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

Jerusalem Christian Review ^ | 11-23-2003 | OP

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Jerusalem Burial Cave Reveals:
Names, Testimonies of First Christians
by Jean Gilman

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

---

A Consideration of the Apostolate of Saint Peter

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 ONE:
We should consider Christ's commission to Peter. This is often very embarrassing to Catholics, because Christ commissioned Peter to become chief minister to the CIRCUMCISED, not to uncircumcised Gentiles. "The gospel of the CIRCUMCISION was unto Peter; (For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)" (Gal. 2:7-8). Here we have it in the clearest of language. It was Paul, NOT Peter, who was commissioned to be the chief Apostle to the Gentiles. And who was it that wrote the Epistle to the ROMANS? It certainly WASN'T Peter! "And when James, Cephas [Peter], and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace [i.e., the gift or office] that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision" (Gal. 2:9). Paul further mentioned his special office as the Gentile Apostle in II Timothy 1:11: "Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles." PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles! This precludes him from going to Rome to become the head of a Gentile community.

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

THE VATICANUS -- Keller ought to have better logic to know that this Peter buried in this cemetery, of all places, could NOT be the Apostle Peter. In the first place, Peter was a Jew, and they had to be buried in their own cemeteries. This is quite a big step from not even being able to eat with gentiles to be buried is the special cemeteries reserved for the chief pagans and self-proclaimed Gods or "Pators". And even if by a happen-chance a Jew could be buried in a Roman cemetery, it is most unlikely that a Jew -- especially one who attacked the Roman religion as the Apostle Peter did -- would ever have been allowed into the most holy of pagan cemeteries! This cemetery was reserved for prophets, soothsayers and the great ones of pagan Rome. I personally think that the apostle Peter would not be caught dead in a pagan cemetery.

---

"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

[Hermann the Cherusker]

It is an error to think carnally in regards to the Church ... the Church is a spiritual entity ... founded upon the death of its leader (to the eyes of the world) ... and spread by the persecution of its followers.

The Church is incarnate - a city shining upon a hill. It is both visible and invisible.

[Quester]

Not at all. Jesus was born to die for us. But he gave us the Church to stand forever, not to be subsummed in the destruction of Jerusalem.

Nor was it.

And, surely, you are not imtimating that GOD needed the power of the Roman Empire to accomplish His purposes, are you ?

[xzins]

I'm saying that any item stated as objective reality must stand on its own merit.

A lie is not a fact; an error is not a fact; a misrepresentation is not a fact.

A statement of objective reality is the only thing that is a fact.

I will agree that one might find more lies in some sources than in others, and that such would make it hard to use those sources without intentionally checking every item.

Nonetheless, if one checks something and finds it accurate, it stands on its own merit. Like someone said to me yesterday, "even a broken clock is right twice a day."

Although, I must say that your concern is valid. I, for example, will not send many of my parishoners to cult meetings hoping they're discerning enough to pick out the few facts from the mass of misrepresentation.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

And, surely, you are not imtimating that GOD needed the power of the Roman Empire to accomplish His purposes, are you ?

No God used the power of the Roman Empire for His purposes.

[OLD REGGIE]

Gee Dave I thought you were on vacation. I knew if you had been reading this thread you would have taken TheCrusader
to task for his filthy lies.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

The bible does not say that Peter feared James! It says he feared "those of the circumcision," meaning James and his allies. One gets the sense that they were a bit of a mob.

I didn't get that sense (James the Righteous doesn't really come across as a mobster in Acts 15, but to each his own), but your point that he feared the Men of James come to Antioch frankly makes the matter worse... now we have a supposed "Pope" who is genuflecting not just to a mere bishop, but to the bishop's itinerant subordinates.

Are these the actions of one who himself holds administrative Supremacy in the Church? Put simply... no. They are not.

Anyway, Paul chastises him for *failing* to issue doctrine, not for issuing a false one. When we read about the case in Acts, we find that Peter issues a doctrine, and the rest of the apostles consent to it. Now if Peter doesn't rank above Paul, why doesn't Paul do correct them himself? Rather, Paul appeals to the authority (Peter) to issue decide the matter.

There's no record that Paul appealed to Peter(and we certainly have record of Paul "appealing to authority" in cases when he actually did so!).

Peter then corrects the bishop whose diocese it is (James), who then corrects his presbyters (priests).

