Talk:Saint Peter's tomb

Defence of article

My comment goes in here because from all that is said below, it's more or less clear none of you know very much about the subject. The article is poor, granted, but that's got little to do with POV. I suggest everyone interested in the subject should read JE Walsh's book in full - it's online and linked - before making smart comments among, inter alia, the animal bones involved, the Lateran skull, or the number of bodies. It's not like ignorance can't be cured. Don't take the Vatican's or Walsh's word for the matter, but *inform* yourselves. As for the 'sarcastic' link some one inserted, well, it's ignorant blather for anyone who actually knows something about the subject. This matter is an interesting archaeological story and trying to make fun of it in an uninformed way makes people sound like idiots. As the 'sarcastical' article, taken btw from a catholic-bashing site, monumentally sounds. For those actually interested in knowing the truth - yes, the Vatican believes those are the bones of Peter. Yes, the Vatican has no problem whatsoever with the animal bones. No, the Lateran skull is no problem either. Nor are the other bodies found in Peter's original tomb. Yes, the bones that the Vatican believes are Peter's are the same that people believed to be so since the 2nd century. Now, whether that belief was correct may be debated (but not here). The exact unfolding of events that led to the status of the site as found by archaeologists may be speculated upon (*That* is one of the most interesting parts - especially the idea that the tropaion was the first christian altar, once a wooden staircase is placed in front of it). But little of this has to do with the search for the 'tomb of Peter' from the moment one considers the 'tomb of Peter' is what the early christians believed it to be. But I suppose the possibility that the main religious building of a religious body is built on top of the tomb of its founder is too much for some. In a few centuries, I suppose even the historical existence of Constantine or Charlemagne may be made fun of. 81.84.44.78 (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Who is Guarducci, and why is she important, but not important enough to be mentioned after the second paragraph? 70.106.200.29 03:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is highly POV - not surprisingly since it is taken from a Catholic encylopedia! In fact there is I believe considerable doubt as to the location of the two bodies, and outside Roman Catholic circles it is not even universally admitted that Peter ever actually went to Rome. The article is also out of date since it does not mention the more recent excavations at the Vatican that have discovered a skeleton considered by some to be possibly that of Peter. Finally it is surprising that there is no mention of the reliquaries hanging in the Lateran church that reputedly contain the heads of both Peter and Paul. rossb 21:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

it is not very well written either - clear english please cut the waffle

A Tomb believed to be that of Saint Peter is under St.Peters in Vatican

Yesterday, January 26, 2006, I went on the tour of the excavations under Saint Peter's in Rome that includes a visit to the alleged tomb of Saint Peter. Although this tour has a long wait-list, its existence is well-published in the popular tour guides of Rome, and it is no secret. The excavations were begun by Pius XI and continued by Pius XII. The Vatican provides guides who lead the tour and provide their version of the history supporting belief that the tomb is that of Saint Peter. The tour raises many questions, of course; but there is no doubt that the Church actively supports the statements of its guides.

The message is clear. The Church guides state that Saint Peter was crucified in the Vatican Hill area, and that he was removed to a tomb near the walls of Nero's Circus, outside of the city walls. The guides do not state that any specific set of bones found near the tomb are definitely those of Saint Peter, although various sets of bones were believed to be Saint Peter's at various times in the past.

At least two other sites are thought to be the resting place of Saint Peter. I would advise readers to do more research rather than accept the existing Wikipedia entry as even reasonably complete. -DB

For some retarded reason, this is a page about one persons (St Peters) tomb, yet for some reason it concerns many tombs. Im trying to do my bloody assignment and all i can figure out is that because sum retard just copy and pasted from a catholic website, A tomb was discovered by SUM roman during the late 200

I agree

I agreed with most of the negative comments above. I am not qualified to edit or add to this article though. I added a link to an article critical of the Vatican with regard to the research of the tomb and the remains. The article is sarcastic and perhaps not a great source but it seemed to be better than the Wikipedia article. I wondered if something about the view that St. Peter as represented by the Catholic Church is largely or entirely mythical and there is at least a reasonable chance that he may not be buried in Rome at all should be mentioned in this article.

Davefoc 07:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree

"outside Roman Catholic circles it is not even universally admitted that Peter ever actually went to Rome..." you mean in anti-historical anti-Catholic circles (only) it is adamantly affirmed that Peter never went to Rome. There is as much evidence that Peter went to Rome as there is evidence that Jesus himself existed. If you disagree then I guess you'll need to find an unbiased historian who supports this notion. On the other hand, I suppose there should be a section in this article listing the objections. I suppose this could include the conspiracy theory that you mention.

By the way the later part of the article contradicts the first more-recent part. I suggest the existing last two sentences "There are those, however, who think that it would not be impossible... without result." be deleted or edited to reflect the earlier part of the article, given the Catholic Encyclopedia article (from which I assume these sentences were taken) was written before the excavations were carried out.

Atreyu81 04:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

I took the old article and rewrote it without the extra "stuff" that seemed to stultify it. It had been directly copied from one or more web pages, which brings up a problem of copyright. I would like to brag that I solved this problem completely, but I kept some of the old article. This seemed to answer Wikipedia's request for a rewrite, so I deleted their message.

I left out the temporizing and personalities.

Also put in a few footnotes which it was missing. Student7 00:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

St. Peter never being in Rome

See St. Peter#Death, subsection "Death of Peter." Student7 19:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't tell the whole story

This article doesn't mention that the bones were found to have been for three different people and some barnyard animals. It also doesn't mention Antonio Ferrua and the controversy sorrounding him. Bobisbob 01:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have a written source from a scholar that you can quote with a footnote, go ahead. Lots of stuff on tv and anti-religious websites (etc.) that is quite bogus. Student7 03:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

How about these?:

[1] [2] [3]

Bobisbob 01:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I would go with the Catholic Reporter (2). The first article seems to have an axe to grind - he wants to prove that Peter was buried in Jerusalem, which has to be at least as hard, and most likely harder, to prove, than a Roman burial which was Christian tradition. I can't read enough of the Atlantic article to know what the author had in mind, but I presume he was covering the same material? Sure. Go for it! Clearly the dig was handled poorly from the start.

