An inscription, found on a first century coffin bearing the sign of the cross, reads: "Shimon Bar Yonah" = "Simon [Peter] son of Jonah".
Posted on 11/23/2003 3:39:24 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
JERUSALEM, Israel - Does your heart quicken when you hear someone give a personal testimony about Jesus? Do you feel excited when you read about the ways the Lord has worked in someone's life? The first century catacomb, uncovered by archaeologist P. Bagatti on the Mount of Olives, contains inscriptions clearly indicating its use, "by the very first Christians in Jerusalem."
If you know the feeling of genuine excitement about the workings of the Lord, then you will be ecstatic to learn that archaeologists have found first-century dedications with the names Jesus, Matthias and "Simon Bar-Yonah" ("Peter son of Jonah") along with testimonials that bear direct witness to the Savior. A "head stone", found near the entrance to the first century catacomb, is inscribed with the sign of the cross.
Where were such inscriptions found? Etched in stone - in the sides of coffins found in catacombs (burial caves) of some first-century Christians on a mountain in Jerusalem called the Mount of Olives.
An inscription, found on a first century coffin bearing the sign of the cross, reads: "Shimon Bar Yonah" = "Simon [Peter] son of Jonah".
Like many other important early Christian discoveries in the Holy Land, these major finds were unearthed and the results published many decades ago. Then the discoveries were practically forgotten. Because of recent knowledge and understanding, these ancient tombs once again assume center stage, and their amazing "testimonies in stone" give some pleasant surprises about some of the earliest followers of Jesus.
The catacombs were found and excavated primarily by two well-known archaeologists, but their findings were later read and verified by other scholars such as Yigael Yadin, J. T. Milik and J. Finegan. The ossuaries (stone coffins), untouched for 2,000 years, as they were found by archaeologist P. Bagatti on the Mt. of Olives.
The first catacomb found near Bethany was investigated by renowned French archaeologist Charles Clermont-Ganneau. The other, a large burial cemetery unearthed near the modern Dominus Flevit Chapel, was excavated by Italian scholar, P. Bagatti.
Both archaeologists found evidence clearly dating the two catacombs to the first century AD, with the later finding coins minted by Governor Varius Gratus at the turn of the millenium (up to 15/16 AD). Evidence in both catacombs indicated their use for burial until the middle part of the first century AD, several years before the New Testament was written.
The first catacomb was a family tomb investigated by archaeologist Clermont-Ganneau on the Mount of Olives near the ancient town of Bethany. Clermont-Ganneau was surprised to find names which corresponded with names in the New Testament. Even more interesting were the signs of the cross etched on several of the ossuaries (stone coffins).
As Claremont-Ganneau further investigated the tomb, he found inscriptions, including the names of "Eleazar"(="Lazarus"), "Martha" and "Mary" on three different coffins.
The Gospel of John records the existence of one family of followers of Jesus to which this tomb seems to belong: "Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha. (It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick)..." (11:1,2)
John continues by recounting Jesus' resurrection of Lazarus from the dead. Found only a short distance from Bethany, Clermont-Ganneau believed it was not a "singular coincidence" that these names were found.
He wrote: "[This catacomb] on the Mount of Olives belonged apparently to one of the earliest [families] which joined the new religion [of Christianity]. In this group of sarcophagi [coffins], some of which have the Christian symbol [cross marks] and some have not, we are, so to speak, [witnessing the] actual unfolding of Christianity." A first-century coffin bearing cross marks as it was found by archaeologist P. Bagatti in the catacomb on the Mt. of Olives. The Hebrew inscription both on the lid and body of the coffin reads: "Shlom-zion". Archaeologist Claremont-Ganneau found the same name followed by the designation "daughter of Simon the Priest."
As Claremont-Ganneau continued to investigate the catacomb, he found additional inscriptions including the name "Yeshua" (="Jesus") commemoratively inscribed on several ossuaries. One coffin, also bearing cross marks on it, was inscribed with the name "Shlom-zion" followed by the designation "daughter of Simon the Priest."
While these discoveries were of great interest, even more important was another catacomb found nearby and excavated by archaeologist P. Bagatti several years later.
