St. Peter's Tomb in Jerusalem?

[anon79686166]

Okay. I watched *The Lost Tomb of Jesus *on Doscovery last night. It didn’t bother me much as I do not buy into it.

The part I want to know more about is the Peter Ossuary.

There was an entire Christian cemetary found in the 1950’s underneath a monestary at the Mount of Olives. The cemetary dates from the time of Christ.

An ossuary was found with the inscripton, “Simon bar Jona” or “Simon Son of Jonah.”

Before you dismiss this claim, I urge you to do a google search on it. I could not find ANY Catholic apologetic arguments against it (and of course the ewtn forums are always full).

One of the links I found is below:
biblelight.net/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm

Now, I suppose if everyone came to the agreement that these really likely are the bones of St. Peter (as opposed to the person or people buried underneath St. Peter’s Tomb in Vatican City), the argument could be made that St. Peter visited Rome (nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/1peter/intro.htm), conferred the office of Bishop on a successor, and went back to Jerusalem, but our claim to Roman primacy is based on the fact that Peter died in Rome–because Peter also was first bishop of the Jerusalem Church before James (although many scholars now think that was James first)!

Thoughts?!?

 

[tee_eff_em]

I dozed through the latter half of the special. I did wake up during this part however. Right away, I noticed particular words used by the folks in the film.

Okay. I watched *The Lost Tomb of Jesus *on Doscovery last night. It didn’t bother me much as I do not buy into it.

The part I want to know more about is the Peter Ossuary.

There was an entire Christian cemetary found in the 1950’s underneath a monestary at the Mount of Olives. The cemetary dates from the time of Christ.

An ossuary was found with the inscripton, “Simon bar Jona” or “Simon Son of Jonah.”

I especially liked the fellow who said: “There is no evidence for the burial of Simon Bar Jonah in Rome.”

…Could that be because people stopped calling him *Simon Bar Jonah *and started calling him Peter!?

tee

 

[Pjs2ejs]

I loved how the investigator would get gitty laughter every time there appeared to be another clue. Every noteworthy expert was discrediting the find as Jesus of Nazareth.

Another note. Imagine today you have a Burial site with first names only. Tom son of Bill, Son of Mary. Come on. It’s ridiculous.

 

[Lazerlike42]

The issue in this thread is not about the supposed Jesus tomb of James Cameron, but about a supposed discovery of St. Peter’s bones in Jerusalem. The website is linked in the first post.

This issue has been dealt with before on the forums, but not nearly adequately enough. It has essentially been brushed off as fabricated.

This is all well and good, however I believe it is very important to provide evidence that the website contains a bunch of fabricated information.

This is one issue I that is of yet unanswered, in my estimation. I think we all need to buckle down and get to it. If anyone has any further thoughts, let’s have them.

 

[Roselander]

St. Peter is definitely buried under St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. Under the basilica there is a first century cemetery. There is a book about this (written before all the Da Vinci Code nonsense) which describes how archaeologists discovered his grave. At the moment, I can’t recall the title, but it’s in our local library and I read it. What irks me is that suddenly all that the Church has been teaching for centuries isn’t good anymore–we have to go running off after these spurious “discoveries” made by people who have no faith and are inimical to the Church.

 

[Atreyu]

How many men in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus would have had the name Simon son of Jonah? I would imagine that there would be several, wouldn’t there? I mean, they’re both pretty common names. Now if the ossuary had said Peter (kepha), son of Jonah, that would be a different story…

 

[LilyM]

Remember that the Simon BarJonah who was an Apostle of Christ was ALSO known for half or more of his life as Cephas or Peter. Why was neither of these names also inscribed on his grave?

I mean is John Paul 2’s grave inscribed with the name of John Paul 2 or just the name of Karol Wojtyla which he had before becoming Pope? Of course the answer is the former.

 

[rwoehmke]

What irks me is that suddenly all that the Church has been teaching for centuries isn’t good anymore–we have to go running off after these spurious “discoveries” made by people who have no faith and are inimical to the Church.

Think about it. Discredit what the Church teaches about a few things and one can with a “easy” conscience discredit other things particularly moral teachings which bind and pinch. It doesn’t take a Ph.D. min psychology to figure that out.

