No title

7he BIBLICAL

ARCHAEOLOGIS & O-h

Published by THE AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH Jerusalem and Bagdad Room 102, 6 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, Mass.

Vol. XXXII

February,1969

No. 1

Fig. 1. The Church of St. Sebastian in Rome; in the foreground (the nearer cupola) is the mausoleum until recently considered to be the inmemori apostolorumn containing vestiges of Peter and Paul. Unless otherwise indicated, the photos are by the author.

2

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXII

is published quarterly (February, May, September, December) The Biblical Archaeologist by the American Schools of Oriental Research. Its purpose is to meet the need for a readable, reliable account of archaeological discoveries as they relate to the non-technical, yet thoroughly Bible. Editor: Edward F. Campbell, Jr., with the assistance of Floyd V. Filson in New Testament matters. Editorial correspondence should be sent to the editor at 800 West Belden Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, 60614. Editorial Board: W. F. Albright, Johns Hopkins University; G. Ernest Wright, Harvard University; Frank M. Cross, Jr., Harvard University; William G. Dever, Jerusalem. $3.00 per year, payable to the American Schools of Oriental Research, Subscriptions: 126 Inman Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139. Associate members of ASOR receive the journal automatically. Ten or more subscriptions for group use, mailed and billed to the same address, $2.00 per year apiece. Subscriptions run for the calendar year. In England: twenty-four shillings (24s.) per year, payable to B. H. Blackwell, Ltd., Broad Street, Oxford. Back numbers: $1.00 per issue and $3.75 per volume, from the ASOR office. Please make remittance with order. The journal is indexed in Art Index, Index to Religious Periodical Literature, and at the end of every fifth volume of the journal itself. Second-class postage PAID at Cambridge, Massachusetts and additional offices. Copyright by American Schools of Oriental Research, 1969. PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES or AMERICA, BY TRANSCRIPT PRINTING COMPANY PETERBOROUGH,

N. H.

Survey And 'New' Thesis On The Bones Of Peter

F. SNYDER

GRAYDON Bethany

Theological

Seminary

The statement by Pope Paul VI on June 26, 1968, that the bones of Peter had been convincingly identified came as a shock to both sides of a controversy that has been fuming ever since the announcement of a new set of bones was made in 1965. For whatever reasons the Pope made this statement - be it the appropriatenessof the 19th centennial or sheer political sagacity-the effect will be to suffocate one of the most intriguing questions in biblical archaeology.In this article I would like to clarify the nature of the problem and indicate what new evidence will likely change the nature of the entire question. The problem of the bones of Peter is of relatively recent origin. It was assumed they were under St. Peter's Church. Caius, as recorded by Eusebius, said: "But I can point out the trophies of the Apostles, for if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church." (Ecclesiastical History II. 25. 7). If we can associate trophies with the graves of the two apostles then we have little reason to doubt that the two churches, St. Peter's and St. Paul's Outside-the-Walls,stand over the traditionallocation of the respective tombs. Nevertheless, even before the twentieth century the church was aware of some discrepancy. The Roman liturgical calendar for June 29 reads as follows: "To Peter in Catacumbasand to Paul on the Via Ostiense, Tuscus and Bassus being consuls." While this date may pull together two originally separate dates to make one major festival, and this synthesis may well have

1969, 1)

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

3

occurred under the consulship of Tuscus and Bassus, i.e., A.D. 258, what is not understood is the reference in catacumbas (instead of the expected Vatican). Catacumbas refers, it is traditionally supposed, to a depression in the topography along the Via Appia which now is associated with St. Sebastian's. Throughout the medieval period several solutions were proposed, the most popular being that the so-called memoria apostolorum, identified with a large mausoleum on the south side of the apse, had held the remains of the apostles. The legendary Acts of St. Sebastian speak of his being buried "near the vestiges of the apostles." It was not until January, 1915, that permission was received to investigate this problem archaeologically. The excavation of the complex under St. Sebastian'swas followed by the remarkableexcavations under Sit. Peter's itself. Only Sit. Paul's remains unexcavated. The object of these investigations was, in large part, to clarify this problem: Where were Peter and Paul buried and where are their remains? In the last 53 years much evidence has been added to what was already known, but to most of us we are no nearer the answer than before. Before we offer another thesis in addition to the many already proposed, let us review the salient data. St. Sebastian's

The first excavations under the mausoleum at St. Sebastian's1revealed no trace of apostolic memory or tradition, so attention was given to the area under the altar. In the course of this excavation a remarkablecomplex was discovered. The history of this excavation and the resulting theories would be most interesting, but perhaps at this point the history of the site, as it is now known, will be most helpful. 1. The original site was a sand-pit. This explains the name catacumbas, since it is apparently made up of a preposition plus a noun meaning "cup" or "bowl." The word catacomb is derived from this location and is not otherwise to be explained. 2. Between A.D. 75-100 columbaria or mausolea were constructed on the ridge to the north of the sand-pit. There are now nine of these. 3. About A.D. 100 three burial chambers were constructed in the embankment of the sand-pit. These were in use until at least A.D. 238 and one or more was taken over by Christians. This date has been established by the graffiti (inscriptions scratched on the walls) in the three burial chambers. The Christian usage has been assumed because of the presence of an icthus ("fish," an early Christian crypto-confession). 4. Meanwhile during the time of Hadrian a so-called villa was built 1. For data on St. Sebastian's, see primarily F. Tolotti, Memorie degli Apostoli in Catacumbas (1953); and H. Lietzmann, Petrus und Paulus in Rom (2nd ed., 1927). A full bibliography is given in A. de Marco, The Tomb of St. Peter (1964), which is an annotated bibliography on the entire topic.