One of the first-century coffins found on the Mt. of Olives contains a commemorative dedication to: "Yeshua" = "Jesus". Bagatti also found evidence which clearly indicated that the tomb was in use in the early part of the first century AD. Inside, the sign of the cross was found on numerous first-century coffins.
He found dozens of inscribed ossuaries, which included the names Jairus, Jonathan, Joseph, Judah, Matthias, Menahem, Salome, Simon, and Zechariah. In addition, he found one ossuary with crosses and the unusual name "Shappira" - which is a unique name not found in any other first-century writtings except for the Book of Acts (5:1).
As he continued his excavations, Bagatti also found a coffin bearing the unusual inscription "Shimon bar Yonah" (= "Simon [Peter] son of Jonah").
An inscription, found on a first century coffin bearing the sign of the cross, reads: "Shimon Bar Yonah" = "Simon [Peter] son of Jonah".
Copyright © 1998 Jerusalem Christian Review
Below are Ten major New Testament proofs, which completely disprove the claim that Peter was in Rome from the time of Claudius until Nero. These Biblical points speak for themselves and ANY ONE of them is sufficient to prove the ridiculousness of the Catholic claim. Notice what God tells us! The truth IS conclusive!
PROOF TWO:
Paul specifically told the Gentile Romans that HE had been chosen to be their Apostle, not Peter. "I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable" (Rom. 15:16). How clear! Paul had the direct charge from Christ in this matter. He even further relates in Romans 15:18 that it was Christ who had chosen him "to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed." PAUL Established The Only TRUE Church at Rome.
PROOF THREE:
We are told by Paul himself that it was he -- not Peter -who was going to officially found the Roman Church. "I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established" (Rom. 1:11). Amazing! The Church at Rome had not been ESTABLISHED officially even by 55 or 56 A.D. However, the Roman Church would have us believe that Peter had done this some ten years before -- in the reign of Claudius. What nonsense!
PROOF FOUR:
We find Paul not only wanting to establish the Church at Rome, but he emphatically tells us that his policy was NEVER to build upon another man's foundation. "Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, LEST I SHOULD BUILD UPON ANOTHER MAN'S FOUNDATION"(Rom. 15:20). If Peter had "founded" the Roman Church some ten years before this statement, this represents a real affront to Peter. This statement alone is proof that Peter had never been in Rome before this time to "found" any church – because Peter was not in Rome.
PROOF FIVE:
At the end of Paul's Epistle to the Romans he greets no fewer than 28 different individuals, but never mentions Peter once! See Romans 16 --read the whole chapter! Remember, Paul greeted these people in 55 or 56 A.D. Why didn't he mention Peter? -- Peter simply wasn't there!
PROOF SIX:
Some four years after Paul wrote Romans, he was conveyed as a prisoner to Rome in order to stand trial before Caesar. When the Christian community in Rome heard of Paul's arrival, they all went to meet him. "When THE brethren [of Rome] heard of us, they came to meet us" (Acts 28:15). Again, there is not a single mention of Peter among them. This would have been extraordinary had Peter been in Rome, for Luke always mentions by name important Apostles in his narration of Acts. But he says nothing of Peter's meeting with Paul. Why? Because Peter was not in Rome!
PROOF SEVEN:
When Paul finally arrived at Rome, the first thing he did was to summon "the chief of the Jews together" (Acts 28:17) to whom he "expounded and testified the kingdom of God" (Verse 23). But what is amazing is that these chief Jewish elders claimed they knew very little even about the basic teachings of Christ. All they knew was that ``as concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against" (Verse 22). Then Paul began to explain to them the basic teachings of Christ on the Kingdom of God. Some believed -- the majority didn't. Now, what does all this mean? It means that if Peter, who was himself a strongly partisan Jew, had been preaching constantly in Rome for 14 long years before this time, AND WAS STILL THERE -- how could these Jewish leaders have known so little about even the basic truths of Christianity? This again is clear proof Peter had not been in Rome prior to 59 A.D. There is no mention of Peter in Paul's Letters.
