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
Take note that the Catholic Church is cleansing itself of this pestilence as we see priests getting defrocked, censured and jailed for these horrific offenses. The Vatican has correctly identified this problem as predominently a homosexual one in nature, and has stated its desire to make certain that homosexuals and other sexual deviants cannot get ordained. When the Catholic Church ceases to condemn homosexual activity and willfully ordains these perverts into its priesthood, and raises their disgusting sexual trists to level of "Holy Union", let me know. Till then, you are merely sending smoke and mirrors up in a feeble attempt to level the Catholic Church's high moral ground and superior teachings on Christian history and tradition.
The Catholic Church is the spotless Bride of Christ, (Rev. 21:9), and she is the "pillar and foundation of truth", (I Timothy 3:15); and hence has nothing to do with the "beam" in my own eye. Is Christ's Bride promoting homosexual unions? Is the Pillar of Truth holding up the notion that Christ is not the Messiah? I think not. Your pal 'orthodoxpresbytarian' has spent a whole lot of time trying to bury the historical record and re-write history through some half-baked anthropoligical "discovery". I've been too kind to this creep.
Right, he's decided to attack something far more important than me, my Church, my faith, and well documented Christian history. As for making me uncomfortable, I demolished every single one of his rather stupid attempts to rewrite history by quoting the records, their authors, and the sources. Even Protestant Churches that once made his very old arguments no longer believe them. The historical record that Peter went to Rome and died there is incontrovertable. Only a few die-hards remain who believe this drivel. I am very comfortable, thankyou.
"I've no respect for someone whose strongest argument is name calling."
I could care less whom you respect, or why. My strongest argument was stating the facts, which your apostate creepy friend never responded to. He led his attack on history with his alleged anthropological "evidence". I destroyed his thesis by injecting reality into it and he decided to switch his venue over to his personal interpretation of Peter's Epistle. That too was shot down by informing him of the Church Fathers' interpretation of that Scripture verse. His last and most feeble attempt of all was denying that certain of these Fathers wrote about Peter. Both myself and Hermann the Cherusker posted the quotes which he said did not exist. End of story.
Uncomfortable? No I enjoy exposing these creeps. smile :o)
Anti-Catholics, like this member of a church which blesses homosexual unions, ...
I believe this is the lie that xzins is referring to ...
Demosthenes
Nah, that's not a lie, the Presbytarian Church does indeed perform and bless homosexual ceremonies, and they infact have titled them "Holy Unions". It's difficult for me to find anything holy about the union of Rump Rangers.
As has been pointed out to you, your lie is here ...Anti-Catholics, like this member of a church which blesses homosexual unions, ...
P.S. Nothing particlarly holy about the commission of innumerable acts of child molestation over the course of decades by one's church officiants either.
At least the Presbyterians cited are consenting.
There are several possibilities but the thought that this find contradicts known history regarding the apostles/disciples is laughable. The flaws in this theory have been pointed out through this entire thread. Data should never be conformed to suit personal prejudices.
So a church that consents to homosexual debauchery is preferable to one whose theology condemns this sick activity?
That a minute percentage of homsexual priests have committed unspeakable sins, we now see these men being defrocked, censured, jailed and disgraced. On the other hand, over there in Presbytarian Lavender Land, we see them being blessed.
On the other hand, over there in Presbytarian Lavender Land, we see them being blessed.
Given what has been known about Catholic seminarians for years, ... I would think twice about tossing such an appellation about.
By the way ... I'm not a Presbyterian ... of any sort.
It simply appears that the Catholics have too much mud of their own to clean up ... for them to be slinging it at any other christians.
tick-tock.... tick-tock.... tick-tock.... tick-tock...
Actually, the Church does have a memory of this site – the burial cave was found on the grounds of the Dominus Flevit monastery, which is claimed to be the location where Jesus wept over Jerusalem. This is the sort of place that Mary, Martha, and Lazarus might well select for their burial cave – and, if Simon Peter died in Jerusalem, the sort of place he might well be buried.
Which would explain why the ossuaries of Mary, Martha, Lazarus, and Simon bar-Jona were, in fact, found therein.
Considering the eagerness of other ancient sites to be accepted as the burial place of this or that apostle, can you explain why no city but Rome has ever put itself forward to claim Peter?
After the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 (more than a million killed, sold into slavery, etc?), the place was an absolute mess. How many persons go MIA, how many documents are lost, how many properties are forgotten -- in the middle of a combination genocide/ransacking/slave-raid? The centrality of authority enjoyed by the Jerusalem Church in the days of James’ administration and the Jerusalem Council was no doubt tremendously damaged as a result of the Romans’ laying waste to the entire territory.
But nature abhors a vacuum, and into this gap stepped the nascent Church at Rome – a candidate for central recognition given its placement at the capital of the Empire. It was known, after all, that Paul had come to his martyrdom at Rome; and considering that the great Vaticanus pagan cemetery likely contained quite a few “Peters” (being a common title given to the high prophets and magicians of the pagan mystery religions), it’s hardly surprising that a tradition would develop (a century-and-a-half or two later) as to “Peter’s” burial at Rome. That, however, does not vouch for the authenticity of the tradition.
I had actually looked for Walsh's book on Amazon (as you say, out of print -- ugh) or, failing that, some good excerpts thereof which mught be lurking in the recesses of GOOGLE, but hadn't found any.
If you should happen across any such nuggets from Walsh's book out there on the Web, I would of course be happy to read them. Thanks.
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.