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

4

(Vol. XXXII

to the west of the burial chambers and the sand-pit. The purpose of the villa has not been established. It seems unlikely it was used as a residence, though this has been maintained. Perhaps it served for the pagan funerary rites. 5. Sometime after 238 the villa was leveled off, the arena and its tombs were covered and an open three-sided pavillion (triclia) was established

4C1

21L~ 34.

LC

i3s~~1

Fig. 2. A plan of St. Sebastian's as a "covered cemetery" over the following earlier features: sand-pit (A); triclia (B); graffiti wall (C); stairwell (D); row of columbaria (E); and the villa (F). From Tolotti, Memorie degli Apostoli in Catacumbas, Tav. 1.

over this. The north wall of this triclia, which was open to the south, was flush against the rear line of the columbaria. The purpose of the triclia cannot be questioned. It is lined with graffiti seeking the favor of Peter and Paul and mentioning refrigeria (meals for the dead) held there in honor of the apostles. 6. From the establishment of the triclia to the building of what is now called St. Sebastian's, funeral meals in the name of Peter and Paul must have been the primary purpose of the complex. But Constantine built a cemeterial church over the entire area. The purpose of such a building is

1969, 1)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

5

a key to the entire problem and the date will contribute considerablyto the solution. The triclia was built certainly by 260 and likely earlier, and it had gone out of existence by A.D. 349. Though there are no Constantinian signs in the triclia itself, the stairwell to the well contains several. The triclia must have been in use during the reign of Constantine, but was covered by the present building toward the latter part of Constantine's life. 7. Gradually the complex on Via Appia was shifted to the cult of Sebastian - a shift posterior to Pope Innocent at the beginning of the 5th century. Even through the 9th century, however, the complex was known chiefly in regard to the two apostles. St. Peter's2

1. On the east-west axis underneath the floor of the Constantinian St. Peter's was a pagan necropolis which dates back at least to the latter third of the first century. This necropolis lies on or near a road leading out of the city close to the Circus of Nero. 2. At the west end of this necropolis was a poor man's graveyardcalled Field P by the excavators. The burials here were underground by simple inhumation. 3. Approximately A.D. 160 Field P was limited on the west side by a wall which served to terrace the area and allow for more columbariafarther up the Vatican hill. This retaining wall, called the red wall by the excavators, has been dated by tile in a drain underneath the walkway just to the west of the wall. 4. Shortly after the construction of the red wall an xdicula was built at about mid point on the wall (now directly underneath the altar in St. Peter's). The aedicula,resembling the type found at other Roman necropolises such as Isola Sacra, was composed of three niches, the upper two of which were in the original construction of the red wall. For this reason the a~dicula also must be dated from ca. 160. (I want to continue using the term aedicula,instead of the term "shrine"as some of the literaturedoes, because shrine may imply to some that worship was held there, while all we can speak of is its memorialfunction.) 5. About the middle of the 3rd century the red wall began to sag under the weight of the terrace above. To prevent destruction to Field P and the xedicula,a wall, called Wall G, was built just to the north of the aedicula, so close that the columns of the aedicula had to be shifted and another wall on the south side built to balance the ungainly presence of the north buttress. The date for this wall is an educated guess (A.D. 250) 2. Data on the excavations under St. Peter's can be found in English in E. Kirschbaum, The Tombs of St. Peter and St. Paul (1959); J. Toynbee and J. W. Perkins, The Shrine of St. Peter The Tomb of St. Peter (1960). and M. Guarducci, and the Vatican Excavations (1956);

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

6

(Vol. XXXII

since positive proof is lacking. On its exterior wall, that is the north side, there are a large number of graffiti. But unlike the graffitiof St. Sebastian's there is no mention of Peter or of funeral meals. 6. Inside Wall G was found a marble box. The graffiti on the north side had been partially destroyed in order to place this chest in the wall. When, before Constantine built his case for the aedicula, the chest was placed in Wall G cannot be determined,but that very point has considerable

, //•

--5C

2

Fig. 3. A reconstruction of the triclia at St. Sebastian's, looking toward the north. The graffiti wall is the right limit and the columbaria are at the back. From Tolotti, Memorie degli Apostoli in Catacumbas, p. 195, Fig. 43.

bearing on the rest of the reconstruction.The chest is limited to the west by the red wall. At that point was found a graffitowhich read PETR ENI which might be interpreted "Peter is within" or "Peter in peace."3 The graffiti on Wall G continued up to the Constantinian period. 3. For the debate on this and the entire bone controversy, see M. Guarducci, Le Reliquie di Pietro

sotto

la Confessione

della

Basilica

vaticana:

una

messa

a punto

(1967).

