St. Peter found in Jerusalem?

  • Thread starter Thread starter VietCatholic83
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

VietCatholic83

Guest
Hi, So I happened to watch the show on the history channel called “The Naked Archaeologist” last night when the presenter was in Jerusalem. At the end of the program, he visited the Dominus Flevit church which overlooks the Kidron Valley, where it is believed Our Lord wept when he foretold of the destruction of the Temple. The archaeologist noted that a necropolis was found on the site after excavations in the 1800s where hundreds of tombs and ossuaries were discovered. He mentioned that among these burial boxes was one marked with “Simon son of Jonah”, by which St. Peter would have been known back then. The archaeologist then went to the Church of the Flagellation to speak with the Franciscan priest in charge to ask him whether this box could actually contain the mortal remains of Peter. The priest didn’t meet with the man and the show made it seem as though the priest ie “the church” was engaging in conspiracy, because Catholics believe St. Peter was martyred in Rome, and the Basilica of St. Peter is built over his remains.

Has anyone seen this program? What can we say to defend that St. Peter is actually in Rome? I was thinking that “Simon son of Jonah” could have been a very common name in the time of Jesus, similar to someone named “Tom Smith” today. Just because one marking was found with his name on it doesn’t necessarily mean that it is the actual man himself.
 
VietCatholic83 said:
Hi, So I happened to watch the show on the history channel called “The Naked Archaeologist” last night when the presenter was in Jerusalem. At the end of the program, he visited the Dominus Flevit church which overlooks the Kidron Valley, where it is believed Our Lord wept when he foretold of the destruction of the Temple. The archaeologist noted that a necropolis was found on the site after excavations in the 1800s where hundreds of tombs and ossuaries were discovered. He mentioned that among these burial boxes was one marked with “Simon son of Jonah”, by which St. Peter would have been known back then. The archaeologist then went to the Church of the Flagellation to speak with the Franciscan priest in charge to ask him whether this box could actually contain the mortal remains of Peter. The priest didn’t meet with the man and the show made it seem as though the priest ie “the church” was engaging in conspiracy, because Catholics believe St. Peter was martyred in Rome, and the Basilica of St. Peter is built over his remains.

Has anyone seen this program? What can we say to defend that St. Peter is actually in Rome? I was thinking that “Simon son of Jonah” could have been a very common name in the time of Jesus, similar to someone named “Tom Smith” today. Just because one marking was found with his name on it doesn’t necessarily mean that it is the actual man himself.
Click to expand...
History Channel is one of the most anti-Catholic tv channels I have seen.
 
History Channel is one of the most anti-Catholic tv channels I have seen.Reply With Quote
Click to expand...
No kidding. And some of the “facts” are more like fact-free. “The Naked Archaeologist” tends to be fair whenever dealing with the Jewish faith. But I recall an episode when fun was made of the body of St Peter found under the Vatican and the supposed head of St Peter elsewhere.

Of course it’s anti-Catholic, but at least not as bad as some of the other shows. Anyone out there recall the show–History, History International, or Discovery–which talked about the “sinister” habit of Catholics putting relics in altars? Or the one from the BBC about the Crusades which was so slanted I was astounded? Or all the many, many shows which talk about the Dark Ages and Middle Ages as if the people living then were a blend of half mad and half retarded? And don’t even get me started on Galileo…well, do. Anyone out there see the show that said that Galileo was put to death for his noble defense of science?

Funny how it seems to me we are living in the Dark Ages of truthful information.

God bless, Annem
 
VietCatholic83 said:
Hi, So I happened to watch the show on the history channel called “The Naked Archaeologist” last night when the presenter was in Jerusalem. At the end of the program, he visited the Dominus Flevit church which overlooks the Kidron Valley, where it is believed Our Lord wept when he foretold of the destruction of the Temple. The archaeologist noted that a necropolis was found on the site after excavations in the 1800s where hundreds of tombs and ossuaries were discovered. He mentioned that among these burial boxes was one marked with “Simon son of Jonah”, by which St. Peter would have been known back then. The archaeologist then went to the Church of the Flagellation to speak with the Franciscan priest in charge to ask him whether this box could actually contain the mortal remains of Peter. The priest didn’t meet with the man and the show made it seem as though the priest ie “the church” was engaging in conspiracy, because Catholics believe St. Peter was martyred in Rome, and the Basilica of St. Peter is built over his remains.