It's been known since the Middle Ages that there was enough splinters from "The Cross of Christ" to build a church! And enough nails from his cross to hold the church together! Having said that, clearly a better job could have been done with this excavation at the time. Student7 04:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I just want to put this information out for the editors to take note. It is strange that the article doesn't mention Antonio Ferrua's supposed discovery of a "Peter is within here" inscription. His discovery has been challanged but still, he is one of the main reasons why they think it was Peter's tomb. See here: [4] Bobisbob 16:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Bob. (Do you mind if I call you "Bob"?). It works like this - people come up with new material. They insert it in the text where other people will probably try to change it. What I am trying to say here is - YOU are the editor. It's all voluntary. You appoint yourself. If you want an appointment, here it is: "I hereby appoint you a Wikipedia editor!" Thanks for discussing it prior to insertion. We all know now what to expect. It isn't really necessary though. Just footnote it with the article you found. See article imbedded text for examples or Wikipedia:Footnotes for help. (The first time is a little scary. Don't worry. You can't mess it up beyond repair. At least I don't think so~  :) Student7 21:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I where to put the info and make it fit, plus I've been cutting down on editting lately. Bobisbob 21:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

POV article by atheists

Okay, it's hard to sympathize withOf Bones and Boners: St. Peter at the Vatican if you are a believer. So maybe this is a general question. The article in the Atheist is no more pov than articles in Catholic pubs, right? And those are used. The material appears to have been edited. I guess my pov (!) is we either need to delete the "see also" for cause (pov? lack of scholarship?) or leave it as unqualified as before.

Frankly, I don't care if they are all chicken bones. It's no big deal folks. Big for the unbelievers, but everything is "big" for them. Misprints in the Bible, etc. For the believer, so what? Peter's grave is somewhere. Why not imagine him here? The people who don't want to believe he existed will find another reason to disbelieve even if there were DNA proof!  :)

So let's judge on the editorial merits. Student7 (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Good thing you asked. I was about to delete this reference out of hand. I though we had "solved" this a long time ago. I saw an article in a Catholic magazine that talked about chicken bones. I was looking for it to quote. Naturally, I can't find it now. We need a scholarly source for discussing these bones and a remark in the article about them. A Catholic source is okay for reporting they are there. However, if they are "explained away," (the article I saw did NOT "explain them away") a scholarly article remarking on the possiblities is needed (which will include wrong tomb). It definitely needs to be mentioned. Can delete the unscholarly atheist article once the issue is addressed IMO.

I personally have no problem with animal bones. Might be there for superstitious reasons. Graves most likely mixed between Christian and pagan. Christians most likely to still have some pagan practices at death. I think it gives great crediblity to an otherwise botched evacuation. There's hardly anyone who can't tell an intact human tibia from an intact chicken leg! If the finders were biased why wouldn't they have merely discarded the chicken bones when found? (assuming intact bones of course).

Sorry to be so little help. Student7 (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me you might be the one with the heavyhanded POV here. I am not an editor, so I hope others can recognize that and fight it.68.189.34.91 (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Peter buried in Jersusalem?

This really needs to be deleted. There is no scholarly analysis supporting it. There are only references from a) atheists who only yesterday claimed that Peter and Jesus did not exist, and b) various Protestants with an axe to grind. The beliefs of either would not be questioned if the research and the periodical they are quoted in was scholarly. None are.

Second major point - the only way I can answer unscholarly claims is with similiarly unschooled answers! No one educated has bothered to answer these contrivances.

Third. Simon was the most common name of the era. So we have, in effect, a tomb that says "John, son of Bill." Wow! Proof positive? What more does an unbeliever need? Not much, I guess. Scholars need a bit more and so far that hasn't been forthcoming. This is a dead issue. There is no scholarly support for it.

In favor the Rome idea, we have the following.

Clement of Rome, in his Letter to the Corinthians (Chapter 5), written c. 80-98, speaks of Peter's martyrdom in the following terms: "Let us take the noble examples of our own generation. Through jealousy and envy the greatest and most just pillars of the Church were persecuted, and came even unto death… Peter, through unjust envy, endured not one or two but many labours, and at last, having delivered his testimony, departed unto the place of glory due to him."

Saint Ignatius of Antioch, in his Letter to the Romans (Ch. 4) of c. 105-110, tells the Roman Christians: "I do not command you, as Peter and Paul did."Student7 (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Peter's tomb in Jerusalem

I have added a subheading and restored the subject matter of Peter's tomb in Jerusalem, and have provided the earliest reference to Peter as bishop of Rome. The data and photographs of the ossuaries discovered in Jerusalem were published by Bagatti and Milik, experts in their respective fields, so there is a scholarly background to this subject matter.Wfgh66 (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose. Again, "Peter, son of John" with John, as it is today, one of the most popular names around. Strange that the markings wouldn't suggest that the ossurary held the remains of someone that was held in reverence by the Christians. Nearly every other shrine in Jersusalem has graffiti on it from early pilgrims. As did the one in Rome.

I'm glad that "Peter, son of John" really turns somebody on. If "Channel 4" is anything like the History Channel, you can pretty well forget the truth. All done for bucks. Anything for excitement.

Next week at 10: Peter's tomb found in Antioch!

And who are we to sort out nonsense from the truth? Present the reader with every bit of nonsense around. Then let them attempt to determine the truth, if they are intellectually able. Student7 (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should have a main article, "Saint Peter's tombs" with subarticles for each of the purported tombs as they are found. That should be sufficiently scandalous to please any unbeliever. As well as for all the Apostles, of course. Equal opportunity. Note that they have two separate articles for the purported places that Mary lived and died, Jerusalem and Ephesus, without any attempt to scandalize anyone. Student7 (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The Channel 4 documentary was presented by Dr Robert Beckford, who seemed to believe that the ossuary in Jerusalem was the last resting place of the Disciple Peter.

But I agree with Dr Albright: "I do not consider that names on ossuaries are conclusive evidence that they are those of the Apostles." It would take a lot more than an ossuary inscription bearing the name "Shimon Bar Yonah" to convince me that it referred directly to the Disciple Peter. But the archaeological discovery of the ossuary bearing that inscription did happen and there are folks out there who believe it to be the last resting place of St Peter. I wanted to see what references there were in Wikipedia to this subject matter after watching the documentary and found that there was nothing. Should references to this be omitted entirely? Wfgh66 (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It all comes down to whether the discovering priests were bonafide archeologists and not just amateurs or undergrads. If they have published in a credible journal, fine. We have to accept it. Their "Catholic" credentials are nonsense, however accurate. This is a bit pov since it implies some sort of validation. This is a vivid case of someone who makes a discovery who (by the way) belongs to "group x." Therefore coverage of their group x association is mentioned to confer additional validity. I believe that adjective alone is pov since it has nothing to do with the discovery. The church repudiates their findings. Their archaelogical credentials alone are under scrutiny here. Once they pass, the section (alas ) stays. Having said that, there is no reason it can't be moved to a separate article since the main reason for its presence here is to detract or feign equal validity with the Roman burial site, which has more history behind it.

