintage. You'd have good reason for confidence with the first bottle (the Mary, Martha, Lazarus, Simon bar Jonah cave), but not necessarily the second (the James ossuary).

Well, now I have to run again, time to start the day... I'll try to get around to your second response later this afternoon.

best, OP

"Let’s take a look at the Fathers whom you mention: First Century. - Clement of Rome -- No mention of Peter in Rome at all Ignatius -- No mention of Peter in Rome at all."

Now, of course this is all smoke and mirrors, and I'm wondering when this presbytarian guy is going to defer back to anthropology again to "prove" his silly contention. He had a better shot at it with science than with history. But for now, let's take a look at the bigger picture.

Anti-Catholics, like this member of a church which blesses homosexual unions, will try to rewrite the historical record by claiming that Peter was never in Rome. By this sham they hope to prove that Peter, thus, was never Pope. But whether Peter went to Rome or not is unimportant in this particular argument, because if Peter was indeed the first Pope then Jesus conferred this position on him long before he left for Rome to be martyred with Paul. Here is what Ignatius wrote about Peter in the first century:

In his "Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.

Now, for purposes of exposing this charleton presbytarian who would sweep the historical record under the rug to play the shell-game of "Peter was not Pope because he was not in Rome", I will now send this creep back to kindergarten, where I hope he will listen to his teacher.

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” He then says the two departed Rome, perhaps to attend the Council of Jerusalem (A.D. 49). A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.

Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century. A fragment of his work Sketches is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea’s 'Ecclesiastical History', the first history of the Church. Clement wrote: “When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.”

Lactantius, in a treatise called The Death of the Persecutors, written around 318, noted that “When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 54–68), Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.”

Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.”

Peter himself tells us that he was in Rome in the Bible, when he refers to Rome as "Babylon". “The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13).

Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way six times in the last book of the Bible and in extra-biblical works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1).

Clement of Rome -- No mention of Peter in Rome at all

But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours, and when he had finally suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience. (Epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians, 5, [AD 80])

Interesting that Clement of ROME only disccusses the martyrdom of the two Apostles who died in ROME, and not the martyrdom of any others?

Ignatius -- No mention of Peter in Rome at all

Entreat the Lord for me, that by these instruments I may be found a sacrifice to God. I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles of Jesus Christ, but I am the very least [of believers]: they were free, as the servants of God; while I am, even until now, a servant. (Epistle of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Romans, 4, [AD 110])

Note well too that unlike the Churches of Asia, St. Ignatius issues no instructions to the Romans. Rather he recognizes: "Ye have never envied anyone; ye have taught others. Now I desire that those things may be confirmed [by your conduct], which in your instructions ye enjoin [on others]." (ibid., 3) because he is addressing "the Church ... which presides over love" (ibid, Introduction). Thus he exhorts them to: "Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love." (ibid., 9) The presidency of Rome in love over the Churches extends explicitly in St. Ignatius' mind over Syria parallel to that of Christ and to his own jurisdiction, which will be ended by his death.

Irenaeus -- Mentions only that Peter visited and preached in Rome (not denied by this article)

Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. (St. Irenaeus of Lyons, "Against Heresies", 3.1.1, [A.D. 189])
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.
The blessed apostles, having founded and built up the church, they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith, declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate has fallen to Eleutherius. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us." (ibid., 3.3.2-3)

I'd say St. Irenaeus mentions quite a bit more than Sts. Peter and Paul preachign in Rome.

Tertullian & Eusebius – We now begin to see mentions of Peter’s martyrdom and burial in Rome. However, to accept these references as accurate, we are reduced to accepting the word of a Montanist heretic (Tertullian) who wrote about 140 years after the events in question

Tertullian was a Catholic when he wrote in AD 200.

"But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John [the Baptist, by being beheaded]" (Tertullian, "Demurrer Against the Heretics", 36 [A.D. 200]).
"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (ibid., 32.2)

So we can see that a century-and-a-half or two after the fact a tradition began to develop to support the claim that Peter was martyred in Rome, but the development of a tradition a couple hundred years after the events is not really very sound evidence for the accuracy of the claim.

St. Clement mentions their martyrdom in his letter only a decade and a half after the event!

