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.
I am well aware of the entire article. The part you bolded was not bolded in the original article. The author, being a scholar and not a Christian apologist, is showing each argument for the validity of the tomb. I know that the bones in the tomb may not actually be St. Peter's. Nevertheless, they could be. They are from the right time period.
As Dr. Hijmans says in his last paragraph: "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."
I am well aware of what the article said, and the part you bolded is not bold in the original. Your bolding of the part you agree with is very disingenuous. You could've just as easily bolded this part, describing the find from the SECOND tomb: "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."
Since the author is a scholar and not a Christian apologist, he is obliged to point out all sides of the argument. The bones may not be the bones of St. Peter, but they very well could be. The Basilica is built on the site of Emperor Nero's Circus, where Peter was crucified (head down). The church built there, on the site of his death, has been there from the earliest beginnings of Christianity. Constantine built the Basilica over the little church in the 300s.
As Dr. Hijmans says in his last paragraph: "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."
And I HAVE read the Justin Martyr bit, a LOT in recent days. Have YOU mentioned how many people think that the statue he thinks is Simon is in fact a statue of a Sabine Diety?
What is up with this? Are we about the truth here or about selling a point of view by carelessly misrepresenting evidence? I am really astonished!
I wish you would understand it form my point of view. If I give a moment's credence to something you assert, somebody else comes up and shows me that I shouldn't have. YOU mention the menagerie of bones, and I don't challenge it but joke with you about it, thinking that the discovery of the body that I know about must have happened another time. Now I am embarrassed that I believed you! This is terrible scholarship, and I am just an ADHD wanna be!
Diego asserts that Strong says that tribe is the "preferred" meaning of ethnos. I go to HIS source and find that's not what it says at all! How can I ever trust you again?
I feel abused! maybe this is abusive of me, but I don't intend it to be. I just don't get how the obvious misrepresentation of a source, whether intentional or not is not a kind of betrayal.
I'm sorry if I'm out of line here. I have eagerly mocked myself (easy target, after all) and reached out to controversialists to try to help this be a decent and friendly thread. Now I think I was wasting my time.
Please tell me this was at least inadvertent.