Having said that, television's doctors and archaelogists don't count since they will say anything for a buck (in the US at any rate. Why should the UK be different?). So unpaid professionals count! Student7 (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I'll have to eat my words (again). Franciscans can be non-Catholic therefore it has to stay. Could be earlier in paragraph, but that's about it. Student7 (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The Franciscan Monks do not believe that the Jerusalem ossuary is that of St Peter. Beckford interviewed Franciscan Monk Professor Eugene Alliata of "Studium Biblium Franciscanum" who emphasised the official Catholic position.

The official line was that this could not have been the grave of Peter, he was buried in Rome. The paragraph in question is a quotation of Beckford's narrative from the documentary, so it cannot be altered if it remains in the article. Bagatti and Milik who documented the discoveries were bonafide archaeologists but they did not make any controversial claims. The section needs to stay in the article because it represents part of the claims made about Peter's tomb, irrespective of how inaccurate it may be. Impartiality needs to be maintained in this subject matter, being part of Wikipedia's Policies. Wfgh66 (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph is not worth preserving precisely. It's not like anyone reliable said "This is definitely not the tomb of Peter." which would be worth quoting. It just a second hand article. It needs paraphrasing so we can add to it and correct a slant probably intentionally put in by the writers. Student7 (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Another countering argument - the early church's Bishop of Jerusalem recognized Rome as the "first among equals," because Rome was founded by Peter. They believed Jerusalem church was founded, not by St. Peter, but St. James. None of this would make sense if Peter hadn't left Jerusalem. Student7 (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Origin of belief that Peter was buried in Rome

I have provided a citation for the earliest recorded example of the belief that Peter was buried in Rome. Please do not remove this. The belief is not based upon historical fact but on religious faith. Likewise, the "archaeological excavations" conducted beneath the Vatican was an inside-job and not an "independent archaeological dig" (ditto the excavation of the tomb of James in Santiago de Compostella). The passage that I have deleted below represents pious religious belief:

The Christian tradition that Peter was in Rome and met his end there is as firmly founded as any.

Wfgh66 (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. You have reverted everything to the way you wanted it, yet you have placed a "NPOV" label on it. Is what you are saying "pov" then? What is the reason for the label? It clearly says (with your reversion) that "Catholics believe that..." Do Catholics not believe that...? Are Catholics allowed to believe that...? Is Wikipedia allowed to report that Catholics believe that...? (Actually the problem is not that Peter wasn't buried someplace. The problem is that he is buried in too many places. The whole idea of course to discredit the idea that he might be buried someplace specifically. To discredit the concept of veneration at all.)Student7 (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a most unlikely source of "pious religious belief". Few Christian assertions can be backed up with non-Christian historical reports; but the Christian tradition that Peter was in Rome and met his end there is as firmly founded as any. And that's what the article says. Wfgh66 's phrase "no incontrovertible historical evidence" has been carefully retained. Ordinarily it's only very cheeky and self-serving editors who are bold enough to delete sourced mainstream assertions; this was a momentary lapse, to be sure. I encourage Wfgh66 to do some reading on this subject, and report on it, as I have done recently.--Wetman (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Looked around for non-RC citations. I think Episcopals, Lutherans are still convinced. I tried Baptist, but, let's face it. They don't much care for anything ornate. Therefore, anything at the Vatican is automatically viewed with cold suspicion! Student7 (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

At Saint Peter you'll read what we all agree, that the historical accuracy of the accounts of Peter's role in Rome is a matter of ongoing debate. Even secularists from Christian backgrounds like me, who decry any magical value in "sainthood", or that bishops of Rome before c. 600 were "popes", etc, are aware that the early tradition is that Peter was martyred and buried in Rome. The doubts lie with identifying his bones, etc. We aren't so concerned with what some individual Episcopalians or Lutherans may think, of course. --Wetman (talk) 04:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter what you (try to) say. There are two facts that should stand out in the article, otherwise this article will be skipped over by visitors (all over again) and viewed as a laughing stock and the victim will be Wikipedia (all over again). The two facts in question are:

1)- The tradition that Peter was buried in Rome does not date from the first century AD.

2)- The excavations were an inside job. That's what makes everything that folk try to argue claiming authenticity into a massive laughing stock. The other best known example being the alleged "tomb" of James in Santiago de Compostella. That, too, was an inside job.

Wfgh66 (talk) 12:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

With Wetman, that most traditionalists think "somewhere" in Rome though this might not be it. For Catholics, quite frankly, we don't care. While it is "inspiring" to walk where a saint walked, not having "proof" is pretty usual since the early Christians thought the world was ending momentarily and didn't keep track of things for posterity. Nothing is "proven" about any 1st century Christian site as far as I know. There is nothing unusual about that. What would be unusual is for someone to come up with a DNA bone match! Or something in Paul's handwriting attesting to Peter's tomb! That would be most unusual!

I am more annoyed with the extra tombs outside Rome where there was/is no tradition for Peter's tomb.Student7 (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The point is that there is no reliable historical basis for the tradition before 170AD. Wfgh66 (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Come on now, anyone anywhere who knows anything knows that it was an inside job. I have provided the name of the person who was in charge of the excavations to the article.

You overlook the fact that informed visitors to a webpage that is economical with the facts will only leave with a poorer opinion of Wikipedia. You wrote:

I think "non-independent" here is redundant and pov in itself. just relaying the teams findings will let the user make up his/her own mind.

Wfgh66 (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is redundant. Many archaelogical digs have some pov. What would cause them to dig in the first place? They expect to find something, right? Troy a well-known case. And yes, it was messed up to start.

But categorizing something you don't like as "non-independent" is pov in itself. Chronicling the diggers as a bunch of klutzes is another matter I suppose. But at least we are not supplying the pejoratives.Student7 (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's clarify things a little more. The archaeological dig was not "independent". It was an inside job headed by the Vatican and not by some archaeological professor in charge of some University Project. The dig was carried out in Top Secret and the General Public was only informed about it by the Vatican after it had been completed. How many bonafide archaeological excavations are carried out in such manner? And why does the Vatican continue to refuse to grant permission to film what had been excavated? There's another question mark. Wfgh66 (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It can't be us that points that out. Must be scholarly source.