PROOF EIGHT:
After the rejection of the Jewish elders, Paul remained in his own hired house for two years. During that time he wrote Epistles to the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, Philemon, and to the Hebrews. And while Paul mentions others as being in Rome during that period, he nowhere mentions Peter. The obvious reason is -- the Apostle to the circumcision wasn't there!
PROOF NINE:
With the expiration of Paul's two year's imprisonment, he was released. But about four years later (near 65 A.D.), he was again sent back a prisoner to Rome. This time he had to appear before the throne of Caesar and was sentenced to die. Paul describes these circumstances at length in II Timothy. In regard to his trial, notice what Paul said in II Timothy 4:16. "At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men [in Rome] forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge." This means, if we believe the Romanist Church, that Peter forsook Paul, for they tell us Peter was very much present at Rome during this time! Peter thrice denied Christ, but that was before he was indwelt by the Spirit at Pentecost. To believe that Peter was in Rome during Paul's trial, and FORSOOK Paul as he forsook Christ, is absolutely untenable. Peter did not forsake Paul; PETER WAS NOT IN ROME.
PROOF TEN:
The Apostle Paul distinctly informs us that Peter was not in Rome in 65 A.D. -- even though The Romanist Church says he was. Paul said: "Only Luke is with me" (II Tim. 4:11). The truth becomes very plain. Paul wrote TO Rome; he had been IN Rome; and at the end wrote at least six epistles FROM Rome; and not only does he NEVER mention Peter, but at the last moment says: "Only Luke is with me." Peter, therefore, was never Bishop of Rome!
Near 45 A.D., we find Peter being cast into prison at Jerusalem (Acts 12:3, 4). In 49 A.D., he was still in Jerusalem, this time attending the Jerusalem Council. About 51 A.D., he was in Antioch of Syria where he got into differences with Paul because he wouldn't sit or eat with Gentiles. Strange that the "Roman bishop" would have nothing to do with Gentiles in 51 A.D.! Later in about 66 A.D., we find him in the city of Babylon among the Jews (I Pet. 5:13). Remember that Peter was the Apostle to the CIRCUMCISED. Why was he in Babylon? Because history shows that there were as many Jews in the Mesopotamian areas in Christ's time as there were in Palestine. It is no wonder we find him in the East…. scholars say Peter's writings are strongly Aramaic in flavor, the type of Aramaic spoken in Babylon. Peter was accustomed to their Eastern dialect.
At the times the Romanists believe Peter was in Rome, The Bible clearly shows he was elsewhere. There are, of course, many supposed historical accounts of Peter in Rome -- but none of them are first-hand accounts, and none of them should be put above the many accounts of The Bible.
The Sword of the Spirit: On the Apostles Peter and Paul
"There is a hundred times more evidence that Peter was buried in Jerusalem than in Rome." ~~ Rev. Father J.T. Milik, Roman Catholic Priest and archaeologist
"Well, we will have to make some changes... but for the time being, keep this thing quiet." ~~ Pope Pius XII, the Bishop of Rome
ping
9 posted on 11/23/2003 6:35 AM MST by xzins (Proud to be Army!)
Interesting; but we have a more sure Word of G-d so says Peter!
NAsbU 2 Peter 1:19 So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.
a bondslave to the Christ
chuck
Exactly!
Because I had every confidence that interested members of the FR Roman Catholic Caucus would find their way here on their own accord.
After all -- you did, didn't you?
I don't say that disrespectfully, mind you... I just think it's a perfectly rational expectation on my part to suppose that any Roman Catholics who are browsing the "Latest Posts" page and think an article on the burial of Simon Peter to be of interest, are perfectly able to join the discussion without any need for me to hand-deliver an embossed invitation. Wouldn't you agree?
That said, I appreciate your comments and shall try to address them shortly. best, OP
Well, we know that Peter travelled to Antioch (in about 51AD or so), wherein Galatians 2:11-21 relates the record of Paul's rebuke of Peter.