1969, 1)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

7

7. When Constantine built St. Peter's he covered the edicula with a brick and marble casing, buried the necropolis with immense amounts of dirt conveyed from the Vatican hill, and built a basilica with a transept so that the worshipper and pilgrim might have direct access to the upper part of the aedicula.One would guess the earliest beginning for the construction would be 333 and the latest completion date about 355. The Consensus Hypothesis on St. Sebastian's and St. Peter's

Some early excavators of St. Sebastian's supposed that Peter and Paul must have lived there because of an unusual graffitoin the villa which read "house of Peter" and because of the Damasian inscription which has come to us: Hic habitasse prius sanctos cognoscere debes, nonminaquisque Petri pariter Paulique requiris. Here you must know that the saints once dwelt, whoever you are that are seeking the names of Peter and Paul. But, as can be seen from the previous reconstruction,there was nothing at the complex ad catacumbasin which the apostles could have lived before A.D. 67. Even before this was known the "here dwelt" had been taken in reference to the bodies or remains of the two apostles and not to a dwelling in their lifetime. Assuming the presence of the cult at the mnemoriaapostolorum, the following consensus has been established: 1. The original burials of Peter and Paul were at the Vatican and Ostiense respectively. 2. During the Valerian persecution the remains of the two apostles were transferred to the more secret location ad catacumbas lest they be desecrated at the traditional locations. 3. The date of this transferralwould be approximatelyA.D. 258 which would then account for the single June date for both martyrs and the late date for its establishment. 4. With the peace of the church this more clandestine operation was unnecessary. Constantine honored both apostles with a grand basilica. The remains of each was transferredback to the original site. 5. The site ad catacumbaswas honored with a cemeterial church which gradually fell into disuse as far as the apostles were concerned, but was reestablishedas a martyriumfor St. Sebastian. This thesis, first proposed before the excavations, by Duchesne and then after the excavations brilliantly by Lietzmann, has become the standard explanation for the existence of St. Sebastian's. 6. At St. Peter's excavators found no bones and no sign of a cult.

8

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXII

They would have expected to find the burial in the niche below the ground level of Field P. There was nothing at all in that niche. In regard to the chest, the excavators reported and have repeated that affirmation, that it was empty when they found it. Kirschbaum said later it was filled with debris. 7. During the Saracen invasion the church feared the loss of these relics and took the bones from the edicula to place them in St. John Lateran. The box in the ciborium was last opened in the 18th century. At that time only a fragment of bone remained.

~J'. .i

1 :

''h-

. '

1?

?

'

..'

.

,

i ~c

Fig. 4. The northeast comer of the triclia as it looks now. Mrs. Snyder'sback is to the graffiti wall, where hundreds of inscriptionswere found, many of which refer to funeral meals for Peter and Paul. The Bones of Peter

The consensus agreed that the bones of Peter had disappeared.There were demurrals. Kirschbaum accepted the translation hypothesis, but suspected the bones might have been lower than niche 1. Underneath the red wall itself was an indentation containing a number of human bones. Kirschbaum was attracted to the possibility these were the bones of Peter. Buttressed with a thesis presented by Josi, another of the excavators,he supposed only the head had been translatedto St. Sebastian's,and then on to Lateran, while the bones under the red wall were those of Peter's. In his 1959 edition of The Tombs of St. Peter and St. Paul he shows a picture of these bones and says, "All we can say is that the bones were removed from a grave now recognized to have been that of St. Peter, and that they are in fact the

1969, 1)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

9

bones of an elderly man" (p. 195). Kirschbaummade this factual statement on the basis of a medical examination, but Toynbee and Perkins demanded that Kirschbaum submit the bones to technical tests. The bones were then reported to be those of a woman. Kirschbaumdropped the pictures and the thesis in later studies; the bones under the red wall are no longer under consideration. The bone problem seemed solved. The translationtheory was supported by archaeologicalfact - or at least was not denied by it - while the theory itself was propounded by experts of several persuasions: not only the archaeologistsof the Pontifical Institute of Christian Archaeology,but originally by no less a scholar than the German Protestant Lietzmann, followed by a great succession of scholars at the German ArchaeologicalInstitute in Rome. It was in this world of scholarly self satisfaction that pandemonium broke loose in 1965. In L'Osservatoreit was announced that the bones of Peter had been found. The consensus was finished. What brought about this stunning reversal? Two items are the key causes. One is a hole in the consensus theory and the other is a personality. Let's deal with the theory first. There had been a number of problems with the consensus, but none had succeeded in destroyingit. Let me mention a few important ones: 1. There is no repositoryfor the bones of Peter and Paul at St. Sebastian's; despite all the efforts of the excavatorsthere has not been uncovered the slightest trace or even a logical place for the cult center deemed necessary for a martyrium of that magnitude. Experts differ greatly on the location of the bones. Some place them on the west side of the triclia near the altar of the present church, though no archaeologicalremains have been found. Many suggest they were near the well, where a number of unexplained graffiti to Peter and Paul have been found. I find it inconceivable that a community which cared enough for the remains to move them would place them in such a primitive area as the well is located. 2. According to Roman law it was illegal to transfer bones. 3. Would the martyr cult be sufficiently developed to warrant so much concern for the bones? 4. In what way would the site ad catacumbasprovide better protection for the bones than the Vatican (for Peter) or Ostiense (for Paul) sites? 5. Why was the memoria apostolorum changed to St. Sebastian's as late as the 5th century? 6. How did they manage to get the bones out the aedicula once Constantine had enclosed it with a brick casing?

