The Discovery of Peter's Tomb in Jerusalem

[phatcatholic]

While visiting a friend in Switzerland, I heard of what seemed to me, one of the greatest discoveries since the time of Christ—that Peter was buried in Jerusalem and not in Rome. The source of this rumor, written in Italian, was not clear; it left considerable room for doubt or rather wonder. Rome was the place where I could investigate the matter, and if such proved encouraging, a trip to Jerusalem might be necessary in order to gather valuable first hand information on the subject. I therefore went to Rome. After talking to many priests and investigating various sources of information, I finally was greatly rewarded by learning where I could buy the only known book on the subject, which was also written in Italian.

It is called, "Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit", printed in 1958 at the Tipografia del PP. Francescani, in Jerusalem. It was written by P. B. Bagatti and J. T. Milik, both Roman Catholic priests. The story of the discovery was there, but it seemed to be purposely hidden for much was lacking. I consequently determined to go to Jerusalem to see for myself, if possible, that which appeared to be almost unbelievable, especially since it came from priests, who naturally because of the existing tradition that Peter was buried in Rome, would be the last ones to welcome such a discovery or to bring it to the attention of the world.

[img]http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/sepulcher.jpg[/img]

In Jerusalem I spoke to many Franciscan priests who all read, finally, though reluctantly, that the bones of Simon Bar Jona (St. Peter) were found in Jerusalem, on the Franciscan monastery site called, "Dominus Flevit" (where Jesus was supposed to have wept over Jerusalem), on the Mount of Olives. The pictures show the story. The first show an excavation where the names of Christian Biblical characters were found on the ossuaries (bone boxes). The names of Mary and Martha were found on one box and right next to it was one with the name of Lazarus, their brother. Other names of early Christians were found on other boxes. Of greatest interest, however, was that which was found within twelve feet from the place where the remains of Mary, Martha and Lazarus were found—the remains of St. Peter. They were found in an ossuary, on the outside of which was clearly and beautifully written in Aramaic, "Simon Bar Jona".

[img]http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/ossuary.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/DF-photo-81.jpg[/img]

The charcoal inscription reads: "Shimon Bar Yonah" which means "Simon [Peter] son of Jonah".

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

I talked to a Yale professor, who is an archaeologist, and was director of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem. He told me that it would be very improbable that a name with three words, and one so complete, could refer to any other than St. Peter.

[img]http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/aramaic-hebrew.gif[/img]

But what makes the possibility of error more remote is that the remains were found in a Christian burial ground, and more yet, of the first century, the very time in which Peter lived. In fact, I have a letter from a noted scientist stating that he can tell by the writing that it was written just before the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 A.D.

[img]http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/confirming-inscription.jpg[/img]

I talked to priest Milik, the co-writer of this Italian book, in the presence of my friend, a Christian Arab, Mr. S. J. Mattar, who now is the warden of the Garden Tomb, where Jesus was buried and rose again. This priest, Milik, admitted that he knew that the bones of St. Peter are not in Rome. I was very much surprised that he would admit that, so to confirm his admittance, I said, to which he also agreed, "There is a hundred times more evidence that Peter was buried in Jerusalem than in Rome." This was something of an understatement, for he knew as I know that there is absolutely no evidence at all that Peter was buried in Rome.

[img]http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/chi-rho.jpg[/img]

I have spoken on the subject to many Franciscan priests who either were or had been in Jerusalem, and they all agree that the tomb and remains of St. Peter are in Jerusalem. There was just one exception which is interesting and which only proves the point. The Franciscan priest, Augusto Spykerman, who was in charge of the semi-private museum inside the walls of old Jerusalem, by the site of the Franciscan Church of the Flagellation, was that exception. When I asked to see the museum, he showed it to the three of us, Mr. Mattar, who in addition to being warden of the Tomb of Christ, had been the manager of an English bank in Jerusalem, a. professional photographer and myself. But he told us nothing of the discovery. I knew that the evidence of Peter’s burial was there, for priests had told me that relics from the Christian burial ground were preserved within this museum. People who lived in Jerusalem all their lives and official guides who are supposed to know every inch of the city, however, knew nothing of this discovery, so well was it withheld from the public. I had asked an elderly official guide where the tomb of St. Peter was.

