World's Oldest Christian Church

[Steel Tiger]

Archaeologists in Jordan have recently unearthed what they believe to be the oldest Christian church.

ARCHAELOGISTS in Jordan have unearthed what they claim is the world's first church, dating back almost 2000 years, according to a report in The Jordan Times.
"We have uncovered what we believe to be the first church in the world, dating from 33 AD to 70 AD," said the head of Jordan's Rihab Centre for Archaeological Studies, Abdul Qader al-Husan.

He said it was uncovered under Saint Georgeous Church, which itself dates back to 230 AD, in Rihab in northern Jordan, near the Syrian border.

"We have evidence to believe this church sheltered the early Christians - the 70 disciples of Jesus Christ," Mr Husan said.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23845707-663,00.html

Early Hebrew Christianity did not last very long as it was overwhelmed by Orthodox and Catholic faiths. This find will hopefully give some interesting insights into the earliest Christian beliefs.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Legend has it that James, the brother of Jesus, became the patriarch of the Church in Jerusalem after the death of Jesus, while other disciples left to spread their teachings elsewhere. Had his skull bashed in, and tossed off a wall for his trouble. He also apparently had some theological issues with Saul of Tarsus after he converted and changed his name, leading to some of the comments by Paul in his letters.

Many historical perspectives consider that the line of James in the Church of Jerusalem is the oldest church. It had been going constantly in the same underground temple with mostly-Jewish-like services, until a recent (historically speaking) incident where they were taken out for security reasons. The entire congregation fit on one plane, so it's not like they are a big group. Arguably, however, they are the oldest. Several Crusaders recorded in their writing meeting these dudes after taking Jerusalem, and making concessions for them to continue in private, even though their presence challenged the bishoprics of Paul and Peter, consolidated in the Church in Rome.

The Coptics in Ethiopa also have a long tradition, and stretch out as far back as memory serves. As does the Greek and Russian orthodoxies. Each claiming apostolic succession, through different apostles.

Who'e right? Who cares.

D.

 

[arnisador]

I read this! Fascinating. I love the early history of Christianity stuff.

 

[exile]

I read this! Fascinating. I love the early history of Christianity stuff.

I agree—and as connoisseurs of faction-fighting, bloody-minded rivalry and sectarian pissing matches over the issue of legitimacy, we martial artists probably have a good deal in common with the separate religious groups of that particular era, eh? :wink1:

 

[Steel Tiger]

This church can easily be contemporaneous with that of James. Like James' church in Jerusalem it had a tiny congregation, less than 100.

The interesting thing is that it presents some insights into the early spread of Christianity. We know it had a small but loyal following in Judea and spread into Greece and then Italy, but this church gives us evidence of the spread being more rounded. Combined with the establishment and development of Coptic beliefs in Africa we can see that Christianity was spreading in many directions.

This raises questions about its popularity and acceptance. Congregations seem to be small in the early days, unlike Buddhism where whole communities went over, and there were many branches and interpretations of the lessons of Christ. Remember that when the Catholic Church decided on the number of Gospels for the Bible they chose only 4 out of 30, and that was only the 30 that they were willing to consider. some scholars believe there were at one time possibly as many as 100 gospels floating around the Christian world.

What we have now is a very narrow cross section of Christian belief. Even though it seems we have many versions of Christianity, they in fact all stem from the same essential source material (except the Coptics and a lesser degree the Orthodox church). But the discovery of sites like this let us see into the rich world of interpretation the earliest Christians lived in.

 

[thardey]

This church can easily be contemporaneous with that of James. Like James' church in Jerusalem it had a tiny congregation, less than 100.

The interesting thing is that it presents some insights into the early spread of Christianity. We know it had a small but loyal following in Judea and spread into Greece and then Italy, but this church gives us evidence of the spread being more rounded. Combined with the establishment and development of Coptic beliefs in Africa we can see that Christianity was spreading in many directions.

This raises questions about its popularity and acceptance. Congregations seem to be small in the early days, unlike Buddhism where whole communities went over, and there were many branches and interpretations of the lessons of Christ. Remember that when the Catholic Church decided on the number of Gospels for the Bible they chose only 4 out of 30, and that was only the 30 that they were willing to consider. some scholars believe there were at one time possibly as many as 100 gospels floating around the Christian world.

What we have now is a very narrow cross section of Christian belief. Even though it seems we have many versions of Christianity, they in fact all stem from the same essential source material (except the Coptics and a lesser degree the Orthodox church). But the discovery of sites like this let us see into the rich world of interpretation the earliest Christians lived in.

Which 30 Gospels?

 

[punisher73]

Which 30 Gospels?

I have not heard it at 30, but I have heard 22. 10+12 written in Greek and some in Latin.

Some of them are "infancy" gospels, like the Gospel of Thomas (not to be confused with the other Gospel of Thomas that is the "sayings of Jesus"). There is also a Gospel of James that talks of Jesus' infancy.

Then as previously mentioned there is the Gospel of Thomas, which is probably the most famous of the other gospels. There is also the Gospel of Judas. A "secret book of Mark" which has other stories and accounts in it than the "accepted" version.