10

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXII

These objections will help us build a new case, but it was really the empty chest in Wall G that provided the occasion for a new thesis. The excavatorsfound nothing in the chest except debris, some miniscule bone fragments and several coins; to be precise, one from the 4th century,

'/,' ttl

I'I"r

,',

,: '

;-

1;Zi•, •

.t

'

,I

Fig. 5. The graffiti wall in St. Peter's. Through the fracture at the bottom of the picture can be seen the marble chest, around which the controversy rages. From Kirschbaum, The Tombs of St. Peter and St. Paul, Plate 18.

one from the 11th century and some fragments of medieval coins. Assuming the coins slipped in by accident, the chest was essentially empty. Why would Constantine break open the graffiti wall, place an empty marble box in the wall and then enclose the entire affair in brick and marble?There is

1969, 1)

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

11

no answer to this question as it is put. There are, however, two alternatives: 1. Von Gerkan believes the box was placed in the wall before the time of Constantine and emptied before the casing was placed around it. The answer to this is just as simple - why did Constantine bother to include it in the wediculacomplex since it threw the entire structure off balance? Furthermore, the way the bricks were cut indicates an intrusion rather than an original construction. 2. If the box were the repository for the bones, then perhaps it was from the box that the bones were taken during the Saracen invasion. The answer to this is rather clear. Wall G shows no sign of such an opening and neither does the Constantinian casing. We are left with the original question - assuming Wall G was deliberately included why was the chest empty? At this point we need to bring in the personality involved. She is Margherita Guarducci, Professor of Greek Epigraphy at the University of Rome. She has opposed the consensus theory to the extent that she has convinced the Vatican they do possess the bones of Peter while the majority of Protestant and Catholic scholars would say they have disintegrated. How did this happen? From here on it becomes difficult for me to distinguish between fact and fiction, truth and gossip, debate and slander. In so far as possible I will try to keep to the printed word so that the case can be verified. Fortunately Guarducci has published liberally. Most of what I have to say can be found in her latest book, Le Reliquie di Pietro sotto la Confessione della Basilica vaticana: una messa a punto which was published in July, 1967. It is not clear to me why Guarducci opposed the consensus in the first place. Nor is it clear why the Vatican chose her to study the epigraphy under St. Peter's when a top expert on Christian inscriptions,A. Ferrua, was one of the excavatorsand had already given his estimate of especially the all important graffiti on Wall G. For whatever reasons, Guarducci did study the graffiti and published her results in a three volume work entitled I Graffiti sollo la Confessione di San Pietro in Vaticano. In her opinion the early Christians in public places had used a crypto-languageto express their faith. She found on the graffiti wall a regular network of doctrinal statements and references to the apostles. Her thesis of a crypto-language was nearly universally rejected by epigraphical authorities such as Ferrua, Carcopino, and Ruysscheart.4Needless to say, if such references were on the graffiti wall between 250 and 330 then the translation theory would be damaged. For, according to the consensus, in that period the cult of Peter and Paul was located only ad catacumbas. 4. See entries under their names in de Marco, The Tomb of St. Peter.

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

12

(Vol. XXXII

During this period of study (September, 1953) as she related to me, the problem of the chest kept bothering her. One day she asked a Sampietrino - one of the custodians of St. Peter's - why the chest was placed in the wall empty. The Sampietrino replied that, in fact, it had not been empty. The contents of that box were in another room in the .crypt area. Guarducci asked to see the remains and there .inirabiledicte was a box containing bones, coins, cloth fragments, marble fragments and a note which Guarduccibelieves to read ossa, irna, graf (bones, urn or box, and graffiti). According to the Sampietrino,in 1943 he had accompaniedthe Msgr. Kaas, then secretaryof the reverend Fabbricadi San Pietro, and therefore director

• ....

