Tomb of St. Peter - authentic?

[ficino]

Does anyone know of recent work, or views, on the question, whether the tomb accepted as St. Peter's by Pope Paul VI was in fact Peter's? (I'm not asking about the bone fragments recently brought out by the Vatican as relics of Peter.) I understand that the tomb in question, deep under the present Vatican basilica, has been dated around 130-150 C.E. and that it was of masonry faced with a fine coating of stucco, unusual for tombs in the same necropolis (J.H. Jongkees in Mnemosyne new series 4, 13.2 [1960] 143-55: 155). The epigraphist Margherita Guarducci published graffiti from the late 3rd century written by people who evidently believed they were at the tomb or shrine of Peter.

If the date and identification are correct, either Peter's remains were moved into this tomb from another location in the mid-second century C.E., or it's a second-century fake.

On VatiLeaks I read allegations that Pope Leo in the fifth century supervised the concoction of a fake tomb of Peter, and another one of Paul:

http://www.vatileaks.com/_blog/Vati_Lea ... invention/

The archeological work done under the basilica, though, seems to render these stories moot.

Anyone know more about this?

[Peter Kirby]

A blog called Vatileaks isn't exactly trust-inspiring is it.

[ficino]

A blog called Vatileaks isn't exactly trust-inspiring is it.

No. But I'm not clear whether you're making a point about the second-century tomb, Peter.

[Peter Kirby]

I didn't.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Does anyone know of recent work, or views, on the question, whether the tomb accepted as St. Peter's by Pope Paul VI was in fact Peter's? (I'm not asking about the bone fragments recently brought out by the Vatican as relics of Peter.) I understand that the tomb in question, deep under the present Vatican basilica, has been dated around 130-150 C.E. and that it was of masonry faced with a fine coating of stucco, unusual for tombs in the same necropolis (J.H. Jongkees in Mnemosyne new series 4, 13.2 [1960] 143-55: 155). The epigraphist Margherita Guarducci published graffiti from the late 3rd century written by people who evidently believed they were at the tomb or shrine of Peter.

If the date and identification are correct, either Peter's remains were moved into this tomb from another location in the mid-second century C.E., or it's a second-century fake.

On VatiLeaks I read allegations that Pope Leo in the fifth century supervised the concoction of a fake tomb of Peter, and another one of Paul:

http://www.vatileaks.com/_blog/Vati_Lea ... invention/

The archeological work done under the basilica, though, seems to render these stories moot.

Anyone know more about this?

These kinds of things must be run out of a special branch of obfuscation.

It is perfectly reasonable to ask exactly what it being claimed and what has been found and trying to find such answers is difficult, usually difficult enough to give up and assume it doesn't exist. I'll take a properly carbon dated, undisturbed burial on Vatican Hill with an inscription reading something like 'Peter disciple of Jesus of Nazareth' in proper Latin or such. In fact I would be more interested in the name Jesus than Peter but it would be a twofer giving great weight to, they really existed.

However if it did not also say to the effect 'head of the church of Rome' it does not even begin to evidence anything about the first Pope claim. If it were to give his title as bishop, Episcopi?, of Rome it is an anachronism.

Archaeologically speaking if the Leo story is its original discovery and it were in fact what is claimed then it was removed from context and it is impossible to verify.

So we would retreat to a lesser standard, often all we have in history, what was recounted as evidence for the claim at the time of discovery. This is the kind of thing so difficult to find that it may not exist regardless of the fervent beliefs of the claimants. On one hand we might find credible criteria that would be reasonable today. Unfortunately in these matters were are most likely to find signs and wonders, acceptable at the time perhaps but objectively worthless regardless of the miracles claimed.

Were I interested in researching the subject that is what I would bring to it to evaluate whatever ancient material I might find. However I would go into it expecting to find at most miraculous cures out the ying-yang as only evidence. Signs and wonders have convinced believers down through the ages and still do today. Even stories of miracles created centuries or just years after their supposed occurence convince believers. The miracles of Fatima do not appear in the original news reports but first in a brochure/tract published several years later.

The mind of the believer is an incredible thing.

