By Dave Armstrong (9-23-14)
[portion of a chapter in my book, Footsteps that Echo Forever: My Holy Land Pilgrimage]
It
remains an indisputable fact of history, that Catholics from their
earliest existence in the apostolic age, have commemorated important,
holy sites in biblical and Catholic history: often by building
churches or at least shrines of some sort where they happened. We
know this is true, among many other reasons, because Catholics are
frequently blasted for the supposed “idolatry” that (we are told)
occurs I such places: whether it is a holy location or the relics of
a saint.
Thus,
archaeology (knowing this full well) often begins with the premise
that the early Christians remembered
where important events having to do with their religion took place.
This was perhaps most notably true in the case of the Church of the
Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, as we saw in another chapter.
Archaeologists and historians largely agree that it encompasses the
likely locations of Jesus' crucifixion and His tomb.
The
authenticity of this holiest of Christian churches
is
accepted because
the earliest churches built on the spot were based on the collective
memory of the local tradition of Christians. These things don't
proceed merely by happenstance or a good “guess.” They're based
on legitimate memories and traditions passed down.
Many
analogies to every day life easily
bring this point home. For example, a family might revere a house or
some property where its
ancestors
had lived for hundreds of years. They generally don't forget where it
was unless many hundreds of years pass.
Americans
know exactly where George Washington was born,
or
where Benjamin Franklin worked as an apprentice in a print shop in
Philadelphia (I've been there). Those two things are at least 280
years ago. We know where the American nation began: Jamestown,
Virginia in 1607 (I've been there, too). That's more than 400 years
ago, but has not been forgotten at all. Why would
it be? It's clear that very significant places will usually be
remembered and documented.
It's
not difficult to remember particulars over many generations. This
applies to Christians and their own history, just as it does to
anyone else. One
person, after all, can live for a period encompassing parts of three
generations. My 89-year-old mother can remember things from the late
1920s, which is now over 85 years ago, or more than two biblical
generations.
In
other instances, it
should also be noted, some
things seem to be lost to history, as I have argued elsewhere in this
book was the cases with the location of Jesus' baptism and the Via
Dolorosa. Yet the exceptions don't disprove the rule (the
latter was a late tradition to begin with, and so more speculation
was in play).
Because some things were forgotten or lost track of in the mists of
history doesn't mean that all
things are.
In the case of what many believe to be St. Peter's house in Capernaum, on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, the argument is very straightforward: an ancient church was built over what was formerly a house. The simplest explanation is that the house must have had some great significance in Christian history. St. Peter's house fits that bill, and is the most reasonable explanation (though it remains unable to be proved – like nearly all things in archaeology – beyond any doubt whatsoever).
To
acknowledge this doesn't even require a personal Catholic belief.
It's just history, and how things were done by Christians, and even a
secular archaeologist has no trouble accepting it.
The
Bible History
Daily
website, from the Biblical Archaeology Society, provides a basic
overview of the evidence involved here, in its article (3-29-11),
“The House of Peter: The Home of Jesus in Capernaum?”:
It
was here during the infancy of early Christianity that he began his
ministry in the town synagogue (Mark 1:21), recruited his first
disciples (Mark 1:16–20) and became renowned for his power to heal
the sick and infirm (Mark 3:1–5).
.
. . Where was the house of Peter, which the Bible suggests was the
home of Jesus in Capernaum (Matthew 8:14–16)?
Italian
excavators working in Capernaum may have actually uncovered the
remnants of the humble house of Peter that Jesus called home while in
Capernaum. . . .
Buried beneath the remains of an octagonal Byzantine martyrium
church, excavators found the ruins of a rather mundane dwelling
dating to the first century B.C.
Octagonal martyria were built to commemorate an important site, such
as the original house of Peter that once stood here. The inner
sanctum of the octagonal building was built directly above the
remains of the very room of the first-century house that had formed
the central hall of the earlier church.
. . . Were it not for its association with Jesus and Peter, why else
would a run-of-the-mill first-century house in Capernaum have become
a focal point of Christian worship and identity for centuries to
come?
W. von
Menden began the excavation of the
remains of the octagonal church from
1906 to 1915. The
Franciscan Gaudenzio Orfali continued
this work from 1921 to 1925.
