Tomb of St. Peter - authentic?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
ficino
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:15 pm

Re: Tomb of St. Peter - authentic?

Post by ficino »

Roger Pearse wrote:
ficino wrote: 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.
I sort of suspected something like this when I encountered VatiLeaks. Thanks for doing this legwork, Roger!

Re tomb, spinning off my #7 above: more plausible than to suppose that a pagan child's grave Gamma was built inches from an already venerated tomb of Peter some 60 years older is to speculate that the burial plot next to Gamma and Theta was owned by a Christian in c. 130-150 CE, and that this person made it available for interring bones that by then were supposed to be Peter's. Why on this spot? Presumably there was a story that Peter had been martyred nearby, although there is a rival story of his martyrdom elsewhere in Rome (I forget where at the moment).

One easily imagines a wide tract of desolate land where people were crucified, and that some were buried near their place of execution. That is not what we have in the area under the present Vatican basilica. The excavations make clear that in the first half of the second century CE, this area was already crowded with graves, and that from c. 130 or 140, it began to become more heavily built up with mausoleums. These required level spaces, unlike the natural hillside site reflected in the position of earlier graves like Gamma and Theta. The leveling off did a lot to raise the ground level above some of the older tombs, and a second raising occurred around 160 with construction of the so-called Muro Rosso.

Unless I see solid first century evidence, I peg the sub-Vatican tomb of Peter to the better part of a century after the apostles purported death.
Roger Pearse
Posts: 393
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:26 am

Re: Tomb of St. Peter - authentic?

Post by Roger Pearse »

ficino wrote:
Roger Pearse wrote:
ficino wrote: 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.
I sort of suspected something like this when I encountered VatiLeaks. Thanks for this.
You're very welcome. It was very interesting to look at. A bit shocking, tho, to find it looks like a hoax.
ficino
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:15 pm

Re: Tomb of St. Peter - authentic?

Post by ficino »

Today I dipped into a long article by Hugo Brandenburg, "Petrus und Paulus in Rom? Die archäologischen Zeugnisse, die Basilika S. Paul vor den Mauern und der Kult der Apostelfürsten." It's in a two-volume Festschrift for Federico Guidobaldi published by the Pontifical Institute for Christian Archeology in 2011

(see a review here:
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2011/2011-11-11.html)

I had expected Brandenburg to push for an early date of the alleged tomb of St. Peter. In fact, he accept a mid-second century C.E. date. B still holds that the basic tradition of Peter's and Paul's martyrdoms in Rome is OK.

BUT...

Brandenburg mentions a book by classicist Otto Zwierlein, which makes a scholarly case that Peter was never in Rome! This charge is an old one from Protestant polemicists against the papacy, but Zwierlein is a mainstream Latin textual critic and commentator. I plan to post a thread when I've read more of Zwierlein's book.

has anyone already done so?

I've noticed that it's gotten some favorable reviews, such as this:

http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2010/2010-03-25.html

Will "liberal" Pope Francis come out in the media to admit that the claim that his See goes back to St. Peter is not historically grounded but is merely a pious tradition?
ficino
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:15 pm

Re: Tomb of St. Peter - authentic?

Post by ficino »

Update: Otto Zwierlein quotes archeologist Harald Mielsch from Bonn, who he says has worked on the site extensively, for the view that there never was a grave beneath the aedicula of c. 160-180 C.E. The first excavators merely inferred its existence.

there is more detail to learn about this site, but I forebear for now. For Zwierlein's info from Mielsch, see link:

http://www.philologie.uni-bonn.de/perso ... n_rome.pdf
Post Reply