World’s Oldest Christian Church at Armageddon?
CNN is reporting the discovery of an ancient Christian church in Israel that possibly dates to the third century, “decades before Constantine legalized Christianity across the Byzantine Empire.” Interestingly, this church is located in Megiddo, near the biblical Armageddon, a place that makes sense “because a bishop was active in the area at the time.” According to the CNN story, the ancient origin of the church is creating somewhat of a buzz in archaeological circles:
“What’s clear today is that it’s the oldest archaeological remains of a church in Israel, maybe even in the entire region. Whether in the entire world, it’s still too early to say,” said Yotam Tepper, the excavation’s head archaeologist.
Some characteristics of this pre-Constantine Christian church revealed by two elaborate mosaics that constituted the floor of the church and other items discovered at the find include:
(1) the items are covered in depictions of fish, “an ancient Christian symbol that predates the cross,” and the lack of the symbol of the cross indicates that “the church was no longer used by the fourth century“;
(2) the mosaics “tell the story of a Roman officer and a woman named Aketous who donated money to build the church in the memory ‘of the god, Jesus Christ.’“;
(3) evidence at the find, including the remnants of a table, indicate that the church predates the fourth century, when tables used in rituals (such as administration of the sacrament?) were replaced by altars;
(4) the church was not constructed in the basilica style standard in the Byzantine era;
(5) the church was mostly destroyed at some point.
That’s really interesting. Too bad there weren’t some texts found as well.
Comment by Clark Goble — November 7, 2005 @ 11:53 am
It’s still frustrating that there remains a gap between Jesus>the Gospels>physical evidence for Christianity. i.e. churches This is still cool though.
Comment by Ronan — November 7, 2005 @ 12:36 pm
Ronan, if it is true that use of the cross as a symbol for adherence to the religion of Jesus Christ is a fourth century addition to Christianity, what does that do to your analysis of the cross in Christian worship? Does the pre-fourth century absence of the cross weigh in favor of the Latter-day Saint practice of not using the cross in their worship, or is it completely irrelevant?
To anti-LDS Christians: does the absence of the symbol of the cross in pre-fourth-century Christian worship and church buildings mean that the early followers of Jesus Christ weren’t Christian? If not, then in what way can the absence of the symbol of the cross in LDS Christian worship and church buildings mean that Latter-day Saints aren’t Christian?
Comment by john fowles — November 7, 2005 @ 12:53 pm
John,
You are right, of course. The absence of a cross in earliest Christianity deals a serious blow to those who state that our cross-aversion is emblematic of our non-Christianity.
I have never argued against this. I understand why we don’t use the cross: the cross can indeed be construed as a symbol of apostate Christianity. I have only ever taken issue with the reasons we give, namely that we choose to not focus on the death of Christ. That is simply not the case.
Anyway, we’ve thrashed this one out before, methinks….!
Comment by Ronan — November 7, 2005 @ 1:24 pm
Ronan–I wasn’t meaning to pick a fight. In reviewing your UB post on the matter, I didn’t see an analysis based on the lack of the cross in earliest Christianity, so I just wondered what you made of it. Of course I realize that your issue was with the reasons that contemporary Latter-day Saints give for avoidance of the cross as a defining symbol.
Iconoclasm is certainly the root of contemporary “cross-aversion” (as you put it), despite LDS rhetoric about honoring the living (resurrected) Jesus rather than the dead. But I don’t think that iconoclasm can necessarily explain the absence of the cross before its fourth century appearance. Rather, it might be worth considering whether the earliest Christians, if it is true that they did not define themselves by means of the symbol of the cross (I don’t think that that can actually be conclusively established at this time with the evidence available absent proving a negative, but I could easily be wrong about this since I am not an expert on the evidence in this area), didn’t use the cross as a symbol precisely because of the reasons that contemporaneous Latter-day Saints give for not doing so: they didn’t worship the torture of Christ, but rather his divinity, resurrection, and eternal life. That would be an ironic twist if that which has become a somewhat pretextual reason for avoiding the cross for Latter-day Saints actually constituted a reason that the earliest Christians hadn’t thought to define themselves by the sign of the cross.