:-.._

i it i • _i"i!.. ..:_••,l

Fig. 6. One of the graffiti on the triclia wall at St. Sebastian's: "Paul and Peter, pray for Victor."

of all work in St. Peter's, into the excavations, broken open the marble chest, taken out the bones, and deposited them in the other room. All this was done without the knowledge of the authorized excavators. Guarducci had the contents of the box examined by technical experts. Briefly the results of this investigation were that the chest contained: 1. human bones which were found to be those of an elderly man; 2. some animal bones; 3. earth which proved to have come from Field P; 4. small fragments of marble of the same type used to construct the chest; 5. a few coins from the medieval period. In short, if this evidence is now accepted, it has reversed the consensus theory. The bones were at one time beneath the aedicula in niche 1. The

1969, 1)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

13

presence of some cult may be demonstrated by the edicula itself, the graffiti on Wall G and perhaps other graffiti in the necropolis. This cult continued right to the time the casing around the edicula was built. Then Constantine had the chest built into Wall G to hold the bones of Peter primarily, says Guarducci, to avoid further deteriorationfrom underground moisture. The bones were undisturbed until Mgsr. Kaas removed them in 1943. The variety of coins can only be explained by the unusual. Out of the thousands thrown into the tomb some managed to slide into the box from the end facing the red wall. By and large the more popular accounts of Peter today accept the Guarducci position. As I see it, there are three nearly insurmountableproblemsto solve before this incredible story can be accepted. Unfortunately all three problems involve personalityas well as fact. 1. The one who found the bones is the one whose thesis is best substantiated by their discovery. Guarducci opposed the consensus theory. She was brought in, apparently, to expand Ferrua's reading of the graffiti, and, presumably, to give a more favorable report. She does this in such a manner that nearly the entire scholarly world disagrees. Then, to climax her opposition she produces the very treasure the others sought - the very evidence that destroys their thesis. 2. What sort of person is this Mgsr. Kaas? Who would, shall we say, sneak into the excavation, take from the aedicula that very thing sought by the excavators,and then fail to report the matter either to the excavatorsor anyone else? What sort of person would saboltagethe entire procedureunder St. Peter's by taking that very data which would have changed the entire report? What person would have taken bones from the oedicula complex under St. Peter's, left them in a box, and risked the high likelihood no one would ever know of their existence? Guarducci, in her latest book says he forgot about the bones. Which is easier to believe? Her explanation, or that such a man really existed? Who was Mgsr. Kaas? Was he demented? Was he jealous of archaeologistsworking in his domain? Was he zealous for the relics and suspicious of scientific investigation? Was he a German who did not trust Italians?Who was Mgsr. Kaas? 3. Finally, how could Kaas have taken the bones from the chest without the knowledge of the excavators?Guarducci explains it in this manner: the excavatorsexpected the bones or whatever remains they would find to be under the aedicula in niche 1. They tore off the Constantinian casing from the graffiti wall, not to reach that wall, but to reduce the weight on a tunnel they were making under the entire complex. The purpose of the tunnel was to investigate niche 1. For this reason they ignored the graffiti wall and the chest. After they had ceased working that day, Kaas and the

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

14

(Vol. XXXII

two Sampietrini came into the area, saw the chest and removed the bones. When the excavators then returned to the problems of the wall and the chest they correctlyreportedit was empty. Would the excavators have exposed the chest to full view and not investigated its contents? I find it very difficult to believe they did not investigate the chest, or at least recognize at a later date that the chest had been emptied of its contents (according to the Guarducci account it was P9r ii

?

???~

I~ ,?? c, L:

jhL P

I

?r L?

~L,-

?:

?

,?

5.

?Xl~c .--

Fig. 7. The spot in the northwest corner of the triclia (upper left in Fig. 3 above) which some scholars propose as the repository. Note the stump of column at left and the slightly raised base for another just to the right of center.

necessary for Kaas to enlarge slightly the slit in the chest in order to empty it). Why has the original team not clarified this matter? Their word that they did not investigate the chest would make the Guarducci thesis possible. Their word that they did would ruin the Guarducci thesis. But nothing has been said. I asked one excavator about the matter and his reply was this: "The chest was empty when we came to it and now it is no longer in competent scientific hands." In her recent book Guarducci has replied in kind. Explaining this incredible lapse on the part of the excavatorsshe lists fifteen other errors, some of which border on the slanderous. Where will it all end? The situation now is probably hopeless. The mixture of fact and personality has so clouded the issue that the truth may never be known. The statement by the Pope will likely cut off further significant debate. There are too few outside the situation who have an

1969, 1)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

15

intimate knowledge of the site and its problems. One can only conclude that the thesis of Guarducci will be the accepted conclusion. The bones now enclosed in the chest will become in fact the bones of Peter. Probably in the long run the bones of Peter will not be so important a matter. What will be of lasting value is the fascinating picture we have gained of church life in the early centuries. That raises the crucial point. Have we not asked the wrong question all along? Would we not come closer to the truth if we asked what meaning the bones had at the time, rather than where they really were? Let us lay aside the quest for the historical bones. The Purpose

