I’m being asked for my opinion on the latest archaeological discovery: the “earliest church” found at Megiddo (AP story, Washington Post, photos and more photos). Frankly, I’m not all that excited. Here’s why.
1. It seems like every few years the “earliest church” is discovered (in Jordan). Of course, they mean the earliest church building, and that means a building which is decorated with things which I do not find necessarily helpful nor biblical.
2. Israel has plenty of ancient churches, chapels, and monasteries. They are everywhere, and usually in exactly the wrong place. Many of them have beautiful mosaics, like this one. Thus the only thing that makes this “newsworthy” is the claim that the church is from the 3rd century (before 300 A.D.). Now that would be remarkable, since Christianity was a persecuted religion until about 310. I suppose I can imagine a group of believers meeting publicly in Israel (far from the Roman center) at this time, but it is harder to imagine them building a lavish structure. Perhaps this will help to re-write history. And if so, that is fine. But I also confess that I am a bit suspicious of the claim, knowing as I do, that this would be a non-story if it were a few decades later. Knowing that the archaeologist can get a lot of attention out of this and quite likely get the site preserved on the basis that this is a unique structure. Perhaps it is, but I see too many other motivations for preferring a lower date if the evidence is ambiguous.
3. Even if it were everything claimed for it, I still wouldn’t be very excited because it’s just a church building. I don’t see how it is going to help me to better understand any of the things I care about, including the Bible and theology. That doesn’t mean it’s not important, just that it’s not important to me.
Today, however, was a good day of excavating in the City of David. There will be more news about the work there in the years to come.
Todd, you said:
“Today, however, was a good day of excavating in the City of David. There will be more news about the work there in the years to come.”
How about in the next blog posts to come??
greetings from Brazil,
Daniel Portela
Daniel – good thought, but no. Here’s why:
1. The work is on-going, and thus any conclusions that might be stated now could be altered by future work.
2. Anything that I could say now wouldn’t be very solid anyway. That’s because as things stand there are more questions than answers.
3. It’s not my place to announce someone else’s discovery.
But, I am confident that the new discoveries will contribute to our understanding of what Jerusalem was in the time of the Judean monarchy.
For years we were taught that the Mesopotamians “invented” writing. Then they discovered predynastic tombs in so. Egypt, with writing predating the Mesopotamian writing…and did they report “We discovered the earliest existing writing that has been discovered so far”? No, they reported, “We have found THE earliest writing. Egyptians invented writing.”
Hi Todd, blast from the past here. I stumbled across your blog again because I saw the story about Megiddo. What significance do you give to the Mosaic’s a) being paid for by a Roman Centurion and b) listing 4 women in a prominent fashion
That seemed interesting to me given the persecution at the time (assuming the date is correct) and also the disputes about roles of women in the church.
Interesting points on the Megiddo “church”. I am hoping the “City of David” dig continues to interest you, as it seems a possible 3rd century Christian establisment is somehow less theologically or biblically important that understanding early Roman and Judean heirarchy.
Perhaps it is time we set aside our “reservations” about what something might mean (presumably Catholic implications) and simply enjoy it for what it is.
If indeed this early “church” was decorative and perhaps even lavish, should we really be all that surprised? Like many cultures (even persacuted ones), self respect and honor in the form of excellence is nothing new.
Our puritanical impressions of early Christianity are what need to be questioned, not possible decorative churches that reverenced Christ with their artisans.
It really makes me sad to see how much of our faith we lose when we strugle in prejudice to de-Catholicize Christianity.
In the end, this may be nothing more than a 4th century buliding converted for a time to the worship of our Lord. In any event, it is a reason to exclaim once again the richness of our faith found in ancient testimony.
Chris,
It has been a while; good to hear from you again. Actually I must confess that I don’t know the answers to the two questions. It’s been a busy month and I haven’t kept up with the latest on the church. In any case, I continue to doubt that the 3rd century date will hold (I think it is later). I might say concerning the 4 women that I don’t think the prominence of women in the early church should be a surprise given the prominence that Paul gives them in his letters.
Hi,
My name is Shahar, I am from Israel, and I have started the website http://www.armageddonchurch.com.
It shows various aspects of the ancient Church (some say structure) found in the Megiddo prison. I posted several intreviews, and several more will be posted in the near future.
Shahar.
My dear friends:
A warning with intellect. Don’t let America stand between you and the work ahead. Stand tall and strong like stone. Don’t be chipped away by your arrogance or anyone else’s, seek truth for what it is. We are all brothers in this game of ill-politics.