 

[Eileen_T]

St. Peter is definitely buried under St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. Under the basilica there is a first century cemetery. There is a book about this (written before all the Da Vinci Code nonsense) which describes how archaeologists discovered his grave. At the moment, I can’t recall the title, but it’s in our local library and I read it. What irks me is that suddenly all that the Church has been teaching for centuries isn’t good anymore–we have to go running off after these spurious “discoveries” made by people who have no faith and are inimical to the Church.

I think you are referring to the book “The World’s Greatest Secret” by John Haffert. I convincing book, not only for the burial site of Peter, but for the Mass, the Eucharist, the honour given to Mary by the earliest Christians, and praying for the dead.

 

[Roselander]

The book I was referring to is “The Bones of St. Peter: the
First Full Account of the Search for the Apostle’s Body”
author: John Walsh, Doubleday , 1982
That book “The World’s Greatest Secret” sounds pretty interesting. I think I’ll try to find it.

 

[mchale]

We should keep things in perspective here. Simon was the single most common male name of the period, at least if we are to believe the ossuary inscriptions. There is also scriptural support for that since there are quite a few Simon’s that are mentioned in the New Testament. Now, I don’t know exactly how many Jonah’s there were in Jerusalem at the time, but considering that family size was pretty large back then (I imagine 6-10 children was the norm), if there were 10 Jonah’s running around Jerusalem at the time, you can bet that there were be at least 3 or 4 Simon bar Jonas running around.

Historically, we have no reason to believe that Peter died in Jerusalem. All the documentary evidence, plus tradition has him traveling quite a ways away from Jerusalem and none of it suggests him ultimately settling there.

Ultimately, people have a habit of finding associations where none necessarily exist. Its something that real scientists try far hard to avoid, but which some like to play to because they make good TV.

–
Bill

 

[BrownR]

Clement of Rome, in his Letter to the Corinthians (Chapter 5), written c. 80-98, speaks of Peter’s martyrdom in the following terms: “Let us take the noble examples of our own generation. Through jealousy and envy the greatest and most just pillars of the Church were persecuted, and came even unto death… Peter, through unjust envy, endured not one or two but many labours, and at last, having delivered his testimony, departed unto the place of glory due to him.”

Saint Ignatius of Antioch, in his Letter to the Romans (Ch. 4) of c. 105-110, tells the Roman Christians: "I do not command you, as Peter and Paul did."

Dyonisius of Corinth wrote: “You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time” (Letter to Pope Soter [A.D. 170], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:8).

St. Irenaeus of Lyon (a disciple of St. Polycarp of Smyrna, who was himself a disciple of the Apostle St. John, which puts Irenaeus not far from the authentic teachings of the Apostles) in c. 175-185 wrote in Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter III, paragraphs 2-3):

Since, however, it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession 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 pointing 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 the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles…

Tertullian also writes: "“But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John [the Baptist, by being beheaded]” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 36 [A.D. 200]).

 

[BrownR]

I wonder if Saint Ignatius, after writing his letter to the Romans and stating “I do not command you as Peter and Paul did…” received a letter from the Romans saying “Thank you for your letter, but who is this Peter? We knew a Paul, but we can’t seem to place any Peter who ever commanded us?”. It amazes me that people see a common Jewish name such as “Simon bar Jonah” written on an ossuary in Jerusalem and automatically assume that it must be St. Peter, when we have an overwhelming amount of historical evidence of Peter not only being in Rome, but being martyred in Rome.