There is no way, that the general public is going to be able to touch/hold the bones of what is possibly St. Peter (or any other saint, many of which can be verified BTW). St. Mark is in Venice (for example) cause someone swiped him! The church has a long memory!

This is not a "normal" dig. It is on Vatican-owned property for starters. The Vatican is a nation. The church owns the building. Incidentally, it is probably not a real good idea to tunnel extensively under an old, extremely heavy building! There may a lot of other things they can run into that have nothing to do with the expected tomb. The church would want control, of course.

This is not "under the auspices of the UN" or anything. How did anyone find out about the chicken bones? It wasn't that much of a closet job!

There are religious risks concurrent with digging that other digs don't have. What was the downside of Schliemann digging at Troy? That he wouldn't find anything and lose money. Big deal. The risk here is they wouldn't find anything and there may be a religious (belief) downside to that. Or they would find something and doubters wouldn't believe it. Yes, they wanted to stage manage it. They would have been utterly stupid not to!

There is nothing wrong with scholarly criticism of the process. But I do emphasize scholarly/objective and not someone trying to score points (tabloid). Student7 (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's an independent source: the documentary The Secrets of the 12 Disciples, aired on Channel 4, transmitted on 23 March 2008. Wfgh66 (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Didn't look scholarly to me. I think someone better amend the Channel 4 article. I expected more.

I don't know what you want here. The article already reports the bones of barnyard animals were found. There seems to be enough reports of what was found a) the original dig. b) the report that the tomb was moved early on outside the walls then moved back. c) a second tomb where bones of an old man were found.

Do you wish to restructure the article? While there is no way anyone can prove any bone are of Peter, there is no way anyone can prove that they aren't either. All that can be done here, is to present the facts (which has been done) and leave decision making up to the reader. I think that has happened. Can it be better structured? I suppose so. Maybe we can start off the article with the several theories and go on from there.Student7 (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

With statements reported from The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church deleted by some cheeky hobbyist, this article is not going to get very far. It's meant to be a report on what's been said in print, not a battlefield of opinion, remember.--Wetman (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I gotta agree with Wetman, his reference is impeccable: Although there is no incontrovertible historical evidence, the Christian tradition that Peter was in Rome and met his end there is as firmly founded as any.posted by User:Rwflammang, who forgot to sign it (Wetman (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC))

I tried to follow up on the evidence provided in this discussion about whether Peter was in Rome.

I looked at student 7's quote of Clements: 1. It seems a bit of a stretch to see it as an assertion that Peter was in Rome. Other translations than the one he seems to have referenced make it even less clear. 2. His suggestion of 90-96 for Clement is an early date. Early Christian Writings suggested a range that extended up to 140AD. 3. Clement is an advocate for a Roman Church. Part of the pitch probably involves building credibility by tying his efforts to the earliest Christian Church leaders.

In general, it seems like there is a conflict with the idea that Peter comes to Rome to help found the Christian church for non-Jews within Christian writings. Peter seems to be on the side opposing Paul in Acts and opposing opening up Christianity to people who don't follow the law. It seems at least reasonable based on that to be suspicious of the idea that he comes to Rome to proselytize to gentiles and to found a gentile church.

The bottom line is that I think the tone of the article is about right now when it comes to the issue of whether Peter was actually in Rome or not.Davefoc (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

This talk page is hard to follow and many of the concerns are not reflected in the article. Could those not in favor of removing the POV tag please summarize their remaining concerns as concretely and specifically as possible? Thanks. Savidan 02:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I went through the article with the goal of trying to objectively determine if the article has or doesn't have an NPOV. Caveat I am an atheist.
Opening section Part of the first sentence: "Saint Peter's tomb is a site believed by Christians to be the burial place of Saint Peter"

This sentence is essentially wrong. Some Christians probably believe that Saint Peter is buried underneath the St. Peter basilica, many that are familiar with the story probably either don't believe it or are at least skeptical. Where St. Peter is buried is not a core issue for Christianity and many Christians probably have never even considered the issue.

Quibble about the "Tracing the original tombs" section

The site of Peter's grave will have been one of the earliest shrines to be built during the first expression of the cult of martyrs.

The bolded section is strangely worded. "would have been one" seems to be more appropriate. The use of the word "will" is a little awkward and it might be interpreted to mean that the site of Peter's grave was actually here, when at best, the NPOV idea is that his grave might be here.

"Supposed translation of Peter's bones" section

The archaeology puts to rest historians' surmise that in 258, a Christian persecution forced the removal of these relics to the Catacombs of Saint Sebastian where they could be venerated without reprisal from the authorities or a desecration of the relics and that at a later date, when the persecution was less acute, they were brought back again to the Vatican and the Via Ostiana respectively

How does the archeology put to rest historians' surmise? It seems a stretch that some questionable archeology that provided no significant evidence let alone proof of Peter's burial under the Basilica or that any remains found were his would have served to rest a surmise that Peter's bones were moved.

"Constantine's basilica" section

At St. Peter's, the matter was complicated by the fact that Pope Anacletus, in the first century, had built an upper chamber or memoria above the vault.

This is questionable on a few different levels. The existence of anything like a pope in the first century is unlikely and I think it would be hard to find any non-Catholic church aligned scholar that believed it. Secondly there is the whole issue of who was Anacletus. Was he the same as a Cletus? Was he really the second Pope or was he the third? Claiming that it is known that a guy that almost nothing is known of built or had built a church is a real stretch. Claiming that he was a pope by any modern definition of Pope is just wrong.

"Bones transferred in 1942" section

In 1942, the Administrator of St. Peter's, Monsignor Ludwig Kaas, found remains in a second tomb in the monument. Being concerned that these presumed relics of a saint would not be accorded the respect they deserved, and having little understanding of correct archeological procedures, he secretly ordered these remains stored elsewhere for safe-keeping.

So the author of this section has mind melded with Kaas to determine what his motives were when he moved the bones? And he has discerned that Kaas didn't have enough understanding of correct archeological procedures that he didn't realize that moving the bones wouldn't compromise an objective investigation? At the least, this paragraph should provide a statement by Kaas of why he moved the bones and then the reader could determine if he found Kaas' explanation plausible.

Davefoc (talk) 06:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

At one time, I think we had "believed by Catholics" but other small-c catholic religions objected. "Some Christians believe?"

I changed the future tense word but kept the tentative since we don't know.

We can't "resolve" anything. All we can do is report it.

