The Discovery of Peter's Tomb in Jerusalem
1953
Peter’s Tomb
Recently Discovered In Jerusalem
By F. Paul
Peterson
1960 — 1stEdition
12,000
1962 — 2ndEdition
8,000
1964 — 3rdEdition
10,000
1971 — 4thEdition
10,000
Copies may be obtained from
your local bookstore or from the author and publisher, F. Paul Peterson,
P.0. Box 7351, Fort
Wayne, Indiana,
Price $2.00.
(We will confidentially send this book to all those that you indicate, for the
same price, postpaid.)
Copyright 1960 F. PAUL
PETERSON
Permission is granted to reproduce any part of this book if title, price and
address where it may be purchased are given.
CHAPTER ONE
Peter’s
Tomb
While visiting a friend in Switzerland, I heard
of what seemed tome, 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 priest 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.
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".
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. 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.
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. 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 keyhole. 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). I asked him if he would write a
statement to that effect. He said to do so would cast a reflection on the
competency of the priest J.T. Milik, who he knew to be a very able
scientist. But he said that he would write a note. I quote,
"I regard Father J. T. Milik as a first class
scholar in the Semitic field." He added, "I do not consider that names on
ossuaries are conclusive evidence that they are those of the Apostles."
Nelson Glueck
I quote this letter of Dr. Glueck because it
shows that priest Milikis a competent archaeologist. As I have mentioned, I
was only able to be with him for a few minutes and was not able to show him
but a very small part of the evidence. Anyone, including myself, would readily
agree with Dr. Glueck that if only the name Simon Bar Jona on the ossuary was
all the evidence that was available it would not be conclusive evidence that
it was of the Apostle Peter, though it would certainly be a strong
indication.
The story of the cave and the ossuaries and the
regular cemetery just outside of the Convent site is this: It was a Roman
custom that when a person had died and after about ten years when the body
had decomposed, the grave would be opened. The bones would be placed in a
small ossuary with the name of the person carefully written on the outside
front. These ossuaries would then be placed in a cave as in the case of this
Christian burial ground and thus making room for others. But this cave or
burial place where the ossuaries were found and which was created and brought
about through the natural and disinterested sequence of events, without any
reason to change facts or circumstances, was a greater testimony than if there
were a witness recorded, stating that Peter was buried there. And yet, even
that is unmistakenly recorded in the three words in Aramaic of the ossuary,
Simon Bar Jona.
Herein, lies the greatest proof that Peter never
was a Pope, and never was in Rome, for if he had been, it would have certainly
been proclaimed in the New Testament. History, likewise, would not have been
silent on the subject, as they were not silent in the case of the Apostle
Paul. Even the Catholic history would have claimed the above as a fact and not
as fickle tradition. To omit Peter as being Pope and in Rome (and the Papacy)
would be like omitting the Law of Moses or the Prophets or the Acts of the
Apostles from the Bible.
Dr. Glueck, being Jewish, and having been to
Jerusalem, no doubt, is fully aware of the fact that for centuries the
Catholic Church bought up what were thought to be holy sites, some of which
did not stand up to Biblical description. For instance, the priests say that
the tomb of Jesus is within the walls of the old Jerusalem, in a hole in the
ground; whereas, the Bible says that the tomb where Jesus was laid was hewn
out of rock and a stone was rolled in front and not on top of it. The Garden
Tomb at the foot of Golgotha, outside the walls of old Jerusalem, meets the
Biblical description perfectly. In fact, all those who were hated by the
Jewish leaders as Jesus was could never have been allowed to be buried within
the gates of the Holy City. The tomb where Jesus lay was made for Joseph of
Arimathaea. His family were all stout and short of stature. In this burial
place you can see to this day where someone had carved deeper into the wall to
make room for Jesus who was said to be about six feet tall.