of St. Peter's

and St. Sebastian's

While the pre-historyof these great basilicas has rightly attractedmuch attention, yet another revolution has occurred in the field of church architecture within the last decade. The kind of data we have dealt with so far needs to be coordinatedwith other fields of parallel endeavor. In trying to do this I would like to deal with these questions: What sort of function did these two buildings serve? What is the relationship between cult and relic? What architecturalchanges occurred during the Constantinian period and why? Needless to say I can only deal with these briefly, but perhaps enough to recast the bone question. 1. What was the function of this type of building? Some scholars in church architecture have come to a radical redefinition of certain basilica structures, especially those "outside the walls." This redefinition has come from two perspectives. First, the work of Grabar5and Dyggve6 has shown how some ecclesiastical edifices have developed from the cult of the dead. The need for such an edifice derives from two sources, both of which rely heavily on pagan antecedents. Like the hero cult of pagan classicism, the early Christians tended to center their social communion around the grave of a martyr.This in itself required some minimal space and edifice, but the early Christian also wanted to be buried near the martyr, or, at least, in the vicinity of this special location. Like the pagans of the time the early Christians also held funeral meals for the dead. As more and more were buried near the martyr, it became increasingly necessary to provide some type of edifice. This would be the origin of the martyrium. Such places had no priesthood, for there was no congregation. There was no altar, only a table (mensa) placed near the martyr'sgrave as well as other tables for the remaining dead. Architecturally, the martyriumhad a central plan rather than a rectilinear plan. 5. A. Grabar, Martyrium, I (1946) is especially important, but see also his article, Archaeology, II (1949), 95-104. 6. E. Dyggve, Doedekult, Kejserkult og Basilica (1940); History of Salov:iten Christianity (1951), and his article in Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte, LIX (1940), 103-113.

16

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

BASILICA APSE

i

(Vol. XXXII

L

GRAVEYARD Q CLIVUS

s

TROPAION

GRAVEYARD P

,

Fig. 8. Plan of the necropolis under St. Peter's. from the inside back cover of Kirschbaum, The Tombs of St. Peter and St. Paul. The clivus is the walkway, the tropaion is the aedicula, and "Graveyard P" is our Field P.

1969, 1)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

17

From the second and strictly architecturalperspective Krautheimer7has recently noticed there is an architecturaltype like St. Sebastian's which is neither a church nor a martyrium. St. Sebastian's was not built like a basilica in the classical sense. While it has a clerestory, it has no apse, no apsidial arch, no columns. It simply describes a U-shape with the central nave supported by arches. St. Sebastian's had no altar, and there was nothing under the place where an altar should have been. It had no priesthood. In short it was not a church, but a cemetery building extended to accommodatemore graves and larger groups for the funeral meals of both relatives and martyrs. A number of churches outside the walls in Rome are now understood to have been such coemeteria subteglata (covered cemeteries). Invariably they are connected with large Christian burial areas, specifically the catacombs. We could mention here the remains of huge buildings found near the present St. Agnes, St. Lawrence, and the catacombsof Saints Peter and Marcellinus. Each is huge, shaped exactly like St. Sebastian's, is involved in and contained large numbers of burials. Other buildings have recently been included in this category. For the most part the covered cemeterieshave disappeared except for St. Sebastian's. To summarize, St. Sebastian's was not a church, but a covered cemetery which grew up in conjunction with a Christian burial ground and marked proximity to some special point of reverence, presumably the burial of a martyr. It will be seen immediately that St. Peter's hardly differs from this description. St. Peter's had no altar, no permanent priesthood, no congregation. Its floor was a cemetery, and mausolea were attached to it on the south wing of the transept. It differs from the other cemeteries in that Constantine built it as a public building or basilica into which he inserted the martyriumas a transept, while St. Sebastian'shad no martyrium built into its structure. St. Peter's appears to us a church because in the late 4th century and 5th century the church around the world accepted this form as the standardarchitecturaldevelopment. 2. What is the relationshipbetween cult and relic? The consensus theory stands and falls on one major presupposition: no body, no cult. The translation theory is necessary because St. Sebastian's would be inexplicable otherwise. Recent architectural research into the martyria obviates such a presupposition.The martyriawere in direct communication with the grave, but the covered cemeteries were not. Of the three other edifices like St. Sebastian's in Rome, none had a direct relationship to the martyr honored by the building. In fact there is no known church where the altar was built over the martyr'sgrave until the 5th century. Throughout the empire 7. R. Krautheimer, Cahiers arche'ologiques, XI (1960),

15-40.

18

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXII

the martyrium was a separate building. Those who hold the translation theory insist upon it because St. Sebastian's must conform - no body, no cult. As a matter of fact, quite the reverse is true: if there were bodies of Peter and Paul in the triclia under St. Sebastian's that would be the exception to the rule. Or, in other words, St. Sebastian's would be the only covered cemetery known which was built directly over a martyrium.

01.C r

vsF~ 10

4" .11ige

?jo,

:

Fig. 9. Mosaic of Christ as Apollo, from Mausoleum M under St. Peter's; it is the earliest known Christian mosaic.

