You wrote:
“Now that is an interesting statement: “his cult originated very early in Rome”. One would not use that to describe the church founded by the apostle Peter, but it would be fitting to use it to describe the followers of Simon Magus, who came to Rome during the reign of Claudius and had a 25 year bishopric.”
(sigh) The word “cult” is not used to describe the Church. It is used to describe the veneration of St. Peter. Every saint or martyr’s veneration can be referred to by this word: cult. It has no connection to the modern use of the word “cult” and no one should ever make the mistake you did and confuse a reference to the cult of a saint with a reference to the Church itself.
“And since Vatican Hill was a pagan graveyard where sorcerers, magicians, soothsayers, and seers, like Simon Magus were buried, one would expect to find his body buried there -— not Peter’s.”
Wrong again. I was in Rome in February and had the privilege of taking the Scavi tour. If you’ve never done it (and I am willing to bet money you haven’t), it is an amazing experience. Under St. Peter’s there is indeed a cemetary. It is a Christian one. But the Christians were not the first ones there. First it was a pagan cemetary. Later, Constantine turned it over to Christians (after the Roman pagans had a chance to retrieve the remains of their pagan ancestors to re-locate them elsewhere. Some of the tombs are largely intact. You can see how they were once pagan tombs, named after famous families, but were later taken over by Christian families who buried their loved ones there and left behind numerous Christian symbols. A priest I know (who was an artist and art historian before becoming a priest) gave tours there over the last year or so. The profusion of Christian symbols and wall writing was amazing.
“Peter’s bones are in an ossuary at Dominus Flevit on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem where you would expect them to be.”
Nope. I saw St. Peter’s bones. They are underneath St. Peter’s basilica right where they were always claimed to be. Even the wall writings give credence to that. You might want to read Walsh’s book on the bones of St. Peter.
You mean this book reviewed here: The Bones of St. Peter by John E. Walsh.
“In response to mounting demand, however, Pius finally permitted rigorous scientific examination of the bones in 1956. It emerged that the remains were actually bones of three different people, along with scores of animals. Of the humans, two were men in their 50s, and one was a woman in her 70s. Clearly, these were not the fisherman’s bones....
"As this disappointment unfolded, another scholar, Margherita Guarducci, worked to decipher some strange graffiti found on a necropolis wall. One day in 1952, she inquired about a nearby cavity, the one previously emptied by Kaas. Segoni, still laboring away on the project, led her to the bones he’d placed in a storeroom years before. She made nothing of them, simply recommending that the specialists take a look.
"A decade later, those bones were identified as those of a man 5 feet 7 inches tall, of heavy build, age 60 to 70. The hollow of the bones contained soil, suggesting they had lain in a bare earth grave. Stains suggested the bones had been wrapped in a purplish, gold-threaded cloth.
"In the meantime, Guarducci pieced together a partial inscription by the cavity as Petros Eni, which in ancient Greek could mean “Peter is within.” The bones gathered from the cavity by Kaas, she concluded, must be those of Peter – moved out of the tomb 1,800 years ago, perhaps during a persecution.
"Guarducci presented her theory to Paul VI in 1964. After additional tests, the pope was convinced, despite dissent from three of the original four archaeologists. Paul announced that the bones of Peter had been identified 'in a manner which we believe convincing.' On June 27, 1968, Paul reinterred them, stored in 19 Plexiglas cases, in Peter’s tomb."
[http://www.catholicdigest.org/stories/200105052a.html]
Three out of four archeologists agree that you saw the bones of someone shorter and younger than Peter --- not the Apostle Peter.
In Search of St. Peter's Tomb by Dr. Steven Hijmans
On December 23, 1950, in his pre-Christmas broadcast on radio, Pope Pius XII announced the discovery of St. Peter's tomb far below the high altar of St. Peter's basilica in the Vatican. This was the culmination of 10 years of archaeological research under the crypt of the basilica, carried out by two Jesuit archaeologists and their colleagues. Monsignor Ludwig Kaas, the administrator of St. Peter's, had overall authority over the project and reported about it directly to the Pope himself.
Between 1939 and 1949 this team had uncovered an impressive complex of mausoleums under the foundations of the church, dating to the 2nd and 3rd centuries. From their perspective the most spectacular find was, beyond doubt, the small monument under the present altar of the church which, all evidence suggests, was built as early as AD 160 to mark the tomb of St. Peter below it.