When Pope Pius XII declared the Assumption of
Mary to be an article of faith in 1950, the Catholic Church in Jerusalem then
quickly sold the tomb of Mary to the Armenian Church. Ex. priest Lavallo told
me personally that there is another tomb of St. Mary in Ephesus. But the tomb
of St. Peter is altogether different for they would rather that it never
existed and to buy or sell such a site would be out of the question. It fell
upon them in this manner, as I was told by a Franciscan monk of the monastery
of "Dominus Flevit". One of their members was spading the ground on this site
in 1953, when his shovel fell through. Excavation was started and there, a
large underground Christian burial ground was uncovered. The initial of Christ
in Greek was written there which would never have been found in a Jewish,
Arab or pagan cemetery. By the structure of the writings, it was established by
scientists that they were of the days just before the destruction of Jerusalem
by Titus in 70 A.D. On the ossuaries were found many names of the Christian of
the early Church. It was prophesied in the Bible that Jesus would stand on the
Mount of Olives at His return to earth. You can see then, how the Christians
would be inclined to have their burial ground on the Mount, for here also, had
been a favorite meeting place of Jesus and His disciples.
In all the cemetery, nothing was found (as also
in the Catacombs in Rome) which resemble Arab, Jewish, Catholic or pagan
practices. Dr. Glueck, being Jewish, is not fully aware, no doubt, that such a
discovery is very embarrassing since it undermines the very foundation of the
Roman Catholic Church. Since Peter did not live in Rome and therefore was not
martyred or buried there, it naturally follows that he was not their first
Pope.
The Catholic Church says that Peter was Pope in
Rome from 41to 66 A.D., a period of twenty-five years, but the Bible shows a
different story. The book of the Acts of the Apostles (in either the Catholic
or Protestant Bible) records the following: Peter was preaching the Gospel to
the circumcision (the Jews) in Caesarea and Joppa in Palestine, ministering
unto the household of Cornelius, which is a distance of 1,800 miles from Rome
(Acts 10:23, 24). Soon after, about the year 44 A.D. (Acts 12), Peter was cast
into prison in Jerusalem by Herod, but he was released by an angel. From 46 to
52 A.D., we read in the 13th chapter that he was in Jerusalem preaching the
difference between Law and Grace. Saul was converted in 34 A.D. and became
Paul the Apostle (Acts 9). Paul tells us that three years after his conversion
in 37 A.D., he "went up to Jerusalem to see Peter" (Galatians 1:18), and in 51
A.D., fourteen years later, he again went up to Jerusalem (Gal. 2:1, 8), Peter
being mentioned. Soon after that he met Peter in Antioch, and as Paul says,
"Withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed," Gal. 2:11. The
evidence is abundant, the truth is clear from the Scriptures which have never
failed. It would be breathtaking to read of the boldness of Paul in dealing
with Peter. Very few, if any, have withstood a Pope and lived (except in these
days when everybody seems to withstand him). If Peter were Pope it would have
been no different. Paul does not only withstand Peter but rebukes him and
blames him of being at fault.
This reminds me of my visit to the St. Angelo
Castle in Rome. This castle, which is a very strong fortress, is connected
with the Vatican by a high arched viaduct of about a mile in length over which
popes have fled in time of danger. The Roman Catholic guide showed me a prison
room which had a small air-tight chamber in it. He told me that a Cardinal who
had contended with a pope on doctrine was thrown into this air-tight chamber
for nearly two hours until he almost smothered to death. He then was led to
the guillotine a few feet away and his head was cut off. Another thing
remained with me forcibly. The guide showed me through The apartments of the
various popes who had taken refuge there. In each case he also showed me the
apartment of the mistresses of each of the popes. I was amazed that he made no
attempt to hide anything.
I asked him "Are you not a Catholic?"
He humbly answered, "Oh yes, I am a Catholic,
but I am ashamed of the history of
many of the popes, but I trust that our modern popes are better."
I then asked him, "Surely you are aware of the
affair between Pope Pius XII and his housekeeper?" Many in Rome say that she
ran the affairs of the Pope and the Vatican as well.