Has anyone seen this program? What can we say to defend that St. Peter is actually in Rome? I was thinking that “Simon son of Jonah” could have been a very common name in the time of Jesus, similar to someone named “Tom Smith” today. Just because one marking was found with his name on it doesn’t necessarily mean that it is the actual man himself.
Click to expand...
In defending such allegation you may see this:

catholic.com/library/peter_roman_residency.asp
 
See if you can get a copy of the book “The Bones of St. Peter” by John Evangilist Walsh. I happen to be reading it at present. It’s a fascinating account of the thorough excavations beneath the main altar of St. Peter’s Basilica which took place in the 1940’s and '50’s. This should dispel all doubts about the authenticity of St. Peter’s grave. When it comes to matters of religion, Catholicism especially, the History Channel is full of beans.
 
this particular “archeologist” (if he is an archeologist and journalist I am the pope) has made so many bald faced lies that any undergraduate history or anthropology major could detect that he has zero credibility in my book. see past discussions here about the “Gospel of Judas” and “Exodus decoded” for examples. The History Channel can’t even get garden variety history right, like their Civil War programs, so there is no reason to trust them or their research when the leave the venue of history and venture into biblical or religious topics.
 
There’s this article on the internet:

aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm
Peter’s Tomb
Recently Discovered In Jerusalem
by F. PAUL PETERSON

Reading this puts me in mind of The DaVinci Code.

I asked Fr Pacwa about this on his radio show, and he said he never heard of it. And if you aren’t aware, Fr Pacwa is very familiar with the holy land.
 
ummmmmmm…I watched that show - once - and that was enough for me. Most of what was presented was bogus and passed off as if it is fact. I suppose it has a certain audience, like those who actually read the National Enquirer,etc. Could I interest you in a book of revelations? say the Chariots of the Gods? I here they’re looking to de-code Da Vinci with that one! Maybe we could put the naked archeologist on one of the chariots of the gods and send 'em…

Peace,

Gail
 
Thanks for the fascinating link!
And yes! I have heard of Fr. Pacwa. In fact, I was in his group of pilgrims that he took to the Holy Land in 2006. Father took us to the Dominus Flevit shrine and showed us the burial boxes they discovered there. Had I known then about this “controversy” I would have asked. But since you asked him about it on his show and he hadn’t heard of it, then I suppose that’s neither here nor there. If there’s anyone who would know, it would definitely be Fr. Mitch!!
Janet_S said:
There’s this article on the internet:

aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm
Peter’s Tomb
Recently Discovered In Jerusalem
by F. PAUL PETERSON

Reading this puts me in mind of The DaVinci Code.

I asked Fr Pacwa about this on his radio show, and he said he never heard of it. And if you aren’t aware, Fr Pacwa is very familiar with the holy land.
Click to expand...
 
That Naked Arch. show was just trash. He was trying for sensentionalism, as usual. I second Tenebrae about " The Bones of St. Peter". I first read this book about 20 years ago, and I have to say it brought me the final steps to Christ. When I saw those photos of Peter’s remains, it hit me like a ton of bricks! All I’d been taught all my life were not just children’s bible stories. This man actually existed! It all really happened! He was a man, not just a fable. And so, all the others were actual men,too. The whole new testament message is actually true. Hallelujah! Roanoker
 
Tenebrae said:
See if you can get a copy of the book “The Bones of St. Peter” by John Evangilist Walsh. I happen to be reading it at present. It’s a fascinating account of the thorough excavations beneath the main altar of St. Peter’s Basilica which took place in the 1940’s and '50’s. This should dispel all doubts about the authenticity of St. Peter’s grave. When it comes to matters of religion, Catholicism especially, the History Channel is full of beans.
Click to expand...
I misspelled the author’s middle name–should be John Evangelist Walsh.
 