We must reverse our thinking process in regard to St. Sebastian'sand the bones. The clue will not be found by seeking the historical cause for the cult of Peter and Paul at that place. Rather we must ask what was the need for the cult in the first place. Answer: it was the presence of massive Christian burials in the area. Because the early Christians continued the feasts of the dead, the old Roman Parentalis, it was necessary to create locations for such feasts near the catacombs.Other burial locations developed

1969, 1)

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

19

martyria which demanded cemetery buildings in the vicinity. But the Via Appia was the most important Christian burial area. It should rest on the cult of the two apostles. Such a cult did develop ad catacumbas.The actual historical basis for attaching this cult to Peter and Paul may never be known. Let me suggest three possibilities: First, the old "house of Peter" idea may have some foundation in fact. We have seen already the bones are not necessaryfor the cult. We can also note that basilicas were built on holy sites. In Palestine we find them on the tomb of Jesus, on Golgatha, at Bethlehem, on the Mt. of Olives, even at Mamre. We should not be surprised to find some veneration of a holy place in Rome, especially if such a site were needed. It can be observed,and rightly so, that these above mentioned churches were not all cemetery churches.8 Could the martyrium develop without relics? Would the early Christians have held funeral meals where there were no bones of a martyr? Whether they did at St. Sebastian'sis still the question, but we know they did in North Africa. Augustine was forced to cancel funerary meals for Cyprian not only at his gravebut where he had eaten: "et tamen mensa dicitur Cypriani, non quia ibi est unquam Cyprianus epalatur, sed quia ibi est immolatus" (Sermo 310) (something like: "however,the table which is named for Cyprian is neither where Cyprian feasted nor where he is buried"). Perhaps St. Sebastian's is best explained as such a site, though it is based either on sheer legend or on some tradition in regard to the area, for there is no place here, archaeologicallyspeaking, where the apostles could have dwelt. We could then explain the "house of Peter" inscription as an indication of such a legend. We could also explain why there is no martyrium at St. Sebastian's. For there was no relic. Because there was no Christian burial area near the Vatican this would explain why the cult of Peter was never there. The building of the covered cemeteries ad catacumbasby Constantine would then be a continuation of the cult of Peter and Paul at St. Sebastian's in addition to the cemetery which Constantine developed at St. Peter's. The eventual disuse of St. Sebastian's would be due to that 5th century switch from communion with the dead to reception of divine communion on the basis of the martyr'ssacrifice. St. Sebastian's was the only one of the covered cemeteries to survive. In the 5th century others moved to the actual site of the martyria, while St. Sebastian's was given a real martyrium for the first time - the relics of Sebastian and Quirinius. Secondly, the real martyriumor first cause for the cult at St. Sebastian's may not yet be known. For the other cemetery buildings it was a short distance away. New light may yet come. 8. The site of the Holy Sepulchre was a cemetery. See R. H. Smith, BA, XXX (1967),

83.

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

20

(Vol. XXXII

Thirdly, much of ancient tradition speaks of an attempt to steal the relics of Peter and Paul, but the attempt was halted ad catacbllLbas.Perhaps there is some element of fact in these legends which cannot now be recovered. This would give the site value as a temporarygrave for the apostles and again account for a later cult without the body.

sib,

CA tieI

w

~ddMIN

14,

Fig. 10. A view of the walkway (clivs) in St. Peter's, with a portion of the Red Wall preserved at the right (continued toward the viewer by brick). The sarcophagus on the left is set with its top at the level of the floor of old St. Peter's, which is now the floor of the crypt.

3. What changes occurred in the 4th century which would account for the data we have presented? The cult of the dead derived from the Roman Parentalis which was celebrated for eight days in February. The special role of the martyrprobablycomparesto the hero cult of pagan Rome. In fact Peter's death was first celebrated in the Parentalis, February 22. We can see this structure in the Martyrdomof Polycarp (18:3). Feasts for the dead were likely early in the church, but regular feast days for the martyrs began late in the 2nd century and not until after 220 in Rome. Martyria sprang up, including the one for Peter and Paul ad catacumbas.The Vatican and Ostiense were honored but the cult did not develop in these still active pagan necropolises. In 258 the Roman church broke with Parentalis and blessed the cult of Peter and Paul ad catacumbas.The development of this site continued until the 5th century. Meanwhile St. Peter's was developed as a Christian burial ground. An immense pagan necropolis was destroyed by tons of dirt and an enormous

21

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

1969, 1)

w??

v

mg,

,4

jtiit

.

Vz?1

.e -? ?~'E . -iL!Ik') T

_.e.? it

~~4

Fig. 11. A reconstruction of the aedicula. The top niche is niche 3; the lower one is niche 2; beneath the structure is niche 1. The slab in the floor of niche 2 indicates the disorientation of the aedicula and the wall in relation to the original structure (niche 1). From Kirschbaum, The Tombs of St. Peter and St. Paul, Plate 26.

basilica placed on it. Was it to honor Peter or his relics? I doubt it. St. Peter's was built to extend the cult of the dead for the Christian community, and indeed for the Christian world. Many would be buried there, thousands