Peter does not address himself to James. What is more, the presbyters, after listening to Peter say his piece on the subject, turn their attention to listen to Paul and Barnabas some more (Acts 15:12).

So what we have here... Paul and Barnabas speak. Then Peter speaks. Then Paul and Barnabas speak some more.

Then James rules his judgment upon the matter... and everyone does what James says. (James has spoken; the matter is at an end).

[Quester]

The Church is ... a city shining upon a hill.

So it is.

But the light of the Church is its spiritual light ... that which the world does not possess.

As it shone forth from Jesus ... so, also, ... it shines forth from the true Church.

[SoothingDave]

I knew if you had been reading this thread you would have taken TheCrusader to task for his filthy lies.

Please see 119.

I am of the opinion he simply did not know that "Orthodox Presbyterian" was a variety different from the normal PCUSA or PCA. It's so hard to keep track of all of them.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Nonetheless, if one checks something and finds it accurate, it stands on its own merit.

Well, duh. Whom do you trust to tell you what is "accurate" is the question. Web sites full of obvious lies and slander do not seem, to me personally, to be good sources to "check" the "accuracy" of anything.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Are these the actions of one who himself holds administrative Supremacy in the Church? Put simply... no. They are not.

I'm glad you have now added to the Pope's power an absolute bravery in the face of danger and an inability to feel mortal fear. It's good to know you think popes are impervious to human influence. I see setting up this strawman makes it easier to knock down the papcy later, like when it fled into Avignon. Very clever of you.

SD

[Quester]

No God used the power of the Roman Empire for His purposes.

Indeed He did ... as He does of all things.

The question is ... how ?

And, of course it is true that Satan used the power of the Roman Empire, as well.

[xzins]

Given political correctness in social sciences and humanities, one could make a case against history books being taken as treasures full of facts.

Measure twice, cut once.

[xzins]

Just for fun, let's take the statement: Peter was in Rome in 65 AD, and determine how to decide if it is a fact, a statement of objective reality. Then let's decide if it is actually a fact.

[SoothingDave]

The question is ... how ?

The answer is that God Incarnated His Church into the world and it spread throughout the Empire that He had previously prepared for the task. God won, remember?

To consider the Catholic Church as nothing more than a carrier for the parasite of "true" Christianity is to make God too weak to spread His Own Gospel, needing to hide and burrow into something stronger in order to be spread so that the special chosen could discover the hidden secret.

God is not the Easter Bunny.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Just for fun, let's take the statement: Peter was in Rome in 65 AD, and determine how to decide if it is a fact, a statement of objective reality. Then let's decide if it is actually a fact.

Frankly, as it has been demonstrated here, it is quite impossible. One must either believe the Catholic Church along with many other denominations, along with the majority of scholars and bound references works. Or one must believe those who believe those are in some type of conspiracy to conceal the real truth.

SD

[dangus]

Peter claims Christ told him not to force gentiles to be circumcised. He backs down and James continues the practice. Paul tells Peter to do what's right. Peter tells James he's wrong; James changes his mind and agrees with Peter and Paul.

Who's in charge here? Sure as heavens looks like Peter to me!

[lockeliberty]

Just for fun, let's take the statement: Peter was in Rome in 65 AD, and determine how to decide if it is a fact, a statement of objective reality. Then let's decide if it is actually a fact.

That's easy. First, the RC Church claims it to be true and if it claims it to be true it must be true because the RC Church is true because it claims to be true. With circular reasoning you can't lose.

[OLD REGGIE]

I am of the opinion he simply did not know that "Orthodox Presbyterian" was a variety different from the normal PCUSA or PCA. It's so hard to keep track of all of them.

He had been made aware several times, even to the point of comparing it to any group with "Catholic" in it's name.

He knew better. It's just that he enjoys wallowing in his filth.

[Quester]

The answer is that God Incarnated His Church into the world and it spread throughout the Empire that He had previously prepared for the task. God won, remember?

To consider the Catholic Church as nothing more than a carrier for the parasite of "true" Christianity is to make God too weak to spread His Own Gospel, needing to hide and burrow into something stronger in order to be spread so that the special chosen could discover the hidden secret.

God is not the Easter Bunny.

The truth is that God can spread His gospel any way He chooses.

It would never be up to us to judge God based upon His choice of methodology.

1 Corinthians 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

[xzins]

How does one determine if any statement regarding the past is a statement of objective reality?

All you can do is compile the evidence and counter-evidence and see how compelling is your case.