I don't see any terrible pov here, just reporting the facts as they are available. The fact that it isn't a terribly tidy scenario is true of anything in the rough and tumble first couple of centuries unless you were a pagan Roman. Then there might be tidy documentation in a nice library somewhere. We can probably get a DNA off the bones. Will that help? Know anybody related to Peter that we can test for relationship?  :)

As far as Anacletus not being called pope in his era, I think we are using the article name here. See Pope Anacletus. Some of the apostles aren't called Saints, they are called Apostles or whatever, but where linked (and not piped  :), we are using Wikipedia common language. Feel free to argue pov on their pages and transfer them back here when you have won. I don't know about him building anything. Needs footnoting if not already. Christians had a hard time doing anything in Rome. But he is still, if retroactively, pope!  :)

I have to agree with you on Kaas. We can find documentation for this, but that is just one sentence. And it will be speculation, no matter who we quote. The guy was a believer and not an archeologist. The Vatican was his backyard and he was going to defend his turf, not realizing that he would mess up later scholars no end.

How else to explain? And, no, we aren't going to have anything from Kaas himself. He never wrote about it. The pope said they were Peters bones and that was the end of it. Not endless discussion and speculation on televison like nowdays! As you said earlier, Christians are not really fixated on sites, per se. The fact that they might have been someone else's (or something else's!  :) bones was not really interesting to Kaas. Belief was.Student7 (talk) 12:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The tags were removed, which makes this topic somewhat moot. None the less I think the article has serious issues. I will break them out in separate topics for clarity. Davefoc (talk) 04:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Opening sentence is just wrong.

Opening sentence:

Saint Peter's tomb is a site believed by Christians to be the burial place of Saint Peter, beneath the high altar of St. Peter's Basilica, Rome.

This is just wrong. Lots of Christians haven't heard of St. Peters tomb. It is not a central part of any Christian denomination belief structure where St. Peter was buried. Many Christians that have heard of the issue probably are either skeptical of the claim or don't believe it. Some non-Christians might believe it.

It is true that the Catholic Encyclopedia claims that St. Peter is buried beneath St. Peter's Basilica. Based on that the sentence might be amended to something like this:

Saint Peter's tomb is purported to be the burial place of Saint Peter by the Catholic Encyclopedia. The site of the tomb is beneath the high altar of St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican.

Davefoc (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that we have quantified statements on beliefs in the past. There are 2 billion Christians. None of them think alike! I did put "some" in there. It would make some Christians very happy if he were not in Rome at all!Student7 (talk) 11:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Student7, thank you for the change. I still think the opening sentence could be better (although I'm not particularly keen on my suggestion above either), but the addition of the word, some, deals with most of my objections.

A few minor issues:
The link for the second source cited is broken.
Would it be more accurate to say that St. Peter's basilica is in The Vatican? The Vatican is an independent government entity from Rome and saying that the basilica is in Rome is a little misleading although The Vatican lies, of course physically, within Rome.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Davefoc (talk • contribs) 16:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Haven't checked the ref yet. If dated, supposedly can reconstruct it from somewhere. If not, will have to get a new one.

My vote is "Rome." Has a nice ring to it! But more than that, the article is claiming (after all) that Peter is the "Pope of Rome." The pope at the time got scrunched up into the Vatican in the 19th century, a bit after Peter's time. Student7 (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Problems with the "Supposed translation of Peter's bones" section

From this section:

The archaeology puts to rest historians' surmise that in 258, a Christian persecution forced the removal of these relics to the Catacombs of Saint Sebastian where they could be venerated without reprisal from the authorities or a desecration of the relics and that at a later date, when the persecution was less acute, they were brought back again to the Vatican and the Via Ostiana respectively

This claim seems to be based on the notion that St. Peter has been definitively determined to have been buried beneath St. Peter's Basilica. There seems to be a general consensus here that his is not the case, so what archeology has happened to put to rest this historians' surmise? Davefoc (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

A cryptic footnote refers to O'Callaghan. Presumably R. T O'Callaghan. See possible re-reference hardcopy. This is not the answer to the question but a possibility of finding one, if one is available. The paragraph needs to be reworded in any event. Sounds a bit weasel-y. Either archaelogy confirms it or denies it. I have the feeling that O'Callaghan was merely refering to the Vatican report and the line mean nothing in which case it will need changing.

Remember, we are dealing with two "stories" here. 1) that Peter was under the Vatican since death and 2) that he was moved early on. No way to 100% verify either story IMO unless we run across a copy of Acta Diurna which has something about it in there someplace.  :) Student7 (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The third source ([[5]]) says this about the movement of the bones:

The remains of St. Paul and St. Peter were once removed in A.D. 258, at the time of Valerian's persecutions when his edict deprived the Christian cemeteries of protection. They were moved to the catacombs under St. Sebastian. About 40 years later, when Gallienus gave back the cemeteries to the Christians, the remains were returned to their respective churches, according to Marucchi.

So if this source is to be believed not only weren't historians surmises about the movement of the bones put to rest, historians surmises about the removal and replacement of the bones were given credence. --Davefoc (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we need both stories, unfortunately. The blurb about "laying to rest" was probably copied from some tourist brochure which I edited early a couple of years ago. If you think this is bad, you shoulda seen it then! Not up to it right now. Edit if you see fit. Student7 (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Changed the casting of doubt on the translation of peter's bones. The subsection is currently lacking a footnote though.Student7 (talk) 11:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Problems with the "Constantine's basilica" section

From this section:

At St. Peter's, the matter was complicated by the fact that Pope Anacletus, in the first century, had built an upper chamber or memoria above the vault.

The main problem with this section is that almost nothing is known about these early church leaders that the Catholic church now calls popes. What their exact names were is unknown. The order of their reign is disputed. The periods of their reigns is only guessed at. And here the article presents it as a fact that one of these fellows had built or caused to built a memoria above the fault. This clearly needs a citation and depending on the nature of the citation it would probably need some disclaimer about the limited and unreliable nature of information about the Catholic church in this period. Davefoc (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier. The "fact" of Pope Anacletus existence will have to be argued on another page. It is an article and not under dispute.

That said, there is nothing to indicate that he built anything. I've fact tagged it. A possible thought here - it might be "possible" in a graveyard to erect something fairly complicated above a grave assuming the authorities weren't looking for Christians to persecute at the time. Student7 (talk) 12:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we agree on this. I mentioned the pope issue only in the context of reinforcing my claim that not much is known about the early church leaders and that a claim that it is known that that they were responsible for building a particular monument is suspicious. --Davefoc (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Margherita Guarduccit has this to say about this memoria (I believe the memoria in question is what she calls a chapel): source: http://www.saintpetersbasilica.org/Necropolis/MG/TheTombofStPeter-5.htm
From the 21st paragraph:

This fact is established beyond question by a detailed study of technical points. We can state positively, then, that the chapel's date is the same as that of the wall, around 160 A.D.