22

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXII

would celebrate the feast of Peter and hold funeral meals with the others entombed in the floor and mausolea. The anomaly of St. Peter's is that it is a cemetery built on the basis of a martyriumwhile normally martyriawere built in the context of Christian cemeteries. In architecturalvocabulary the major change that occurred by the 5th century was the presence of altarsin some coveredcemeteries, the construction of basilicasand altars directly over the martyria,and the insertion of martyria under altars in congregational churches (the basilica ad corpus). In other words the cult of the dead was joined with the developing mass in such a way that the main worship of the church absorbed the martyr cult. Liturgically this may be seen most clearly in the use of the martyr cult main prayer or preface in the eucharist. Conversely the eucharist with the dead was dropped. Not simply dropped, but suppressed. In Augustine and Ambrose we read of the struggle to halt the cult of the dead. It succeeded with the following resulting compromise. Meals for the dead were still allowed, but no table could be involved in any way which would allow a eucharistic interpretation. The funeral meal was simply a social event. On the other hand, the cult of the dead was used for general worship by building the altar over the martyr'sremains. It seems to me the change is enormous. Prior to the 5th century the euchiaristwas based on the fellowship of the saints in the gift of Jesus' sacrifice. But after the 5th century the eucharist was based on sacrificeand the victory thus obtained for the church. One can understand why this change occurred even if the change seems radical. We can mention a few reasons. The excesses of the cult of the dead were more than the church could take. Augustine speaks of drunkenness and riots in St. Peter's. St. Agnes was the scene of a bloody riot against those who insisted on ecclesiastical eucharists only. In one account a pregnant woman is advised not to go to St. Lawrence on that martyr'sfeast day for fear of an abortionin the boisterousfeasting. It became necessary to refine this combinationof pagan death cult and Christian agape. Furthermore,the power of Rome was at stake. Other cities could claim the presence of Peter, Paul and other disciples. Rome replied with graves at St. Sebastian'sin honor of of the two apostles. The memoria apostolorumn the living apostles was discarded. Both the bishop of Rome and the Emperor based their power on the death in Rome of the two chief apostles as well as the continuing tradition of martyrdom at Rome. Now back to the bones. If there were bones of Peter at the Vatican they were not held in high esteem during the 2nd century because there was no cult of the dead based strictly on the martyr. In the 3rd century the cult of the dead developed, but always in conjunction with large numbers

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

1969, 1)

23

.)

-.IV.

o.-..

-,PC,2

?

•

""•

40 2.,•"" 7,..

"'-,

141

Fig. 12. The west column of the aedicula surroundedby Constantinian casing. From Kirschbaum, The Tombs of St. Peter and St. Paul, Plate 17.

of Christianburials.There were very few at the Vatican,but many on the Via Appia.There, at a place associatedwith both Peter and Paul, beganthe cult of these two apostles.The Vaticanplace was tended, but did not become a martyrium.Constantinecontinued the cult of St. Sebastian'sby building a coveredcemeterythere, but he also createda new cemeteryby buildingSt. Peter'sat the Vaticansite. When the churchthen shiftedto the eucharist over the martyr'sremains, St. Peter's developed, but ad catacunibts

24

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXII

fell into disuse. It seems to me this approachto the bones render useless the translation theory, for the cult of St. Sebastian'sdeveloped without relics. At the same time it explains why there was no cult of Peter at the Vatican. So Guarducci may well be correct in one respect. The bones of Peter may have always been at the Vatican. But where they are now may never be known. STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND CIRCULATION (Act of October 23, 1962; Section 4369, Title 39, United States Code) 1. Date of Filing: October 1, 1968 2. Title of Publication: The Biblical Archaeologist 3. Frequency of issue: Quarterly - February, May, September, December 4. Location of Known Office of Publication: 126 Inman Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts

02139

5. Location of the Headquarters or General Business Offices of the publishers (not printers): 126 Inman Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 6. Names and Addresses of Publishers, Editor, and Managing Editor: Publisher: The American Schools of Oriental Research, 126 Inman St., Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 Editor: Professor Edward F. Campbell, Jr., McCormick Theological Seminary, 800 West Belden Avenue, Chicago, Ill. 60614 7. Owner (If owned by a corporation, its name and address must be stated and also immediately thereunder the names and addresses of stockholders owning or holding 1 percent or more of total amount of stock. If not owned by a corporation, the names and addresses of the individual owners must be given. If owned by a partnership or other unincorporated firm, its name and address, as well as that of each individual must be given.) Archaeological Service Organization with no owner President - G. Ernest Wright, 6 Divinity Ave., Cambridge, Mass. 02138 Secretary - James B. Pritchard, University Museum, 33rd & Spruce St., Philadelphia, Pa. 19104 Treasurer - Thomas Phelps, 320 Park Avenue, New York, New York 8. Known Bondholders, Mortgagees and other security holders owning or holding 1 percent or more of total amount of bonds, mortgages or other securities (If there are none so state): None. 9. The purpose, function, and nonprofit status of this organization and the exempt status for Federal income tax purposes have not changed during preceding 12 months. 10. Extent and Nature of Circulation

C. D. E. F. G.

A. Total no. copies printed B. Paid circulation 1) sales through dealers, vendors, counter sales 2) mail subscriptions Total paid circulation Free distribution Total distribution Office use, left-over, unaccounted, spoiled after printing Total

Average No. Copies Each Issue During Preceding 12 months 7150

Single Issue Nearest To Filing Date

none 5722 5722 211 5933

none 5757 5757 246 5933

1217 7150

1007 7000

7000