He responded in a very profound and majestic tone of voice, "The Tomb of St. Peter has never been found in Jerusalem." "Oh," I said, "but I have seen the burial place of Peter with my own eyes." He turned on me with a fierceness that is so common among Arabs. "What," he replied, "you a foreigner mean to tell me that you know where the tomb of St. Peter is when I have been an official guide for thirty-five years and know every inch of ground in Jerusalem?" I was afraid that he would jump at my throat. I managed to calm him as I said, "But sir, here are the pictures and you can see the ossuary, among others, with Peter’s name in Aramaic. You can also see this for yourself on the Mount of Olives on the Franciscan Convent site called, "Dominus Flevit". When I finished he slowly turned away in stunned amazement. A person who has seen this Christian burial ground and knows the circumstances surrounding the case could never doubt that this truly is the burial place of St. Peter and of other Christians. I, too, walked around in a dreamy amazement for about a week for I could hardly believe what I had seen and heard. Since the circulation of this article, they do not allow anyone to see this burial place.

Before things had gone very far, I had been quite discouraged for I could get no information from the many priests with whom I had talked. However, I continued questioning priests wherever I would find them. Finally one priest dropped some information. With that knowledge I approached another priest who warily asked me where I had acquired that information. I told him that a priest had told me. Then he admitted the point and dropped a little more information. It went on like that for some time until I got the whole picture, and I was finally directed to where I could see the evidence for myself. To get the story, it made me feel as though I had a bull by the tail and were trying to pull him through a key hole. But when I had gathered all the facts in the case, the priests could not deny the discovery of the tomb, but even confirmed it, though reluctantly. In fact, I have the statement from a Spanish priest on the Mount of Olives on a tape recorder, to that effect.

But here we were talking to this Franciscan priest in charge of the museum, asking him questions which he tried to evade but could not because of the information I had already gathered from the many priests with whom I had spoken. Finally after the pictures of the evidence were taken, which was nothing short of a miracle that he allowed us to do so, I complimented him on the marvelous discovery of the tomb of St. Peter in Jerusalem that the Franciscans had made. He was clearly nervous as he said, "Oh no, the tomb of St. Peter is in Rome." But as he said that, his voice faltered, a fact which even my friend, Mr. Mattar, had noticed. Then I looked him squarely in the eyes and firmly said, "No, the tomb of St. Peter is in Jerusalem." He looked at me like a guilty school boy and held his peace. He was, no doubt, placed there to hide the facts, but his actions and words, spoke more convincingly about the discovery than those priests who finally admitted the truth.

I also spoke to a Franciscan priest in authority at the priest’s printing plant within the walls of old Jerusalem, where their book on the subject was printed. He also admitted that the tomb of St. Peter is in Jerusalem. Then when I visited the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, I encountered a Franciscan monk. After telling him what I thought of the wonderful discovery the Franciscans had made, I asked him plainly, "Do you folks really believe that those are the remains of St. Peter?" He responded, "Yes we do, we have no choice in the matter. The clear evidence is there." I did not doubt the evidence, but what surprised me was that these priests and monks believed that which was against their own religion and on top of that, to admit it to others was something out of this world. Usually a Catholic, either because he is brainwashed or stubbornly doesn’t want to see anything only that which he has been taught, will not allow himself to believe anything against his religion, much less to admit it to others. But there is a growing, healthy attitude among many Catholics, to "prove all things, hold fast to that which is good" as the Master admonished us all.

Then I asked, "Does Father Bagatti (co-writer of the book in Italian on the subject, and archaeologist) really believe that those are the bones of St. Peter?" "Yes, he does," was the reply. Then I asked, "But what does the Pope think of all this?" That was a thousand dollar question and he gave me a million dollar answer. "Well," he confidentially answered in a hushed voice, "Father Bagatti told me personally that three years ago he went to the Pope (Pius XII) in Rome and showed him the evidence and the Pope said to him, ‘Well, we will have to make some changes, but for the time being, keep this thing quiet’." In awe I asked also in a subdued voice, "So the Pope really believes that those are the bones of St. Peter?" "Yes," was his answer. "The documentary evidence is there, he could not help but believe."