He hung his head in shame and sadly said,
"Yes, I know."
All this explains why the Catholic Church has
been so careful to keep this discovery unknown. They were successful in doing
just that from 1953, when it was discovered by the Franciscans on their own
convent site, until 1959. Having succeeded for so long in keeping "this thing
quiet," as the Pope had admonished, they were off guard when a fellow at that
time came along who appeared harmless but persistent. Little did they know
that this fellow would publish the news everywhere. Their position in the
world is shaky enough without this discovery becoming generally known.
As I have mentioned, I had a very agreeable talk
with priest Milk, but I did not have the opportunity to see priest Bagatti
while in Jerusalem. I wrote to him, however, on March 15, 1960, as follows: "I
have spoken with a number of Franciscan priests and monks and they have told
me about you and the book of which you are a co-writer. I had hoped to see you
and to compliment you on such a great discovery, but time would not permit.
Having heard so much about you and that you are an archaeologist (with the
evidence in hand), I was convinced, with you, concerning the ancient burial
ground that the remains found in the ossuary with the name on it, ‘Simon Bar
Jona’, written in Aramaic, were those of St. Peter." It is remarkable that in
his reply he did not contradict my statement, which he certainly would have
done if he honestly could have done so. "I was very much convinced with you -
. . that the remains found in the ossuary... were those of St. Peter." This
confirms the talk I had with the Franciscan monk in Bethlehem and the story he
told me of Priest Bagatti’s going to the Pope with the evidence concerning the
bones of St. Peter in Jerusalem. In his letter one can see that he is careful
because of the Pope's admonition to keep this discovery quiet. He therefore
wrote me that he leaves the whole explanation of the Aramaic words, "Simon Bar
Jona", to priest Milik. This is a familiar way of getting out of a similar
situation. In priest Bagatti’s letter one can see that he is in a difficult
position. He cannot go against what he had written in 1953, at the time of the
discovery of this Christian-Jewish burial ground, nor what he had said to the
Franciscan monk about his visit to the Pope. However, he does raise a question
which helps him to get out of the situation without altogether contradicting
himself and at the same time putting a smoke screen around the truth. He
wrote,
"Supposing that it is ‘Jona’ (on the ossuary)
as I believe, it may be some other relative of St. Peter, because names were
passed on from family to family. To be able to propose the identification of
it with St. Peter would go against a long tradition, which has its own value.
Anyway, another volume will come soon that will demonstrate that the cemetery
was Christian and of the first century to the second century A.D.
The salute in God
most devoted
P. B. Bagatti C. F. M."
As I have shown, after the admonition of the
Pope to "keep this thing quiet," priest Bagatti leaves the interpretation of
the whole matter to priest Milik who offers several suggestions but in the end
declares that the original statement of priest Bagatti may be true—that the
inscription and the remains were of St. Peter.
It is also very interesting and highly
significant that priest Bagatti, in his attempt to neutralize his original
statement and the consternation the discovery had and would have if it were
generally known, says in reference to the name Simon Bar Jona (St. Peter), "It
may be some other relative of St. Peter, because names were passed on from
generation to generation." In other words he says that Peter’s name, Simon Bar
Joan, could have been given him from a relative of the same name of
generations before him, or, could belong to a relative generations after St.
Peter. Both speculations are beyond the realm of the possible. First of all,
it could not refer to a relative before St. Peter for the Christian burial
ground could only have come into being after Jesus began. His public ministry
and had converts; and therefore, could not belong to a relative before Peter’s
time, since only those who were converted through Christ’s ministry were
buried there. Titus destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and left it desolate.