It is occasionally argued by some Protestants (and some Eastern Orthodox) that Paul's rebuke of Peter constitutes evidence against the doctrine of Papal Supremacy and Infallibility -- but it doesn't (this is really a poor logical argument). Strictly speaking, neither hypocrisy or cowardice on Peter's part nor the rebuke thereof by a fellow Apostle (Paul), would itself comprise particularly strong evidence against Papal Supremacy and Infallibility (assuming such a dogma for the sake of discussion).
The real argument against Papal Supremacy and Infallibility found in Galatians 2 is much stronger when we consider just WHY Peter fell into hypocrisy concerning the Gentile Christians -- Galatians 2:12 explicitly tells us that it was because Peter feared James.
Now, if Peter was supposedly "Pope" -- then Peter's fear of James is quite an awkward square peg for one to fit into the hollow circle of Papal Supremacy. Instead, what we see in Scripture is the administrative supremacy of James the Righteous, the half-brother (or, according to the Eastern Orthodox view, the step-brother) of Jesus Christ and Bishop of Jerusalem. Peter reported to James (Acts 12:17); It was James, not Peter, who passed Judgment at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:13-22); James is accounted as the foremost of the Bishops (Acts 21:18); and as noted above, Peter himself feared the authority of James (Galatians 2:12).
A Jerusalem-centered Early Church under the general administration of James the Righteous thus accords much better with the actual record of Acts than any supposed Roman Papacy -- and better explains the Galatians 2 happenings in Antioch, as well. I think Xzins might have some thoughts on the matter (if he wants to add any comments).
Does that pretty well cover it, or had you further questions? Best, OP
Yeah right, just like they found the bones last year of "James the brother of Jesus". It turned out to be a fraud, just like this will be.
But there is some very good news in the find, because it PROVES beyond any doubt that the early Christians did indeed engrave, venerate and use the sign of the Cross, just as Catholics do to this day; which almost certainly means they venerated other holy representations, icons and paintings as well.
pax Christi
It didn't come off that way. It was a fair question.
Oops... back to formulating my responses.
If I am not mistaken, in this collection of burial boxes, one bears the inscription "Jesus Christ Lord" --- so much for the resurrection or at the very least, the biblical citations regarding the burial place of Jesus.
This very old Protestant claim is no longer believed even by modern Protestant scholars, as the evidece that Peter went to Rome is historically incontrovertibe. Many of the early Church Fathers and historians wrote of Peter living and dying in Rome. Here is just one such proof of Saint Peter's residence in Rome:
"But since it be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions 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 point out here the successions 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 faith which comes down to us after been announced to men by the Apostles"
Just to be clear on the subject, I'm not actually arguing herein against the possibility that Peter visited Rome (once, or more than once).
The main point of the Article is that according to the evidence of the Bible, he didn't spend much time in Rome (throughout the 40s, 50s, and 60s AD, he's sojourning in Jerusalem, Antioch, etc., but not Rome); and according to the evidence of Archaeology, he was not buried in Rome.
If Jerasulem had phone books back then you'd probably have found more Simon-bar-Jonahs than you'd find Chins in a Chinatown cafe.
Here are some Simons mentioned in the Bible, use your imagination to figure out how many others had the name, and then took the name after Saint Peter's death:
Simon Peter (the Apostle)
Simon the Cyrenian (Mark 15)
Simon Niger (Acts 1)
Simon Magus (Acts )
Simon the Leper (Mathew 26)
Simon the high priest (1 Maccabees)
Simon the Pharisee (Luke 7).
Simon the Zealot (Luke 6).
Simeon the Prophet - (Luke 2 ~ Simeon is Greek for Simon).
St. Peter's bones have already been found in Rome, but what does evidence matter when trying to discredit Matthew 16:18? ~~ Loyalist
And now, as Paul Harvey would say, The Rest Of The Story…
It’s entirely likely that there was a “Petrus” (or several) buried in the Vaticanus Cemetery; the Vaticanus Cemetery was reserved for high priests and soothsayers of the Pagan Mystery religions, and “Pator” or “Petr” was a title given to such Pagan Magicians. What is extremely unlikely is that a Jewish Christian, who directly attacked the Pagan Mystery religions as did Simon Peter Bar-Jonah, would be granted burial in the Vaticanus Cemetery for Pagan Magicians!!