I visited various renowned archaeologists on the subject. Dr. Albright, of the John Hopkins University in Baltimore, told me that he personally knew priest Bagatti and that he was a very competent archaeologist. I also spoke with Dr. Nelson Gluek, archaeologist and president of the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, Ohio. I showed him the pictures found in this article, but being with him for only a few minutes I therefore could not show him the wealth of material that you have before you in this article. However, he quickly recognized the Aramaic words to be "Simon Bar Jona". (Aramaic is very similar to Hebrew).

"Simon Bar Jona" is the name said by Lord Jesus! When he answered Peter and said "man did not tell you this but the Father in heaven told you this". What was He responding to?

Peter said in an earlier verse, "THOU ART THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD".

And then Lord Jesus answered Peter with the verse mentioned above, "Simon Bar Jona........

[qfnol31]

And I thought my prof's chicken scratch Hebrew was hard to read!

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

they found peters bones in ROme.

[N/A Gone]

woah phatty...interesting. Is that a story you found, or did u actually go there?

couple thoughts...1.) Why does it matter where peter's bones are kept? Could it not be possible that he was martyr in rome and the bones brought back to israel?

2.) this is a very kantian problem, (*stupid wall) the "scientific evidence" is always right

[Guest Rick777]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Dec 19 2005, 04:28 PM']they found peters bones in ROme.
[right][snapback]830907[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


ditto

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[url="http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=12144&highlight=peter%27s+bones+jerusalem"]http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?...bones+jerusalem[/url]
[url="http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=80025&highlight=peter%27s+bones+jerusalem"]http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?...bones+jerusalem[/url]
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Was_Peter_in_Rome.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Was_Peter_in_Rome.asp[/url]

The first two are excellent.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Dec 19 2005, 07:40 PM']woah phatty...interesting. Is that a story you found, or did u actually go there?[/quote]
oh, sorry bout that bro. i got that info from the infamous Bible Light* website

























































































[i]*light, b/c its less filling.....[/i]

[phatcatholic]

anyone have anything else on this?

[theculturewarrior]

2 comments:

1. New Advent tells the story pretty well.

2. There were probably more than a few "Simon Bar Jona's" buried in the Jerusalem area.

[theculturewarrior]

Moreover, wouldn't the Christians who buried him put "Kephas" or "Peter" on the ossuary? Or was it there and I missed that?

[Myles Domini]

I'm sorry to say that as interesting as this sounds I find it very hard to swallow. Indeed, I find it absolutely amazing that the bodies of Peter, Lazarus, Martha and Mary would all be in throwing distance of one another. This sounds like a relic hunters paradise and that alone makes me very skeptical. Were the body of Simon found in isolation I might be able to swallow this easier but 4 Biblical figures clustered together?

Perhaps I sound cynical, I admit I do. The evidence is very impressive (as was the evidence that James the brother of Jesus' tomb was found when that story broke last year). In light of that I'm quite surprised that this story isn't being used by the Dan Brown's of this world? You would've thought having claimed that the tomb of St Peter is in Rome that serious academics and secularising journalists would be doing their utmost to promote this find. There are archeologists a plenty combing the Holy Land are we really to believe that the priests are keeping them from of discovering the truth if this individual got hold of it so easily? Given that this story finds its provenance in 1958 the press coverage of it--particularly during the post-conciliar crisis where basically everything from the Nag Hamadi library to who killed JP1 has been big news--or lack thereof seems perplexing.

Moreover, it seems quite clear from the Acts of the Apostles and the epistles of Paul that Simon was generally called 'Kephas' in the infant Church. Why would he be buried under his original name? Moreover, why does this Simon son of John have to be the only Simon son of John. Last time I looked at the New Testament there were many Johns and many Simons is it so impossible that there could've been more than one Simon son of John.

In addition, and here's the crux, why would the Fathers lie? What did they gain from placing Peter's death in Rome. St Irenaeus for instance was in dispute with Pope Victor soon after writing 'Against Heresies' wherein he states the Roman primacy in connection with Peter and Paul (Adv.Her.3.3.2). What motive could he possibly have had for giving senority to this church about his own mother church, that of St John of Ephesus when trying to get Pope Victor to lift the anathema on his countrymen over the date of Easter? Why does Ignatius of Antioch call it the Church that presides over the others? Why does St Clement feel that he can just order the Corinthians around? Surely Kephas' death would've been known throughout the Church--and the testimony of the Fathers suggest it was. We know from Ignatius' epistles for instance that communication between the churches was not bad at the end of the 1st century. So what gives? Why did they simply all decided to put Peter in Rome if it wasn't true?