Comment by john fowles — November 7, 2005 @ 1:43 pm
Good point.
What was the defining symbol of Christ for the earliest Christians? What was the ur-meaning of the fish?
Comment by Ronan — November 7, 2005 @ 1:46 pm
On the fish as a Christian symbol, see this Wikipedia entry for a quick summary. The Greek word for “fish,” Ichthys, was used as a Greek acronymn that stood for the words of a sort of defining creed for early Christians: the Greek letters ΙΧΘΥΣ (Iota Chi Theta Upsilon Sigma) to the statement of Christian faith “Ἰησοῦς ΧÏιστὸς Θεοῦ Υἱὸς Σωτήϔ (IÄ“sous Christos Theou Huios SÅtÄ“r: “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior”). I have always found this statement of faith moving and the fish as a very meaningful Christian symbol.
Comment by john fowles — November 7, 2005 @ 2:08 pm
so, my question for those of you who know loads more than i do, is at what point did crucifixion cease to be common practice? it seems unlikely that you would want to use a common torture device as the symbol of your new church and that as it falls out of use it would take on a more holy connotation.
Comment by brock — November 8, 2005 @ 10:39 pm
I don’t believe that those who began to first use the cross as the symbol of Christianity intended to bring to rememberance a device of torture and death.
I believe that they understood the cross to be (rather than the Garden of Gethemane) the location where Christ performed his salvation of mankind. This combined with the edict to “take up your cross” were the likely origins for the use of this symbol.
As for the end of its use–I question whether it ever did end. I would venture a guess that somewhere in the world today, people are still using this horible form of capital punishment–scary as that might be.
Comment by FoT — November 8, 2005 @ 11:01 pm
Many christians were crucified in Japan in the 16th century. More recently a Mormon was crucified in South Africa by a satanist this month. It seems to me that most instances after the christian adoption of the symbol are intended to have religious ramificaitons.
Comment by J. Stapley — November 8, 2005 @ 11:32 pm
Actually, Brock’s point is a good one. Crucifixion ceased as a WIDESPREAD method of execution around the 4th century.
Comment by Ronan — November 9, 2005 @ 8:23 am
I also think that is a good point, Brock. Definitely something to think about. having said that, though, I still think the fish makes a very meaningful symbol, since it is an acronymn with an embedded statement of faith.
Comment by john fowles — November 9, 2005 @ 11:51 am
I have alwas been a bit bothered by the fact that as Latter Day Saints we have adopted the hymn. Onward Christian Soldiers. with the words. “With the cross of Jesus, going on before”.
To me, one of the main reasons to avoid the use of the cross is because it seems historicaly to be a rallying point for fascist cultisim, wheather on a broad scale or narrow scale. If you think about it, the fish would probably not lend itself well to this kind of feighned or misguided commitment to unity of purpose.
So I am wondering if there are any particularly gifted lyracists out there who could help me with this cause and write words for a hymn with something about a fish.
Perhaps some historical reasearch about the sentiments associated with the fish would be worth considireing. My understanding from Non LDS sources is that it was used as a code for meeting places in the catacombs and so forth which had a meaning not yet know to the persecutors.
If you think about it. the two symbols are on apposite extremes. one is used in a kind of vengefull manner, and the other as a symbol of intelectual embarassemnt for those who are forced to turn to persecution for lack of a logical responce.
Finaly, I think the sign of the dove and the sign of fish would make for better art. – we remeber Jesus by partaking of bread and wine. I wonder if the fact that he multiplied bread and fish in a miracle that paralles mutilpying bead in the Book of Mormon in possible connection to the sacrament could men anything.
Richard E.
Comment by Richard E — November 11, 2005 @ 6:43 pm