From the 26th paragraph:

There can be no question (virtually all scholars admit it) that the chapel is identical with that "trophy" of Peter proudly mentioned, only a few years after its construction, by the learned Roman priest Gaius in his controversy with the heretic Proclus.7 It is also probable that this chapel is the "Memorial of St. Peter" recorded by the Liber Pontificalis among the works of Pope Anacletus (memoriam beati Petri construxit).8 It is true that Anacletus was Pope at the end of the first century, and that this date does not (as far as we can determine) agree with the date of our chapel; but there is a very suggestive theory supported by some scholars: that in the text of the Liber Pontificalis there is a confusion between Anacletus and Anicetus. The latter, indeed, occupied the papal throne from 155 to 166, a period which would coincide perfectly with the age of the chapel.

In other words the memoria referred to in this section as having been built by Pope Anacletus in the first century seems to in fact have been built in around 160AD. The problem is that the reference to this memoria by the Roman priest Gaius claimed that it was amongst the works of Anacletus, supposedly a first century Pope. Margherita Guarducci suggests that the reason for the apparent inconsistency is that Gaius got the name wrong and he might have been referring to Anicetus who was pope between 155 and 166.

The bottom line here is that this section is not only problematic because it is unsourced, it is problematic because it is inconsistent with a credible source about the facts in question. --Davefoc (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on more reading I have a little better understanding of what the situation with regard to the building of a memoria by Anacletus is I think:

The claim that Anecletus built a memoria to Peter is based on this statement from The Anacletus part of the Liber pontificalis.

He built and adorned the sepulchral monument of the blessed Peter, forasmuch as he had been made priest by the blessed Peter, and other places of sepulchre for the burial of bishops. There he him- self likewise was buried near the body of the blessed Peter, July 13.

http://www.archive.org/stream/bookofpopesliber00loom/bookofpopesliber00loom_djvu.txt

The problems with the statement in this article regarding Anacletus:
1. At it's base the statement in this article with regard to what Anacletus built is dependent on the Liber pontificalis a document that seems to be regarded as highly unreliable for the time period in question. It is not known to have been written before the 6th century I believe.
2. The memoria that was found on top of the supposed grave of Peter was dated to between 140 and 160 CE. A first century structure was not found. Margherita Guarducci suggests that the inconsistency with the Liber pontificalis might be because the author of the Liber pontificalis (not Gaius as I mistakenly said above.) got the name mixed up with Anicetus.

Another issue with this section:

At St. Peter's, the matter was complicated by the fact that Pope Anacletus, in the first century, had built an upper chamber or memoria above the vault. This upper chamber had become endeared to the Romans during the ages of persecution, and they were unwilling that it should be destroyed.[citation needed] In order to preserve it a singular and unique feature was given to the basilica in the raised platform of the apse and the Chapel of the Confession underneath.[14] The reverence in which the place has always been held has resulted in these arrangements remaining almost unchanged to the present time, in spite of the rebuilding of the church. The actual vault in which the body lies has not been accessible since the ninth century.

I found the use of the word vault here confusing. Under the floor of near the aedicula or memoria is the area where Peter's grave is reputed to be. The bones that Pope Paul VI and Garducci claimed were Peter's resided in a niche set into the graffiti wall to the side of the aedicula. So what does "actual vault in which the body lies" mean? The grave where three different people and various animal bones were found, the niche where the bones that Garducci claimed were Peter's were found or to the general area? In general the use of the word vault here leads to ambiguities. Does it mean a structure or a hole in the ground where a body might be buried?Davefoc (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Problems with the "Bones transferred in 1942" section

From the section:

In 1942, the Administrator of St. Peter's, Monsignor Ludwig Kaas, found remains in a second tomb in the monument. Being concerned that these presumed relics of a saint would not be accorded the respect they deserved, and having little understanding of correct archeological procedures, he secretly ordered these remains stored elsewhere for safe-keeping.

This section seems to claim inside knowledge about what Kaas' thought process was. But it not only doesn't cite anything that he wrote or said on the issue, it doesn't cite any communication from anybody that knew him that might have produced this conjecture. Davefoc (talk) 05:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. What are you looking for here? Can you put a Wikipedia issue to it? There's an referenced article by somebody more or less neutral who figured this out. Probably a correct one BTW.

Usually the opposite tack is taken. "Since Kaas knew that they hadn't found the bones, he then...."

So we have one speculation for another. But this one at least, is documented. How do we know? Are we looking for a psychologist's analysis here? People make mistakes and there is no "official inquiry" dragging out on television for two years. Drat! Student7 (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that a person investigating the situation determined that this was the most likely the reason for Kaas' actions I think the sentence should be modified to include a phrase something like, "according to Joe Expert, Kaas did X because of Y and Z.

Davefoc (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "we" can say "expert" exactly. How about casual bystander!  :) I did put reporter in there. Didn't really check the reference but I'm not sure he was much more than that. I suspect he was just conveying the general impression he got from curators. Student7 (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the source which is the basis for the statements about the state of Kaas' mind when he moved the bones:

The tomb was not empty, and convinced that this was yet another burial that would soon be desecrated by the Jesuit archaeologists, Kaas had ordered the remains removed and stored for safekeeping.

This is amongst the worst possible sources for this kind of thing. The author makes no attempt to establish why he has a good faith basis for his surmise. He is at best a third hand source and yet he puts forth his surmise as if it is established fact. If this kind of thing is going to used as a source at all, the author should be quoted directly about the fact in question and some kind of basis should be included as to why the author has more credibility than anybody else pontificating away on the internet.Davefoc (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, what is another theory? Just state the worst supposition and let's go from there (doesn't have to be substantiated (yet!  :). Student7 (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Student7, I suspect that Kaas moved the bones (as apparently he had moved other bones) out of a desire to have the deceased treated respectfully. I doubt that "little understanding of correct archeological procedures" had much to do with his decision to move the bones. He was described as a scholar and he had worked with the archeologists for awhile when he moved the bones. But what I think with regard to this is of no import.