On the other hand, we have testimony in stone, from the first century AD, that Simon bar Jonah was buried near Jerusalem

No you have an inscription along with an inscription for the grave of a certain "Yehshua". What, no bones? No historical tradition among anybody?

but the fact remains that as evidence for the claim it is much earlier and much more concrete (bad pun, sorry) than the traditions claimed as evidence by Roman Catholicism.

I think the testimony of the Fathers, the bones, and the grave marked "Petros eni" in a Tropaion in a hall with altar and baptistery discovered DIRECTLY under the High Altar of St. Peter's only in this century (what a coincidence!), surrounded by graffiti's such as "Peter, pray Christ Jesus for the holy Christian men buried near your body" are rather more solid. Something made Constantine and the Church to violate Roman law and piety by filling in a graveyard to build a massive Bassilica Church on a certain spot, especially when level ground was available nearby.

A remarkable archaeological detective story begins in the year the Second World War erupted, when work got underway to lower the floor of the crypt beneath St Peter's known as the Sacred Grottoes. In 1939 Pope Pius XI died and preparations were made to inter him in the crypt beside Pius X. The Vatican authorities decided to take this opportunity to convert the subterranean parts of St Peter's into a 'lower church' – a task which required the lowering of the floor to create sufficient height. As they dug downwards, the workmen first came upon the floor of Constantine's basilica – just 20 centimetres below the pavement of the crypt. Beneath that they broke into a street of ancient Roman tombs from the 2nd century AD, sloping eastwards down Vatican Hill. To the west the street, running directly under the nave of the cathedral, headed in the direction of the current high altar. The whole city of the dead had been packed full of earth to form a gigantic horizontal platform upon which Constantine's basilica had been constructed. This was an enormous and costly feat of engineering which suggested to the Vatican archaeologists, appointed to investigate the find, that tremendous effort had been invested in building the basilica precisely at this spot. The four-man excavation team all belonged to the Papal Institute for Christian Archaeology and worked under the personal supervision of the Administrator of St Peter's Basilica, Monsignor Ludwig Kaas.
As Kaas and his colleagues worked their way westwards up the street of tombs, they began to find familiar early Christian motifs painted on the walls. Epigraphist Professor Margherita Guarducci was brought in and soon discovered a Latin graffito, painted on the wall of one mausoleum, which read: 'Peter, pray Christ Jesus for the holy Christian men buried near your body.' The inscription was dated to around AD 300.
Further on the excavators discovered an open court measuring 7 metres by 4 metres, bounded on its west (long) side by a thick red-plastered wall. Set into the face of the wall was an aedicula – an altar-like structure supported by thin columns. According to the surrounding archaeological evidence, this dated to around 160 AD – just a century after Peter's death. The team became very excited when they realised that the aedicula stood immediately below the high altar of St Peter's. The early Christian writer, Gaius (c. AD 200), had referred to the 'Tropaion of Peter' located on Vatican Hill. Latin scholars understood this to mean some sort of funerary monument standing over Peter's grave.
Kaas and his colleagues carefully proceeded to investigate the area beneath the red wall behind the aedicula. There they discovered an open space formed by an arch in the foundations of the wall. The brown earth of the tiny chamber's floor was sifted to reveal hundreds of coins from all ages and countries. These had been dropped down a narrow vertical shaft, the iron-grilled opening of which is to be found in the Niche of the Pallia where a new bishop's pallium (robe) is left overnight before his induction. The Niche itself is located in the Confessio (a sunken area in front of the high altar) which lies on top of the courtyard of the aedicula. During the Middle Ages and earlier, the 5-metre shaft, just 13 by 20 cms, became a place of pilgrimage where the devout could 'make contact' with St Peter's mortal remains. Within the chamber at the bottom of the shaft the archaeologists also found human bones. At first they were convinced that they had found the remains of St Peter but, sadly, a later anthropological examination determined that there were in fact three skeletons – those of two young males and a much older female. None could have belonged to Peter who died at a mature age. The disappointment in the failure to find St Peter's bones reached all the way up to Pius XII who had been keeping a close eye on the secret search for the founder of his line ... but then a remarkable thing happened.
