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

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Submitted for discussion. This Article is a complement to my Ya'akov Ha Tsedek and the Destruction of the Jerusalem Temple.

Enjoy. Best, OP

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Article of interest.

Best, OP

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

submitted for discussion.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

submitted for discussion.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Early-morning Sunday, Early-Christian history ping.

Photographic and Archaeological evidence, delivered hot and fresh from the Book of Acts. Thought you might find of interest.

Best, OP

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Simon Bar-Jonah buried in the Patriarchate of Jerusalem.

Eastern Orthodox ping.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

submitted for discussion

[xzins]

Thanks, OP. I'll read them and send them far and wide after discussion. It's fascinating stuff and testimony that Christians should heed.

[xzins]

ping

[Corin Stormhands]

Thanks for the ping. Heard mention of this I think on Paul Harvey (?). Bookmarked to read later.

[maestro]

graffiti.......

(The Temple Scroll...)

Yet,......

(The 'sign' of the O.T. Prophet 'Jonah'.)

(Romans 10:17)

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

Hate to put a damper on this, but his remains (believed, no way to be 100%) were found in Rome a few decades ago. It had long been tradition that Peter was buried beneath St. Peter's Basilica. Of Course, the first basilica was erected many years after his death (couple hundred) so it was always tradition. However during WWII, when excavations were being done beneath St. Peter's to create more room for crypts for deceased Popes they stumbled upon an amazing discovery. Directly below the High Altar (just as tradition has held), a necropolis was discovered, directly beneath the altar was a little stone that had the name PETRUS written on it and the "Fish." Furthermore, when they dug up the body, it was a body of someone who had been crucified. Later archaeology and historical research revealed that the Necropolis dated from the time of Nero. Thus, making it likely, but sadly, not 100% that this was Peter's resting spot. Just thought I would share, if you are ever in Rome, contact the Vatican Office about the SCAVI, they do tours down there everyday, but it is unadvertised, since they want to do as little disturbance as possible, but the historical value is so vital. God Bless

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

Ping !!!!!!!!!!!

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

Thank you, Mr. Chick. A Delightful read (rolling the eyes). God Bless

[MarMema]

Now tell me about Peter in Antioch, please?

[dangus]

There's so much nonsense, I don't even know where to start. I can't begin to refute every single claim, there are so many made, so I'll start wit the main points.

Peter was certainly not in Babylon. Babylon had long since been destroyed, and the area it once stood on was no longer called Babylon. As Anti-Catholics so often love to point out, Babylon is used in many places in Revelations to signify Rome. So, yes, Peter writes that he's in Babylon, that is the biblical proof that the sola-scriptura types need to establish he's in Rome. (incidentally, non-biblical Jewish and Christian sources also routinely identify Rome as Babylon, including 4 Esdras, the Apocalypse of Baruch, and the Sibellyne Oracles.)

Other odd claims include that since Paul was "apostle to the gentiles," this means that He and not Peter left Palestine. It would also mean that none of the other disciples left Palestine, which would have been a direct refutation of the command given them by Jesus.

>>Below are Ten major New Testament proofs, which completely disprove the claim that Peter was in Rome from the time of Claudius until Nero. >>

Actually, these proofs *DO* succeed in doing that fairly well; they at least make a strong case. But Peter is thought to have been in Rome about 3 times, totalling about 7-10 years during his 25 year reign as Bishop of Rome. Each apostle was actually given authority over patriarchates throughout the ancient world, although they're travels through different lands are well documented, yes, including in the bible. None stayed put; the most stationary was John who scarcely travelled far from Asia minor.

OP's article does concede that there is non-biblical, historical evidence to suggest that Peter was in Rome. This is somewhat of an understatement. Often Catholics say "the unanimity of the Church Fathers." This often means that certain Church Fathers have written on a subject without being opposed, or, if opposed, having shown that they had settled the matter with authority. In this case, however, when I looked it up, I was surprised to find that all of the most ancient church historians that I most commonly came across had specifically mentionned Peter in Rome: Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Gaius, Origen, Eusebius, etc.

By now, I'm actually amused be the way certain Protestants expect that the entirety of the church, even the popes and church fathers, would be so ignorant of the bible as to not notice Peter's presence in Antioch recorded in Acts!

And that closing quote is a beaut... an unsourced "secret" quote from a Pope... "Don't tell anyone this, but it was dem critters from Roswell that killed Jack in Dallas!" -- President Lyndon B. Johnson. Even the UFO wierdos would at least make up a story for the source of such a quote.

As for Peter not wishing to be buried in a cemetary... After Peter was executed, his bones were unceremoniously dumped across the River Tiber, outside Rome, as a deliberate sign of disprespect. And it is there, outside Rome, where the Chair of St. Peter has remained to this day; The Vatican can never be identified as "Babylon," for it is not in Rome, but in exile across the Tiber.

As for the Article which deceptively headlined this screed:
Is it the assertion of the article that this cave is the burial place of Peter, son of John, and also of Mary, Martha, Lazarus, Mathew, Jude, and Salome? Given
1. the uproar of James' ossuary last year*, and
2. the presence of 1st-century attestations of Peter's death in Rome,
3. the weak source and lack of review
I'm not impressed.

(*For those of you who do not remember, within the past year, every major newspaper across the country ran sensational headlines about an ossuary which was found, saying, "James, son of Joseph, and brother of Jesus." What it actually said was "James of Joseph, of Jesus" which would imply nothing of the sort. The whole matter was quickly rendered moot when it was discovered that although the ossuary was 2,000 years old, the scratchings were fresh.)

[dangus]

O, and if you really want a discussion, why ping only the people who will believe anything that is printed and contradicts Catholic belief? Why not ping someone who will defend Catholic belief? Or are you really just passing anti-Catholic screeds around?

[rogator]

How many Simon-bar-Jonahs were in Israel in the first century? (Even if this isn't just another phoney ossuary.)


"and the unusual name "Shappira" - which is a unique name"

Judging from the number of folks with the name "Shapiro" in the New York City phone book, this "unique" first century guy did one heck of a job spreading his seed.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[xzins]

Actually, to be honest with you, I did the majority of the pinging. My list is pretty comprehensive.

And I pinged a fairly lengthly list of the strongest Catholics.

I didn't ping my mormon list because I didn't think OP would want the discussion to become about those kind of issues.