[sarcasm] But wait, this is the same St. Peter who was in on the smuggling operation of Jesus’ body in Jerusalem where they hid it until the modern day Sherlock Holmes (Simcha Jacobovichi) masterfully uncovers the real story behind the Talpiot tomb. What a crazy joke ol St. Peter and the rest were able to play on the masses. I wonder if he was chuckling about it as he was being martyred (or Paul for that matter?) [/sarcasm]

It makes even less sense when thinking about St. Paul. I can just see James and the apostles getting together with Paul over a beer and it going somewhat like this: “Hey there Paul, I know you are a loyal Jew who is persecuting and hunting down Christians all over this region, but we, the Christians, would like to make an offer to you. You see, we have hidden Jesus’ body and are playing this great joke on everyone about him rising from the dead and commanding us to spread his Word, etc… and we’d like to cut you in on it. I know the Jewish rabbi’s must be paying you a fortune, and we don’t have much to offer at the moment, but I’m sure we could compensate you much better later on after we get a big following. Hey, we’ll even make you a leader of the Church, how does that sound? So, what say you? Yes? That’s great! Ok, well listen, the first thing we’ll need you to do is lie to everyone about the reason for your drastic change of heart. How about a miracle or something like that? Oh, you have an idea? A voice speaking to you on the road to Damascus? What a splendid idea!..”

Silly us, we all thought the Gnostics died out all those years ago?

 

[victus]

I had actually came across this a few months back, and immediately could see the problems with this actually being true. First off, there are no reliable resources. Secondly, it is clearly an attack on the Catholic Church especially when they keep focusing on Roman Catholic priests at center of this “so called discovery.” I could also point out other things that give no credibility to this as being true. Such as the aramaic, the first (early) christians wrote greek. Therefore, they would have wrote “Petrus”(as it is in Rome) and if they did write aramaic it would have been “Kephas.” Not Simon bar Jonah, since Christ changed his name to “Kephas.” Also, whats with the mixing of the greek and the aramaic, I thought the Chi Rho(XP) wasn’t known till Constantine the Great had a vision of it some 250 years after St. Peter’s death?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The archeological proof of the existence of St. Peters tomb under St. Peters basilica in Rome.

catholicapologetics.net/apolo_74

 

[Eileen_T]

The archeological proof of the existence of St. Peters tomb under St. Peters basilica in Rome.

catholicapologetics.net/apolo_74

I just love this inscription:

“PETRUS ROGA CHRISTUS JESU PRO SANCTIS HOMINIBUS CRESTIANUS AD CORPUS TUUM SEPULTIS”

This translates as:

“Peter pray Christ Jesus for the holy Christian men buried near your body”

Early Christians praying to a Saint to ask intercession for the dead. How Catholic!

 

[BrownR]

The archeological proof of the existence of St. Peters tomb under St. Peters basilica in Rome.

catholicapologetics.net/apolo_74

Neat read, I enjoyed that. Thanks.

 

[LilyM]

We should keep things in perspective here. Simon was the single most common male name of the period, at least if we are to believe the ossuary inscriptions. There is also scriptural support for that since there are quite a few Simon’s that are mentioned in the New Testament. Now, I don’t know exactly how many Jonah’s there were in Jerusalem at the time, but considering that family size was pretty large back then (I imagine 6-10 children was the norm), if there were 10 Jonah’s running around Jerusalem at the time, you can bet that there were be at least 3 or 4 Simon bar Jonas running around.

–
Bill

It is interesting - there were TWO men named Simon (as there were two named Jude/Judas/Judah) among the random 12 chosen by Christ as apostles - this suggests that it was an EXTREMELY common name

 

[Reformed1]

Why does it matter?

1.) I didn’t think your church made it a matter of dogma as to where Peter was buried. He could have been the first bishop of Rome and left for some reason and died before returning to Rome.

2.) The first poster said something about how the claim to Roman primacy is based on Peter dying there. How does the location of Peter’s death matter one way or the other?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Why does it matter?

1.) I didn’t think your church made it a matter of dogma as to where Peter was buried. He could have been the first bishop of Rome and left for some reason and died before returning to Rome.

2.) The first poster said something about how the claim to Roman primacy is based on Peter dying there. How does the location of Peter’s death matter one way or the other?

Well first off, the papacy of Peter isn’t based on his being in Rome, but rather Scripture, “Thou art Peter(meaning Rock) and on this rock I will build my church.”

Second, anti-Catholics claim Peter never went to Rome, but rather, died in Jerusalem and that James was head of the Church in Jerusalem.

Either way, the argument will go on til the 2nd coming of Christ, regardless of the archaeological evidence that is found.

Jim