On the other hand -- a Jerusalem cemetery for Jewish Christians? Now that’s the sort of place which would (certainly) admit Apostle Simon Peter Bar-Jonah for burial.... just as the archaeological evidence confirms.
And now you know…. The rest of the Story.
best, OP
Actually, "after Peter's death" is not in the cards here, as the usage of burial cave in question is dated prior to AD70 -- not thereafter.
Which doesn't, of course, alter the fact that there were lots of Simons running around prior to AD70; what narrows the matter down to the proverbial eye of a needle is the fact that we have a Mary, Martha, and Lazarus together with a Simon Bar-Jonah all together in a cemetery specifically reserved for Jerusalem-area Jewish Christians.
If the Apostle Simon Peter bar-Jonah died amongst the company of the Jerusalem Christian Church, then this is about what we would expect to find.
And this is what was, in fact, found.
Best, OP
This is not a 'real argument' at all, it's a flimsy personal intrepretation that falls like a stone to the ground in the face of correction. Here are the verses you claim prove that Peter was not head of the Apostles:
"But when Cephas came to Antioch I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed. For before some men came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision. And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabus was also led by them into that dissimulation. But when I saw that THEY were not walking uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, live after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how doest thou compel the Gentiles to live as the Jews?" (2 Gal. 11-15)
You claim that Peter "feared" James, but the Bible says that he feared the entire "circumsion party". The fear spoken of here regarding Peter, Barnabus, and the entire party, probably refers to their human pride. It could easily have been that Peter and the rest didn't want the righteous 'circumcision party' from James to see them "mingling with the rabble", as it were.
We know from Peter's three denials of Christ, his momentary loss of faith and falling into the sea, and his taking up his sword at Gethsemene that he was prone to fear. All this means is that he was human, but his fear was conquered when he kept his faith to the end and was martyred for it at Rome.
But far more importantly, the verses tell us that when Peter acted insincerely the entire Jewish party, including Barnabus himself, then followed his error. Unless Peter were clearly the Head, they would not have followed him; which also rasies the question "why would Paul choose to rebuke only Peter even though the entire Jewish party, (surely consisting of elders and leaders), including Barbabus himself, all fell into the same error"? Paul didn't correct them all because he corrected the entire Church by correcting Peter, the head of the Church.
The Catholic Church is rife with examples of the Saints 'rebuking' (correcting) Popes in non-doctrinal matters. Your example of Peter being rebuked is not even the first we know of, for Jesus had to correct Peter several times when He still walked amongst the Apostles. I will wager that even Peter's mother-in-law corrected him a few times, :o)
Nobody ever claimed that the Popes were perfect, we only claim that that when they teach matters of Christian faith and morals, (matters directly affecting salvation), to the Church that their teachings cannot err.
Actually, Josephus makes reference to the city of Babylon as an urban center for Judaism at least as late as 36BC, within a century or so of Peter's Epistles (I don't make any claim that the city had been rebuilt into as great a metropolis as its former days).
So, when Peter says that he is writing from Babylon, the simplest read on the matter is that Peter... was writing from Babylon. After all, when Paul wrote from Rome, he stated "I'm writing from Rome".
That said, if one supposes that Peter was writing from a "metaphorical Babylon", that doesn't necessarily lead us to Rome. While Rome could be seen as a "metaphorical Babylon", we find another Christian writer speaking of a "metaphorical Babylon" within the pages of Scripture -- referring to Jerusalem.
Now, to reiterate: the simplest read on Peter's Epistles would be to understand that when he claims to be writing from Babylon -- he's writing from Babylon. HOWEVER, if one believes that Peter is writing of a "metaphorical Babylon", the most obvious candidate would be the "metaphorical Babylon" recorded in the pages of the New Testament -- that is, Jerusalem.
So that'll hafta be my response to the first part of your Post; it's late afternoon, and I have to run. But, while I don't expect to have time tonight, I'll try to address the remainder of your Post on the morrow.
Best, OP
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.