I remain unconvinced

INXC
Myles

[Laudate_Dominum]

Simon and Jonah were ridiculously common names back then. It's not at all unlikely that there were other men named Simon Bar Jonah. And Christ changed Simon's name to Peter, it seems this name would have been used on his tomb, or at least mentioned.

This part threw me thru a loop: " In fact, I have a letter from a noted scientist stating that he can tell by the writing that it was written just before the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 A.D."
Who is this "noted scientist"? And how does an individual person's handwriting give you a date just prior to 70 A.D.? That sounds like pure rubbish to me.

Also the other tombs supposedly found makes me raise an eyebrow. Then there is the "aramaic inscription", that alone makes me wonder if this is all a hoax. And what in the heck is the "Strong's Concordance" quote all about? Nothing about this post strikes me as credible scholarship. It reminds me more of a hoax than anything. Nothing against Strong's Concordance, but its not exactly the pinnacle of scholarship if you know what I mean.
If there were really substantial findings of this magnitude it would be quite easy to provide references to credible scholarly sources. Until this is done I would consider this most probably a hoax. Oh wait, I forgot, we have a Da Vinci Code style cover-up on our hands! We may all be assassinated by Opus Dei for reading this thread.

[qfnol31]

I wanna have someone else read it to be honest.

I can't figure out how they got a mem and heh out of it.

[Myles Domini]

[quote]If there were really substantial findings of this magnitude it would be quite easy to provide references to credible scholarly sources. Until this is done I would consider this most probably a hoax. Oh wait, I forgot, we have a Da Vinci Code style cover-up on our hands! We may all be assassinated by Opus Dei for reading this thread.[/quote]

Albino Monks!!!



INXC
Myles

[thessalonian]

[quote]Simon and Jonah were ridiculously common names back then.[/quote]

Yes, just look at the scriptures. There's several john's and simons in the scriptures alone. It would not be surprizing at all that there would be another John with the name simon. Big deal. As alluded to by another poster why wouldn't it say Cephas or Kepha (Petros) on his grave? That is the name most given to him in the scriptures.

Speaking of which they are being hypocritical here as the Bible doesn't say anywhere that Peter died in Jerusalem. That is the most common arguement they use against Peter in Rome. Not that it's a good arguement for you to use. It's just a stupid one for them.

I've seen this before and it has all the marking of a black helicopter story. Not to mention there is no reason to suspect that someone in the first 400 years would have written about what happened to Peter. Oh wait they did. How did the Church of Rome started by Constantine get those already dead writers in on this scam. Amazing how much power the Church has that it can make people write things even before they become a Church.

Edited December 20, 2005 by thessalonian

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 20 2005, 02:23 PM']I wanna have someone else read it to be honest.

I can't figure out how they got a mem and heh out of it.   
[right][snapback]831829[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
what do you mean?

[Myles Domini]

[quote]I've seen this before and it has all the marking of a black helicopter story. Not to mention there is no reason to suspect that someone in the first 400 years would have written about what happened to Peter. Oh wait they did. How did the Church of Rome started by Constantine get those already dead writers in on this scam. Amazing  how much power the Church has that it can make people write things even before they become a Church.[/quote]

Just ask Jack Chick. According to Chick Publications the Church is responsible for founding Islam and Bolshevism. Her tentacles are everywhere. Go to his website, read the comics. Its absolutely stupefying.

INXC
Myles

Edited December 20, 2005 by Myles

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 20 2005, 01:06 PM'] We may all be assassinated by Opus Dei for reading this thread.
[right][snapback]831752[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[missionseeker]

I have been beneath the Vatican and seen where they were excavting and how the evcavators found Peter's bones in Rome.
This was in the 1950's (not that I went, that they found the bones) which is after Pius XII and they also disputed the "found in Jerusalem" deal.
Funny how it was right under their noses the whole time.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Dec 20 2005, 03:02 PM']what do you mean?
[right][snapback]831932[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

LoL, those are two letters that they found...and I can't see how.