Firstly,
I have yet to see anywhere beyond the Gospels where Peter is referred to as simply “Simon Bar Jonah” without the traditional surname attached. Paul never refers to Peter as ‘Simon’ and all Petrine literature of the mid-1st century onward always calls him ‘Peter’ or ‘Simon who is surnamed Peter.’
Second,
If you type “F.Paul Peterson” into google, you will come up with many low-end ‘cult-christian’ sites; some of them appear to be SDA sites. He doesn’t seem to be a real scholar. None of his books have been reviewed by scholars. His name does not come up in the ATLA religion database. Nobody else knows about this supposed “tomb of St.Peter in Jerusalem.” This has all the markings of a hoax. I’d be apt to assess the “tomb” as not real, and if it is real, as not Christian.
By contrast, one will be challenged to find Petrine literature assigning Peter to anywhere else but Rome. The tradition is very solid of Peter’s labors in Jerusalem and then Rome. There is no other tradition.
Recently, Markus Bockmeuhl has written on Peter’s death in Rome in the Scottish Journal of Theology. He concludes:
“For Peter in Rome, the continuity of a plural living memory attached to
a person in a place provides a powerful counterargument to both divide-andrule
minimalism and kaleidoscopic relativism. He was remembered as the
leading apostolic witness of Jesus, who, like Paul, came to Rome to advance
the gospel and gave his ultimate testimony there.” STJ 60(1): 1–23 (2007). “Collective memory” of the Christian Church always has Peter in Rome.
I hope that settles it.
 
VietCatholic83 said:
Hi, So I happened to watch the show on the history channel called “The Naked Archaeologist” last night when the presenter was in Jerusalem. At the end of the program, he visited the Dominus Flevit church which overlooks the Kidron Valley, where it is believed Our Lord wept when he foretold of the destruction of the Temple. The archaeologist noted that a necropolis was found on the site after excavations in the 1800s where hundreds of tombs and ossuaries were discovered. He mentioned that among these burial boxes was one marked with “Simon son of Jonah”, by which St. Peter would have been known back then. The archaeologist then went to the Church of the Flagellation to speak with the Franciscan priest in charge to ask him whether this box could actually contain the mortal remains of Peter. The priest didn’t meet with the man and the show made it seem as though the priest ie “the church” was engaging in conspiracy, because Catholics believe St. Peter was martyred in Rome, and the Basilica of St. Peter is built over his remains.

Has anyone seen this program? What can we say to defend that St. Peter is actually in Rome? I was thinking that “Simon son of Jonah” could have been a very common name in the time of Jesus, similar to someone named “Tom Smith” today. Just because one marking was found with his name on it doesn’t necessarily mean that it is the actual man himself.
Click to expand...
This is the same category of bilge spewed by the D*scovery channel regarding Jesus and Mary Magdalen. Go through any cemetery and you can locate a famous sounding name. Fast forward 2,000 years. Does that make the person into whom you want them to be? These are commercial organizations in nature, relying on the cash flow that results from controversy.

What happened to his new name of Kepha?

Christ’s peace.
 
whowantsumadebo said:
Firstly,
I have yet to see anywhere beyond the Gospels where Peter is referred to as simply “Simon Bar Jonah” without the traditional surname attached. Paul never refers to Peter as ‘Simon’ and all Petrine literature of the mid-1st century onward always calls him ‘Peter’ or ‘Simon who is surnamed Peter.’
Second,
If you type “F.Paul Peterson” into google, you will come up with many low-end ‘cult-christian’ sites; some of them appear to be SDA sites. He doesn’t seem to be a real scholar. None of his books have been reviewed by scholars. His name does not come up in the ATLA religion database. Nobody else knows about this supposed “tomb of St.Peter in Jerusalem.” This has all the markings of a hoax. I’d be apt to assess the “tomb” as not real, and if it is real, as not Christian.
By contrast, one will be challenged to find Petrine literature assigning Peter to anywhere else but Rome. The tradition is very solid of Peter’s labors in Jerusalem and then Rome. There is no other tradition.
Recently, Markus Bockmeuhl has written on Peter’s death in Rome in the Scottish Journal of Theology. He concludes:
“For Peter in Rome, the continuity of a plural living memory attached to
a person in a place provides a powerful counterargument to both divide-andrule
minimalism and kaleidoscopic relativism. He was remembered as the
leading apostolic witness of Jesus, who, like Paul, came to Rome to advance
the gospel and gave his ultimate testimony there.” STJ 60(1): 1–23 (2007). “Collective memory” of the Christian Church always has Peter in Rome.
I hope that settles it.
Click to expand...
Wasn’t Peter is jail while first in Rome? Why would he have gone back? They would have captured him and killed him.
 
annem said:
No kidding. And some of the “facts” are more like fact-free. “The Naked Archaeologist” tends to be fair whenever dealing with the Jewish faith. But I recall an episode when fun was made of the body of St Peter found under the Vatican and the supposed head of St Peter elsewhere.