I objected to the section because it stated as fact something which is unknowable, Kaas' motivation. This is especially so since only two individuals seem to have been aware of the movement of the bones, Giovanni Segoni (the worker who collected the bones and other material from the niche) and Kaas. And neither Kaas or Segoni are quoted on the reason for the move by any of the on-line sources about St. Peter's tomb. If you feel that speculation about Kaas' motives should be part of this article than I would respectfully suggest that you state who is doing the speculating. John Walsh, the author of the 1982 book about St. Peter's tomb would seem to be a reasonable person to reference with regard to this kind of speculation. What John Walsh speculated is a fact that can be sourced.

Another point which is more important than the issue of unknowable speculation put forth as fact is the general structure of this article. The movement of these bones, what was discovered with them, their original location and the analysis done on them are key parts of the archeological story about St. Peter's tomb. Clearly this kind of thing should be part of an expanded "Modern excavation" section. Davefoc (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

What does the Church officially think?

In the first paragraph, one pope says we can’t know for sure we have Saint Peter’s bones. In the ”1942” paragraph, a later pope says that we now do have Saint Peter’s bones. If this is what the church officially thinks nowadays, the opening paragraph needs to reflect it ... Bossk-Office (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a good question I think. At least two different popes have made statements about St. Peter's Tomb and whether St. Peter's bones are actually in them.

Quotes documented on this site (http://www.remnant-prophecy.com/topic-Library/RCC-History/relics-Peters-Bones.pdf): Pope Pius XII from a December 23, 1950 Radio Message "announced that, confirmed by work and study, the actual tomb of "St. Peter" had been found. He went on to make a second revelatory statement:

A second question . . . concerns the relics of the saint: have they been found? . . . New investigations, most patient and accurate, were subsequently carried out with the results that we, comforted by the judgment of qualified, prudent and competent people, believe are positive. The relics of Saint Peter have been identified in a way we believe convincing.

So in 1950 Pope announced unequivocally that the actual tomb has been found and he believed that the relics of Saint Peter were found in a way "we believe convincing".

The relics the pope is referring to here seem to be the ones that were later identified as the remains of three different people and a variety of animals.

From the same source above Pope Paul VI in 1968 said this about the tomb and remains:

[W]e believe it our duty, in the present state of archaeological and scientific conclusions, to give you and the church this happy announcement, bound as we are to honor sacred relics, backed by a reliable proof of their authenticity… In the present case, we must be all the more eager and exultant when we are right in believing that the few but sacred mortal remains have been traced of the Prince of the Apostles, of Simon son of Jonah, of the fisher-man named Peter by Christ, of he [sic] who was chosen by the Lord to found His church and to whom He entrusted the keys of His kingdom … until His final glorious return.--Text of Announcement by Pope Paul VI Concerning the Relics, The New York Times, 27 June 1968

This Pope is apparently referring to a second set of bones that were removed from the initial excavation at the behest of Kaas. These bones were evaluated by Venerando Correnti. He determined that they were of a robust man aged 60-70.

The only thing I found beyond these statements about what current the official Roman Catholic view regarding St. Peter's Tomb is in the Catholic Encyclopedia. This is a confusing article that might be making the claim that St. Peter was buried in the St. Peter's tomb that this article is about. From the article (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13374a.htm):

There is no doubt where the bodies now are -- in the tombs of the Vatican and the Ostian Way respectively -- but there is another tomb at the Catacombs of S. Sebastiano which also claims the honour of having at one time received them, and the question is as to the period at which this episode occurred, and whether there was only one or a double translation of the relics.

I have read the article several times and I'm still not sure exactly what it's claiming with regards to the remains of St. Peter and the St. Peter's tomb that the Wikipedia article is about. This is also the article that seems to be the source for the suspicious statement about Anacletus building a Memorial to St. Peter in the first century.--Davefoc (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, with something like this which is hardly dogma, there exists several povs within the church itself. 1) The church would like some indication that Peter was in Rome substantiating their claim to "popehood". This may provide it. 2) The Vatican is, for the public, a museum. It is "nice" to have yet another shrine. Though, like so much of Italy, there are so many, they don't always know what to do with them. all. 3) The church would like bonafide relics for new churches. Not sure they would give even a sliver of these up though. Still, a relic is a relic, for whatever that is worth. 4) Having said that, the church doesn't like to encourage superstition, which sometimes relics do. Note that this is diametrically the opposite of #3! 5) A lot of the church doesn't really care! Except for reliquaries, there is very little use for this sort of thing outside of veneration and shrines for tourism. Many figure "so what?" 5) If someone were to prove the bones weren't from the first century (a real possibility someday with carbon dating), it wouldn't really make that much difference since they have traditon, Eusebius, Jerome, etc. who says Peter was in Rome, never mind that the church doesn't have his bones yet. No big deal.

So it is not strange that there is no official position, or worse, several "official" positions which differ! So regardless of what the pope says either way, somebody will disagree with it, and the pope isn't about to make a big issue over anyone's disagreeing! Which hardly solves the problem here unfortunately. Student7 (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

More problems with the opening paragraph

1. Only Pope Pius XII's radio announcement about the finds is referenced. Why isn't the more recent statement of Pope Paul VI in 1968 referenced.

2. The sources listed for Pope Pius XII radio statement aren't working or don't provide evidence that Pope Pius XII said this.

3. The on-line sources that I found don't seem to agree with what the article says the Pope Pius XII said.

An excerpt from Pope XII's radio broadcast (from this site: http://www.remnant-prophecy.com/topic-Library/RCC-History/relics-Peters-Bones.pdf)

A second question . . . concerns the relics of the saint: have they been found? . . . New investigations, most patient and accurate, were subsequently carried out with the results that we, comforted by the judgment of qualified, prudent and competent people, believe are positive. The relics of Saint Peter have been identified in a way we believe convincing.

It looks like the author of the first paragraph has intentionally changed the slant of what Pope Pius XII said to make the Pope's claims about the identification of the relics of Saint Peter seem more equivocal than they were given the hindsight knowledge that a later Pope was going to declare a different set of bones to be those of St. Peter. Why wasn't the Pope Pius' original phrase used ("The relics of Saint Peter have been identified in a way we believe convincing.")? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davefoc (talk • contribs) 07:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think my criticism #3 may not have been justified. I found the text of the speech on line in Italian from the Vatican site (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/speeches/1950/documents/hf_p-xii_spe_19501223_un-anno_it.html):

Una seconda questione, subordinata alla prima, riguarda le reliquie del Santo. Sono state esse rinvenute? Al margine del sepolcro furono trovati resti di ossa umane, dei quali però non è possibile di provare con certezza che appartenessero alla spoglia mortale dell’Apostolo. Ciò lascia tuttavia intatta la realtà storica della tomba. La gigantesca cupola s’inarca esattamente sul sepolcro del primo Vescovo di Roma, del primo Papa; sepolcro in origine umilissimo, ma sul quale la venerazione dei secoli posteriori con meravigliosa successione di opere eresse il massimo tempio della Cristianità.