But from a scholarly perspective many other aspects of this complex are equally fascinating. It is striking, for instance, that although the monument above St. Peter's tomb is unequivocally Christian, all the mausolea in the necropolis around it were pagan. Accustomed as we are to associating the Roman Empire before Constantine with the persecution of Christians, it is interesting to note that Christians were apparently able to erect such a monument in an otherwise pagan area at this time.
The numerous mausoleums in the necropolis, often quite intact and well-preserved, are also of obvious interest. One mausoleum, designated mausoleum M, has sparked much debate because of the mosaics with which it is decorated. One figure in particular, depicting the sun-god, is often interpreted as Christ. This would make the mausoleum the single exception to the rule that all mausolea in the necropolis are pagan. However, this mausoleum has been the focus of some of my own research that deals with the Roman sun god, and I question the Christian interpretation given to its mosaics. But it is through this mausoleum that I became interested in this complex as a whole.
Returning to the tomb of St. Peter, its discovery immediately raised the question of the remains of the apostle. Did the excavators find them in the tomb under the monument? This is what Pope Pius XII said in his radio broadcast:
The tomb of the Prince of the Apostles has been found. Such is the final conclusion after all the labour and study of these years. A second question, subordinate to the first, refers to the relics of Saint Peter. Have they been found? At the side of the tomb remains of human bones have been discovered. However, it is impossible to prove with certainty that they belong to the apostle.
Little did he know what a bizarre episode in Christian archaeology lay ahead when he spoke these words. The whole subsequent story has been clearly set out by Dr. J. Curran in the journal Classics Ireland but I will summarize it here. Although the scant remains of bones found in the tomb were initially identified as those of a man in his late sixties, more extensive study later revealed that they actually belonged to an older man, a younger man, a woman, a pig, a chicken, and a horse.
This was disappointing, but meanwhile Margherita Guarducci, an epigraphist studying the graffiti on the monument above the tomb, had discovered that there had actually been a second burial associated directly with the monument. The excavators were unaware of this second burial through no fault of their own. The problem was that these archaeologists, as scholars, had dealt with their finds--including human remains--as archaeological data. Monsignor Kaas, a cleric rather than a scholar, thoroughly disapproved of this and as a result there had been a growing rift between the excavators and their superior. Increasingly, Kaas had taken to visiting the site alone, when the others were gone, guided by workmen sworn to secrecy.
On one such visit, in 1942, he had noticed this second tomb in the monument, newly uncovered but as yet unopened, and had ordered the workman accompanying him to open it. The tomb was not empty, and convinced that this was yet another burial that would soon be desecrated by the Jesuit archaeologists, Kaas had ordered the remains removed and stored for safekeeping. Guarducci discovered these events by pure chance, and by that time Kaas had died. So when Paul VI, a family friend of the Guarduccis, was elected pope, she informed him of her belief that in fact these remains were the true remains of Peter. The bones were found where Kaas had stored them and when testing revealed that they did indeed belong to a man in his sixties, Paul VI officially announced, on June 26th 1968, that the relics of St. Peter had been discovered.
Numerous scholars, including Curran, are by no means convinced that Guarducci was right and that these bones are indeed those of St. Peter. There are in fact numerous cogent arguments against that suggestion. However, none of the alternative hypotheses put forward are convincing either, and this leaves us with two tombs, a monument, and no relics.
Does that matter? It is true that we will probably never know with certainty which of the various bones--if any--belong to St. Peter, but while scholars puzzle over the nature of these remains, is it not enough that under the high altar of St. Peter's we have identified the remains of a monument marking a tomb that has drawn Christian worshippers continuously for over 1850 years? It is in that, one would think, that the true importance of this monument lies.
Dr. Steven Hijmans is a professor of history and classics and also a member of the Religion and Culture Network at the University of Alberta. This article was written in conjunction with a lecture series, "Exploring Our Past: Historical Perspectives on Christianity", that was co-organized by the Faculty of Arts and McDougall United Church. See the ExpressNews What's On - Lectures section for more information about this lecture series, which continues until June 14, 2001.
The U of A Department of History and Classics Web site: http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/~histclas/ The U of A Department of Comparative Literature, Religion, and Film and Media Studies Web site: http://www.humanities.ualberta.ca/comparative_studies/