Of course it’s anti-Catholic, but at least not as bad as some of the other shows. Anyone out there recall the show–History, History International, or Discovery–which talked about the “sinister” habit of Catholics putting relics in altars? Or the one from the BBC about the Crusades which was so slanted I was astounded? Or all the many, many shows which talk about the Dark Ages and Middle Ages as if the people living then were a blend of half mad and half retarded? And don’t even get me started on Galileo…well, do. Anyone out there see the show that said that Galileo was put to death for his noble defense of science?

Funny how it seems to me we are living in the Dark Ages of truthful information.

God bless, Annem
Click to expand...
This post may seem a bit harsh but I actually agree with every word,
 
annem said:
No kidding. And some of the “facts” are more like fact-free. “The Naked Archaeologist” tends to be fair whenever dealing with the Jewish faith. But I recall an episode when fun was made of the body of St Peter found under the Vatican and the supposed head of St Peter elsewhere.
Click to expand...
No wonder since the Naked Archaeologist is Simcha Jacobovici (of ‘The Jesus Family Tomb’ and ‘The Exodus Decoded’ fame), who, last time I checked, was an Orthodox Jew (No, I’m not bashing Jews in this post, just wanted to make that clear), so he is being fair to his native religion. I just hope he extends that fairness on other ones though.

If I were you, I would take the program with a grain of salt. There was this one episode where Jacobovici made a claim (unsupported by most scholars) that Hebrew slaves probably invented the Proto-Sinaitic and Wadi el-Hol scripts, the first known abjads. He assumes a connection between a possible reference to El at Wadi el-Hol and the God worshiped by the ancient Israelites. Yet El is a god also worshipped by other Semitic peoples and a Proto-Semitic root that can simply mean “a god” as opposed to any specific deity. 🤷
 
Interestingly, many 1st and 2nd century Jews named Simon or Simeon were usually known by their patronymics or a different name, for example, Shimon bar-Yonah is called Petros or Kepha, Shimon bar-Kochba is known by his patronymic (Bar-Kochba), Shimon ben-Zoma (aka Ben-Zoma, a 2nd century Tanna or Rabbinic Sage) or Simeon ben-Azzai (aka Ben-Azzai, also a 2nd century Tanna). Some have believed that this avoidance of Shimon was either due to a ban by Romans to any mention of the name due to its patriotic and revolutionary overtones as the name was borne by Simon Maccabee, Simon the High Priest, Shimon son of Judas the Galilean, founder of the Zealots, Shimon bar-Giora (leader of the Sicarii during the First Jewish-Roman War of 66-73 AD), and Simon bar-Kochba, or due to it being regarded as a name too sacred to use by nationalistic Jews.

Here’s a nice article showing that the name could not have read ‘Simon bar-Yonah’, but ‘Shimon Barzilai’, which would show that the name Barzillai was used in the 1st century Jerusalem.

The first we hear of the name in the Bible is when a man named Barzillai the Gileadite came to King David’s aid during the latter’s turmoil with Absalom. He provided David and his weakened troops with food and supplies, allowing David’s troops to gain the upper hand and defeat the army of Absalom (2 Sam 17:27–29). David, deeply indebted to him, invited the aged Barzillai to take up residence near his palace in Jerusalem so he could be looked after in an honorable way. However, Barzillai asked the king to convey his offer to a younger member of his family, Chimcham by name, and David complied (2 Sam 19:31–40).

David directed his son Solomon to make sure that the family would continue to be provided for in perpetuity (1 Kgs 2:7). Later, a member of one of the priestly families married one of the descendants of this family, one of the “daughters of Barzillai,” and adopted (or was ascribed) the name for his family.

After the return from the Babylonian Exile, the Barzillai priestly family was denied their right to be inscribed in the priestly register because of the current issue over ethnic mixture (Ezra 2:61-63, Neh 7:63-65). However, the priestly (and likely non-priestly) descendants bearing the Barzillai name continued to live in Jerusalem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top