Therefore, it is impossible that the inscription could refer to a relative
after Peter’s time. One encyclopedia explains the destruction in these words,
‘‘With this event the history of ancient Jerusalem came to a close, for it was
left desolate and it’s inhabitants were scattered abroad." From all evidence,
Peter was about fifty years old when Jesus called him to be an Apostle, and he
died around the age of 82, or about the year 62 A.D. Since by these figures
there was only eight years left from the time of Peter’s death until the
destruction of Jerusalem, it was then impossible that the inscription and
remains belonged to generations after Peter. In those days names were passed
on to another only after a lapse of many years. But let us say that
immediately after the death of St. Peter, a baby was christened, "Simon Bar
Jona", the inscription still could not have been of this baby for the remains
were of an adult and not of a child of eight years who had died just before
the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., at which time "the history of ancient
Jerusalem came to a close, for it was left desolate and its inhabitants were
scattered abroad."
This ancient Christian burial ground shows that
Peter died and was buried in Jerusalem, which is easily understandable since
neither history nor the Bible tells of Peter’s having been in Rome. To make
matters more clear, the Bible tells us that Peter was the Apostle to the Jews.
It was Paul who was the Apostle to the Gentiles, and both history and the
Bible tells of his being in Rome. No wonder that the Roman Catholic Bishop,
Strossniayer, in his great speech against papal infallibility before the Pope
and the Council of 1870 said, "Scaliger, one of the most learned men, has not
hesitated to say that St. Peter's episcopate and residence in Rome ought to be
classed with ridiculous legends." Eusebius, one of the most learned men of his
time, wrote the Church history up to the year 325 A.D. He said that Peter
never was in Rome. This Church history was translated by Jerome from the
original Greek, but in his translation he added a fantastic story of Peter's
residence in Rome. This was a common practice in trying to create credence in
their doctrines, using false statements, false letters and falsified history.
This is another reason why we cannot rely on tradition, but only on the
infallible Word of God.
The secrecy surrounding this case is amazing,
and yet understandable, since Catholics largely base their faith on the
assumption that Peter was their first Pope and that he was martyred and buried
there. But I am somewhat of the opinion that the Franciscan priests, those who
are honest, would be glad to see the truth proclaimed, even if it displeased
those who are over them. While visiting with priest Milik, I told him of the
highly educated priest with whom I had spoken just before going from Rome to
Jerusalem. He admitted tome that the remains of Peter are not in the tomb of
St. Peter in the Vatican. I asked him what had happened to them? He responded,
"We don't know, but we think that the Saracens stole them away." First of all,
the Saracens never got to Rome, but even if they had, what would they want
with the bones of Peter? But they never got to Rome, so there it ends. We had
a good laugh together, but more so when I told him of my discussion with a
brilliant American priest in Rome. I asked this American priest if he knew
that the bones of Peter were not in the "Tomb of St. Peter" in the Vatican. He
admitted that they were not there. However, he said that a good friend of his,
an archaeologist, had been excavating under St. Peter’s Basilica for the bones
of St. Peter for a number of years and five years ago he found them. Now a man
can be identified by his fingerprints, but never by his bones. So I asked him
how he knew they were the bones of St. Peter? He hesitated and tried to change
the subject, but on my insistence he finally explained that they had taken the
bones to a chemist, and they were analyzed and it was judged that the bones
were of a man who had died at about the age of sixty-five; therefore, they
must be Peter’s. How ridiculous can people be?
Mark you, all the priests agree that the Vatican
and St. Peter’s were built over a pagan cemetery. This was a very appropriate
place for them to build since, as even Cardinal Newman admitted, there are
many pagan practices in the Roman Catholic Church. You realize surely, that
Christians would never bury their dead in a pagan cemetery, and you may be
very sure that pagans would never allow a Christian to be buried in their
cemetery. So, even if Peter died in Rome, which is out of the question, surely
the pagan cemetery under St. Peter’s Basilica would be the last place in which
he would have been buried. Also, Peter from every indication, lived to be over
80 and not 65 years old.
The Pope was right, going back to the early
Christian burial ground, they must make changes and many of them and
fundamental ones at that. But I am afraid that the Pope’s (Pius XII)
admittance of the discovery on Bagatti’s presentation of the documentary
evidence was to satisfy Bagatti but at the same time admonishing him to keep
the information quiet, hoping that the truth of the discovery would die out.