Franciscan Fathers Virgilio Corbo and Stanislao Loffreda again
excavated
the area from 1968 to 1985.
This is
the house where Jesus
healed Peter's mother-in-law (Mk 1:29-34), cured the
paralytic lowered down
from
above
(Mk 2:1-4), as
well as many others near the door (Mk 1:33), and
preached to the crowds
(Mt 12:46-50). It
has immense significance in Christian history.
In the nearby synagogue He
taught many times, including his magnificent eucharistic discourse
recorded in John 6 (see Jn 6:59). Historical
attestation of a church being built over Peter's house also
exists. The Spanish nun Egeria, wrote around 381 to 395:
And in Capernaum, what is more, the house of the prince of the
apostles [Peter] has been transformed into a church, with its
original walls still standing. Here the Lord healed the paralytic.
There is also the synagogue where the Lord healed the man possessed
by demons . . .
An
unnamed pilgrim, writing around 560-570 noted the Byzantine basilica:
“And so we came on to Capernaum to the house of Saint Peter, which
is now a basilica.”
Raymond
E. Marley, writing in the Jerusalem Christian Review in 19981,
observed:
An open area between the street and the doorway, leading to the
courtyard, makes the building unique among others found in the
vicinity. This open area would have allowed space for a large number
of people to “gather at the door” of Peter's home to hear Jesus'
preaching. (Mark 1:33; 2:1-3)
. . . Inside the building, numerous coins, pottery and oil-lamps
dating to the first century were discovered, along with artifacts
which included several fish hooks.
Archaeologists also unearthed evidence of memorials built by later
Christian generations around Peter's home.
“Christians who lived in Capernaum during the second, third and
fourth centuries highly venerated this site and showed great care not
to destroy the house, but rather to add additional structures to it,”
said Italian scholar, Virgilio Corbo, who excavated at the site.
Jesus
regarded Capernaum as His home (Mt 9:1; Mk 2:1; 3:19; 10:10), and He
likely lived in St. Peter's house. He performed many miracles in the
town (Mt 4:18-22; Mk 1:34), and there He chose his first four
disciples (Peter, Andrew, James, and John); later also enlisting the
tax-collector Matthew (Mt 9:9; Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27). This is also where
He healed the centurion's servant (Lk 7:1-10). His mother Mary
visited (Mk 3:31). He explained His parables in greater depth to the
disciples in Peter's house (Mk 7:17). Here He embraced the little
child and taught about humility and servanthood (Mk 9:33-37).
James H.
Charlesworth, professor of New Testament Language and Literature at
Princeton Theological Seminary, writing in the book he edited, Jesus
and Archaeology2,
concluded about this matter:
Archaeological evidence is almost always hotly debated. What, then,
is clear? The “house church” in Capernaum that is celebrated as
Peter's house may well be the house in which Jesus taught. It is
certainly not a “synagogue,” but it seems to be Peter's house.
Thus, I fully agree with J. Murphy-O'Connor, who is unusually well
informed of data related to Jesus and archaeology and astutely
critical; notice his judgment: “The most reasonable assumption is
the one attested by the Byzantine pilgrims, namely, that it was the
house of Peter in which Jesus may have lodged (Mt 5:20). Certainly
nothing in the excavations contradicts this identification.3
John
J. Rousseau reiterates my original point above:
Ancient
peoples tended to build new sanctuaries over preexisting ones, even
if they were dedicated to a different god. In this case, the
Byzantine octagonal church was built exactly over the ancient large
room.4
And
more specifically, on the same page:
Artifacts
discovered there (Herodian coins and lamps, fish hooks) show that the
house was occupied as early as the first century B.C.E. and that
people involved in fishing lived in or around the house.
.
. . The excavators' conclusions are widely accepted today.
FOOTNOTES
1 “Is
It the Home of Peter?: Miraculous Discoveries in the 'City of
Miracles'," Vol. 9, Internet edition, Issue 1.
2 Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006, p. 50.
3 The
Holy Land, 4th ed.
(Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 220.
4 Jesus
and His World: An Archaeological and Cultural Dictionary
(Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1995); co-authored with Rami
Arav, p. 40 (“Capernaum”).
* * * * *

And now a big, ugly, flying saucer-shaped church-in-the-round sits atop the excavation site.
ReplyDelete