[ficino]

John Curran, "The Bones of St. Peter?", Classics Ireland 3 (1996) 18-46: 44 says that Guarducci and Pope Paul VI were "absolutely mistaken" in their identification of the bones that were announced by that pope as Peter's. Curran says that the supposed tomb (the so-called "tomba scomparsa"), however, is from the last third of the first century CE. This is a conclusion that comes from a brick tile in a tomb (the so-called Theta) next to it at the same level and with the same orientation on the compass. This tile is stamped as made in the reign of Vespasian (69-79). So the supposed tomb of Peter would be from around the same time, give or take several years. Tradition has him martyred around 64.

Jongkees, however, whom I cited in the OP, says later work detected a tile stamped betw 116-123 CE in the other tomb adjacent to Peter's supposed tomb. This other tomb, Gamma, has to be earlier than Theta, because its location would be impossible had Theta already been constructed. Curran does not seem to be aware of this later tile. The tile from the time of Vespasian, then, seems to be an old one that was incorporated into the second century tomb Theta.

The second-century structure (the "aedicula") built above what is claimed to have been Peter's tomb (i.e. above the "tomba scomparsa") seems to have been built to protect it. This aedicula is dated from bricks stamped between 147 and 161. Coins from all over are scattered in the tomb below, as though thrown from above by pilgrims, thinks Curran. On a wall near the aedicula are the graffiti that Guarducci dated to late 3rd cent. Eusebius quotes a certain Gaius from around 200 as saying that tombs of the founders of the Roman church are along the then road in this spot. Someone had also written Πετρ εν, i.e. "Petros enesti," on an exterior wall - meaning, "Peter is in here."

So the reasoning of those who think this is Peter's tomb is that the second century stuff shows that the grave below (the "tomba scomparsa") was venerated, the Vespasian brick in tomb Theta shows that the level of the three tombs (Gamma, Theta, scomparsa) is first century, and the third cent. stuff identifies the dead person as Peter. Since Gamma is older than Theta and appears to be 2nd century, though, their attempt to announce archeological proof of Christian presence in first century Rome seems to be unfounded.

[PhilosopherJay]

Thank you for explaining this, Ficino.
From this case, it is apparent that pre-scientific and mythological thinking prevails in the heads of the Catholic Church. They look for signs instead of looking for scientific evidence. The problem is that people believe that Priests, Bishops and Popes are educated people when they are fundamentally miseducated people.

[ficino]

Quite. Curran's article seems rather naive.

Could one argue that the "tomba scomparsa" was built in c. 130-150 C.E. but at the spot of an earlier tomb of Peter, where Christians had venerated his remains since his martyrdom? I.e. that Peter's bones were reinterred at the spot of his original burial? That seems a little strange given that even Curran is clear that tomb gamma, which must be earlier than the "scomparsa" (a conclusion drawn from the original slope of the ground), was a pagan tomb of a child. It had a lead pipe for pouring wine to the spirit of the dead, and a little altar above it. Why would the pagan parents have built their child's tomb in c. 116-123 C.E. RIGHT NEXT TO one that supposedly was attracting goodly numbers of Christians venerating the bones of Peter? I suppose that's possible, or maybe the mom was Christian but the father wasn't... who knows. Anyway, the most one can say is that the mid-second century tomb was built with some special care, since it was faced with stucco inside, unlike others in the area.

[Roger Pearse]

On VatiLeaks I read allegations that Pope Leo in the fifth century supervised the concoction of a fake tomb of Peter, and another one of Paul:

http://www.vatileaks.com/_blog/Vati_Lea ... invention/

I've just looked at that web page and attempted to verify a few details...

http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2013 ... the-great/

This is Tony Bushby's site.

[arnoldo]

FWIW, the Emperor Julian allegedly mentions the tomb of Peter in Against the Galileans.

But you are so misguided that you have not even remained faithful to the teachings that were handed down to you by the apostles. And these also have been altered., so as to be worse and more impious, by those who came after. At any rate neither Paul nor Matthew nor Luke nor Mark ventured to call Jesus God. But the worthy John, since he perceived that a great number of people in many of the towns of Greece and Italy had already been infected by this disease,131 and because he heard, I suppose, that even the tombs of Peter and Paul were being worshipped ----secretly, it is true, but still he did hear this,----he, I say, was the first to venture to call Jesus God.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julia ... 1_text.htm