But they have said that after all these years of excavation under the Vatican,
they have discovered Greek words which read, "Peter is buried here," and it
gives the date 160 A.D. First of all, the very structure of the sentence
immediately gives one the impression that either quite recently or long ago,
someone put the sign there hoping that it would be taken as authentic in order
to establish that which then, and even now, has never been proven. Then there
is a discrepancy in the date, for Peter was martyred around the year 62 A.D.
and not160 A.D. Thirdly, why is it that they mention nothing about finding
bones under or around the sign? While visiting the Catacombs, one sees a few
things which are not becoming to Christians, but which tend to indicate that
the Christians had some pagan practices, similar to those of Rome today.
Nothing is said about them and only after persistent questioning will the
Roman Catholic priest, who acts as guide, tell you that those things, images,
etc., were placed there centuries after the early Christian era.
In 1950, just a few years prior to the discovery
of the Christian burial ground in Jerusalem, the Pope made the strange
declaration that the bones of St. Peter were found under St. Peter’s in Rome.
Strange it was, for since beginning to build the church in 1450 (finished in
1626)they erected, St. Peter’s Tomb (?) under the large dome and
Brandiniserpentine columns. Since then multiplied millions were thereby
deceived into believing that the remains of St. Peter were there, which the
hierarchy had all along known was not true, as is proven by the late Pope's
declaration. The following was published in the Newsweek of July 1, 1957:
"It was in 1950 that Pope Pius XII in his
Christmas message announced that the tomb of St. Peter had indeed been found,
as tradition held, beneath the immense dome of the Cathedral (there was,
however, no evidence that the bones uncovered there belonged to the body of
the martyr)." The parentheses are Newsweek’s.
To make an announcement of such importance when
there is absolutely "no evidence" is rather ridiculous as is also brought out
in the Time Magazine of October 28, 1957 (as in above, we quote the article
word for word).
"A thorough account in English of the
discoveries beneath St. Peter’s is now available.. by British archaeologists
Jocelyn Toynbee and John Ward Perkins. The authors were not members of the
excavating team, but scholars Toynbee (a Roman Catholic) and Perkins (an
Anglican) poured over the official Vatican reports painstakingly examined the
diggings. Their careful independent conclusions fall short of the Pope’s flat
statement." (The Pope’s statement that the remains of St. Peter were found
under St. Peter’s in Rome). The excavation under St. Peter’s for the remains
of St. Peter is still going on secretly, in spite of the Pope’s declaration of
1950.
Then in 1965, an archaeologist at Rome
University, Prof. Margherita Guarducci, tells of a new set of bones belonging
to Peter. The story was fantastic but lacked common sense and even bordered on
the infantile—but a drowning man will grab for a straw and a straw it was to
many. But the Palo Alto Times (California), May 9, 1967, came out with an
article on the subject, and I quote, "Other experts, among them Msgr. Joseph
Ruysschaert, vice prefect of the Vatican Library are not convinced by Miss
Guarducci’s evidence. ‘There are too many unknowns,’ he told reporters on a
recent tour of the Vatican grottoes, ‘There is no continuous tracing of the
bones. We lack historical proof. They could be anyone’s bones.’ The Vatican
would seem to be on the monsignour’s side because so far it has taken no steps
to officially recognize the bones as St. Peter’s," continues the article.
The intelligent priest of whom I have mentioned
said that Peter’s bones were found and he was a man who died of about 62 years
of age, the tests indicated. Pope Pius XII declared these bones were the bones
of St. Peter, in his Christmas message of 1950. These were the same as claimed
by Newsweek, "there was, however, no evidence that the bones uncovered there
belonged to the body of the martyr (Peter)," as well as the above doubtful
statements of the archaeologists working on the case. The Pope,
notwithstanding, was overjoyed to think they had found the bones of St. Peter
until further examination proved that these bones were those of a woman. This
fact came out in an article on the subject in the S. F. Chronicle of June 27,
1968.