The Vatican excavators had previously come across a 47 cm-thick buttress wall to the right of the aedicula, erected in the third century to support the red wall which had been showing signs of movement. The north plastered face of this buttress was covered in Latin names of early Christians who had presumably come to visit the original shrine to St Peter. A further investigation revealed that the wall contained a hidden repository, lined in marble. Unfortunately, the archaeologists found the hiding place empty – again no bones of St Peter. It was only in 1952 that the persistent delving of Margherita Guarducci uncovered an astonishing story which has to go down as one of the greatest archaeological blunders of all time.
A few months after the death of Ludwig Kaas a workman named Giovanni Segoni revealed to Guarducci that he and Kaas had returned to the shrine one evening in 1942, after the excavating team had gone home. Together they had opened the repository, exposed that day but, as yet, unexamined. Inside were several human bones. Kaas instructed Segoni to remove the contents and place them in a wooden box which was then hidden away in a storeroom. Of course, when the rest of the archaeologists came to investigate the repository, they found it empty. No-one was aware of what had transpired the previous night. To this day it is a complete mystery as to why the Vatican Monsignor, assigned the task of supervising the whole excavations by the pope himself, indulged in this clandestine operation. Kaas took his secret with him to the grave but, fortunately, Segoni was still there to take Guarducci to the storeroom in which the box lay forgotten and ignored. The bones were subsequently analysed and proved to be those of an elderly man of stocky build. A close examination showed they had once been buried in the soil beneath the aedicula and red wall. Red staining and fine threads of gold revealed that the relics had been wrapped in a fine woollen cloth, dyed in the emperor's purple and embroidered in gold. Whoever had been reburied in this secret repository must have been regarded with great esteem. Confirmation of the identity soon followed as, once again, fate played its part.
Back in 1950 archaeologist Antonio Ferrua had decided to re-examine the interior of the repository and, to his amazement, found that the previously empty container now held a new surprise. The fact is that the marble casing of the repository only covered the base and sides of the niche in the buttress wall. The upper part had been left open to the exposed bricks of the buttress and, at the short west end, the plaster of the red wall. A piece of that red plaster had been dislodged sometime since 1942, falling into the repository. Ferrua was immediately able to read letters scratched onto the surface of the plaster – letters which had been scribbled onto the inside west wall of the repository at the moment the bones had been sealed in their hiding place so many centuries ago. The Greek inscription read PETR[....] ENI. Two years later epigraphist Guarducci, having discovered that the repository had indeed held the bones of an old man, now realised the importance of this tiny plaster fragment. She translated the Greek graffito as 'Peter is within' or 'Peter is here'.
When was the shrine of St Peter founded? The 6th-century 'Book of the Pontiffs', Liber Pontificalis, claims that Pope Anacletus 'built and set in order a memorial shrine to the Blessed Peter, where the Bishops might be buried'. The problem is that Anacletus lived at the end of the 1st century AD – unfortunately too early for the erection of the 2nd century aedicula or Tropaion which is the visible monument for Peter's grave. However, there is another pope with a similar name – Anacetus – whose pontificate was around AD 155-65. It could well be that the writer of the Liber Pontificalis made a simple error and that the foundation of the shrine should be dated to this later pope's reign. What is interesting is that, behind the courtyard of the aedicula, the archaeologists found a room full of sarcophagi and, next to it, what seems to have been a baptistery. It is clear that the simple courtyard, with the aedicula as its focus, functioned not only as a church where the early Christians worshipped and received baptism, but also, just as the Liber Pontificalis states, as the burial ground where the first popes were laid to rest close to their founder.
The search for the bones of St Peter is surely one of the most fascinating archaeological stories of the 20th century. Not only was the project to dig beneath the massive cathedral of St Peter's a precarious business, but the results were almost beyond belief or expectation. Who would have anticipated the discovery of a street of Roman mausolea leading to the very first church of St Peter's, dating from just a century after the apostle's martyrdom; and finally the recovery of the first pope's bones themselves.
On June 27 1968 a simple ceremony took place in the excavated space beneath St Peter's high altar. Pope Paul VI and a select band of archaeologists carefully placed plexiglass boxes containing Peter's remains back into the repository where they had been found by Ludwig Kaas in December 1950. Those few shattered relics belonging to the 'Prince of Apostles' remain there today – a testimony to the remarkable tenacity of faith and tradition. The simple and romantic truth is that the church of Rome was indeed built upon the very rock (petros) of ages.

http://www.nunki.net/PerDud/TheWorks/Express/StPetersbones.html

Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam.

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.