A rough translation courtesy of Google with a little messing about is this:

A second question, subordinate to the first, concerns the relics of the saint. Were they found? At the edge of the tomb were found the remains of human bones, of which however is not possible to prove with certainty that they belonged to the mortal remains of the apostle. This leaves intact the historical reality of the tomb. The gigantic dome s' arched precisely on the tomb of the first Bishop of Rome, the Pope first, humble origin in the tomb, but on which the veneration of centuries by a succession of wonderful works erected the greatest temple of Christianity.

Assuming that what the Vatican site lists is correct, the statement in the Wikipedia article seems like a reasonable representation of what Pope Pius XII actually said. The sources I saw may have intentionally misrepresented the quote to fit their agendas.Davefoc (talk) 09:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed the information about what Pope Pius XII said about the tomb in his December 23, 1950 radio address from the first section. I didn't think it was quite important enough to be included in the short summary at the beginning of the article. I think a new section should be created that deals with the official Catholic Church views about the tomb and perhaps some of the dissenting views about whether this was the site of St. Peter's burial.Davefoc (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

98.148.212.56's changes to the lede.

The lede as recently modified by 98.148.212.56:
Saint Peter's tomb also known as Confessio is a Christian burial site located under Saint Peter's Basilica. According to Roman Catholic belief, the discovered site is the tomb of the first Pope, making the tomb one of the holiest sites in the Roman Catholic Church and has limited access to the general public.

1. The issue of Roman Catholic belief about the site should be a separate sentence about the issue of public access to the site. (This change was made.)

2. The purpose of referring to it as a discovered site is not clear. The site was obviously discovered since we know about it. I suppose the term implies that the tomb was lost and then at some point discovered but this seems like an awkward way to make this point. (discovered was deleted from the sentence.)

3. Is St. Peter's tomb referred to often enough as the Confessio to justify referring to that in the lede? Confessio seems to be a general term that even when applied to St. Peter's Tomb may not exactly refer to the site that is known as St. Peter's tomb. This site describes it as "a type of crypt which consists of a series of linked passages". http://www.pitt.edu/~medart/menuglossary/confessio.htm There are very few internet references to the term and fewer still that reference St. Peter's tomb as confessio. If the lede is going to continue to claim that the site is also known as confessio then a link should be provided.

4. Is the site a Christian burial site? The bones that were originally found were a mixture of human and animal. Apparently burying people with animals was a pagan custom. Maybe the original purpose of the site was pagan? I suppose it could be argued that today it is a Christian burial site because the graves of several popes are believed to have been buried in the near vicinity or that it is a Christian site because of the scratched messages on the graffiti wall that post date the original grave by a few hundred years. But even if one accepts that argument the purpose of referring to it as a Christian burial site is not clear. What information is the reader expected to infer from this description?

5. Is Roman Catholic belief identical to proclamations by the Pope? In this case at least two Popes have made specific claims about the site. Is what they say equivalent to Roman Catholic belief or should the lede state what is absolutely true, that Roman Catholic Popes have made claims about the site and not make the leap that this represents Roman Catholic belief? --Davefoc (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I restored the previous opening sentence of the article because of the issues discussed above. Specifically:

1. Vatican authorities claim that it is the tomb of St. Peter. Whether it is a Roman Catholic belief that this is so may or may not be true. What is known and documented is what Vatican authorities claim. That is what the original sentence stated and I don't see a reason to change from what is absolutely true and documented to what may be true and what isn't documented.

2. The claim that that St. Peter's tomb is also known as Confessio may be true however it is very uncommonly referred to as such in English and the term Confessio even when used with respect to St. Peter may not mean exactly what is discussed in this article.

3. The sentence claims that the fact that Roman Catholic belief that the site is the grave of the first pope makes it one of the holiest sites in the Roman Catholic church. No citation is given for this. Is it true? Does the Roman Catholic church have a list of holiest sites and is this on that list? Is Roman Catholic belief about it as St. Peter's tomb what makes it one of the holiest sites? If the Roman Catholic Church has a specific view on the holiness of the site it might be worth noting in the article if a reference can be found. I am not sure that this information is sufficiently important to be in the lede. --Davefoc (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

217.122.195.150 edit - addition of parenthetical trophy

217.122.195.150 added trophy after the word aedicula in the lede.

The implication of the edit is that trophy is the same thing as aedicula. This is certainly not the case in the general sense of the word, trophy. And even in the very specialized sense of the word, trophy, with respect to St. Peter's tomb the edit is not quite right.

Saint Peter's memorial has been referred to as a trophy because of this statement by Gaius: "And I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you choose to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Road, you will find the trophies of those who founded this church." I don't believe it is known for sure what he meant but the general view seems to be that he was referring to memorials for Peter and Paul as the trophies of the apostles. So even in this context, trophy refers to the overall memorial and not a particular part of the memorial such as the aedicula.

In addition, to the above problem with the edit, Gaius' quote already appears in the article and explaining the significance of the quote to St. Peter's tomb is perhaps beyond the level of detail that is appropriate for the lede.

Based on the above, I have undone the good faith edit. --Davefoc (talk) 05:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

217.122.195.150 also changed Niche of the Palladium to Niche of the Pallium. This seemed to be an appropriate correction to me and I inadvertently undid it when I undid all of 217.122.195.150's edit. I restored this part of the edit. --Davefoc (talk) 05:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Translation of text on cross

On top of that was laid a gold cross weighing 150 pounds and featuring an inscription, which translates from Latin as "Constantine Augustus and Helena Augusta This House Shining with Like Royal Splendor a Court Surrounds."

Is there any good reason that we can't translate whatever the cross said into idiomatic English? Marnanel (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Facial reconstruction

Is Peter's skull in good enough condition to do a facial reconstruction?173.58.96.84 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Saint Peter's tomb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090429160005/http://www.saintpetersbasilica.org:80/Necropolis/MG/TheTombofStPeter-4.htm to http://www.saintpetersbasilica.org/Necropolis/MG/TheTombofStPeter-4.htm#necropolis
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090507135933/http://www.saintpetersbasilica.org:80/Docs/RemainsofPeter.htm to http://www.saintpetersbasilica.org/Docs/RemainsofPeter.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)