To continue the history of another case in which
they have erred: In spite of the statements by the high Papal authority above
and the resultant lesson that should have been learned, the Pope, a year later
claimed the Prof. Margherita bones as his very own, that is, those of St.
Peter. When the bones were found there was little importance placed upon them
and they were filed away as such. But when the first set of Peter's bones
turned out so tragically, there was a vacuum left and something had to be
done. Again they turned their thoughts to the filed-away bones, the only hope
they had of success. In them there was a ray of hopes for the bones were minus
a skull, which could go along with the story of the supposed skull of St.
Peter which had for centuries been guarded in the church of St. John Lateran
in Rome. With a generous mixture of ideas, suppositions, theories and wishful
thinking, a fairly logical story emerged. It was then declared by Pope Paul as
the Gospel truth, that these now, were the genuine bones of St. Peter, and
most of the faithful accepted them as such. For a while all was well until
another hitch developed. This time, as fate would have it, the bones in
connection with the skull which was guarded for centuries as that of St.
Peter, were found incompatible to the more recent bones of St. Peter. The
dilemma was terrible. They were between the Devil and the deep blue sea. They
have juggled around the skulls of St. Peter causing confusion. It was a choice
of claiming these bones championed by Prof. Margherita as fake, or claiming as
fake the skull accepted by hundreds of Popes as that of St. Peter. They
rejected the past rather than expose themselves to the ridicule of the
present. Prof. Margherita claims in this article which appeared in the
Manchester Guardian in London, as well as the S. F. Chronicle of June 27,
1968, concerning the long accepted skull of St. Peter, as "it is a fake." Then
the article continues, "The hundreds of Popes and millions of Roman Catholics
who have accepted and venerated the other skull were innocent victims of
another early tradition.
But the most astounding statement in the long
article found in the above mentioned newspapers is, "The professor did not
submit them. (Peter’s bones?) to modern scientific tests, which would have
determined the approximate age, because, she feared, the process would have
reduced them to dust." How could any scientific study of bones be carried out
without first scientifically determining the age of the person, or bones? This
would be of the greatest interest and the most important for further research.
Also any scientist or chemist knows that you do not have to submit the whole
skeleton for testing to determine the age. A part of the shin bone or of a rib
would be sufficient. It appears that she was protecting her "Peter’s bones"
from another possible disaster, which a wrong age would have caused. The
Vatican and others have calculated through all existing evidence that Peter
lived to be around 80 and 82 years, and that he died around the years of 62or
64 A.D. These figures go along perfectly, as does everything else in the case,
with the remains found in the Christian burial ground on the Mount of Olives
and in the ossuary on which was "clearly and beautifully written," Simon Bar
Jona in Aramaic.
The following was taken from the book, Races of
Mankind, page161: "Strained attempts to have Peter, the Apostle to the Hebrews
of the East, in Paul’s territory at Rome and martyred there are unworthy of
serious consideration in the light of all contemporary evidence. At his age
(eighty-two), that would not have been practicable. In none of Paul's writings
is there the slightest intimation that Peter ever had been or was at that
city. All statements to the contrary were made centuries later and are
fanciful and hearsay. The Papacy was not organized until the second half of
the 8th century. It broke away from the Eastern Church (in the Ency. Brit.,
13th Ed., vol. 21, page 636) under Pippin III; also the Papacy, by Abbe Guette."
The great historian, Schaff, states that the idea of Peter being in Rome is
irreconcilable with the silence of the Scriptures, and even with the mere fact
of Paul’s epistle to the Romans. In the year 58, Paul wrote his epistle to the
Roman church, but does not mention Peter, although he does name 28 leaders in
the church at Rome (Rom. 16:7). It must, therefore, be concluded that if the
whole subject is faced with detached objectivity, the conclusion must
inevitably be reached that Peter was never in Rome. Paul lived and wrote in
Rome, but he declared that "Only Luke is with me."