Some others include another "Gospel of Peter" (not to be confused with the letters of 1 and 2 Peter), "Gospel of Mary Magdeline" a "Gospel of Nicodemus"

There are more, but those are the ones that pop into my head off the bat.

 

[thardey]

I have not heard it at 30, but I have heard 22. 10+12 written in Greek and some in Latin.

Some of them are "infancy" gospels, like the Gospel of Thomas (not to be confused with the other Gospel of Thomas that is the "sayings of Jesus"). There is also a Gospel of James that talks of Jesus' infancy.

Then as previously mentioned there is the Gospel of Thomas, which is probably the most famous of the other gospels. There is also the Gospel of Judas. A "secret book of Mark" which has other stories and accounts in it than the "accepted" version.

Some others include another "Gospel of Peter" (not to be confused with the letters of 1 and 2 Peter), "Gospel of Mary Magdeline" a "Gospel of Nicodemus"

There are more, but those are the ones that pop into my head off the bat.

I know of seven Gnostic Gospels, (Thomas, Judas, Mary, Peter, Marcion, Phillip, and the "Gospel of Truth") But these are clearly Gnostic (with the exeption of Marcion, but that was a re-tooled version of Mark, I believe), and claimed by modern Gnostics, who don't associate with Christianity. Believe it or not, it's still a living religion. http://gnosis.org/welcome.html They do a pretty good job of explaining the difference.

Basically they explain that you can't understand the Gnostic Gospels if you try to read them using the framework of Christianity. You have to use the Gnostic framework to plumb the "secret meanings."

The "infancy" gospels aren't canon, but were used by the Catholic Church to teach about Jesus' childhood, so you can't really claim that they were rejected. (Ever wonder where the doctrine of Mary's "perpetual virginity came from" - from the Infancy Gospel of Matthew!)

What we have now is a very narrow cross section of Christian belief. Even though it seems we have many versions of Christianity, they in fact all stem from the same essential source material (except the Coptics and a lesser degree the Orthodox church). But the discovery of sites like this let us see into the rich world of interpretation the earliest Christians lived in.

Not much is really missing. If you start with "orthdox" Christianity, pre-"Roman Catholic" include Gnosticism, which is still around, add the Coptic Christians in Egypt (which were basically a mixture of orthodoxy and Gnosticism), add a dash of Marcionism, and a little bit of Sethianism, and you've basically accounted for all of the various sects of holy writings that associated with the disciples, or the life of Jesus.

Just because they used stories that had to do with Jesus or the disciples, it doesn't mean that those people followed Christianity as we know it. The same could be said of Islam. Many of their stories cover the life of Jesus, but they're not Christians.

(Perhaps this would be better split to the Study, or the Philosophy section?)

 

[Steel Tiger]

Which 30 Gospels?

As to the exact 30 or so I'm not sure. That piece of information I got from a TV presentation of the development of the New Testament Canon and why Gnostic texts were left out. But this is what I have come up with. It dovetails with some of what Punisher was saying.

Completely Preserved

• Mark
• Matthew
• Luke
• Lohn
• Thomas
• of Truth
• Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians
• Nicodemus
• Secret Gospel of Mark
• Barnabas

Partially Preserved

• Judas
• Peter
• Mary
• Philip

Fragmentary

• of the Saviour
• Papyrus Egerton 2
• Mani
• Eve
• of the Twelve
• Oxyrhynchus
• Fayyum Fragment
• Dialogue of the Saviour

Reconstructed

• of the Ebionites
• of the Nazoraeans
• of the Egyptians
• Gospel Q

Infancy

• Pseudo-Matthew
• Thomas
• James
• Arabic Infancy Gospel

Lost

• Bartholomew
• of the Hebrews
• Matthias
• of the Seventy
• of the Four Heavenly Realms
• of Perfection
• Marcion

That's 37 and some of them (Judas, Secret Mark) have only recently been discovered and others (Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians) were not considered apparently.

The point of what I was saying is that, like many things, we have lost diversity and I think that is sad. Whole branches of Christian belief have died out because their writings were not kept in the public consciousness. But now they are being rediscovered in a time of greater tolerance for variant ideas perhpas we will see some reemerge. Christian mysticism would be nice to see again.

 

[Steel Tiger]

Not much is really missing. If you start with "orthdox" Christianity, pre-"Roman Catholic" include Gnosticism, which is still around, add the Coptic Christians in Egypt (which were basically a mixture of orthodoxy and Gnosticism), add a dash of Marcionism, and a little bit of Sethianism, and you've basically accounted for all of the various sects of holy writings that associated with the disciples, or the life of Jesus.

But in doing this you are doing exactly what the early Church was trying to avoid. I think that looking to all the interpretations and writings you are more likely to find the truths you seek, but the early Christian leaders didn't want people to do that. Hence the somewhat hardline development of canon. It was aimed at quelling the diversity that competed with the orthodoxy of Catholicism, in particular Arianism, Marcionism, Gnosticism, and Montanism.

The interesting thing is this took 250 years starting in AD 140ish and not really being complete until the Synod of Hippo in AD 393 when the 27 book New Testament was approved. This is probably why we can get at Gospels that were not included in the canon.

 

[thardey]

Gotcha, I guess I'm still gunshy from all the "I saw it in the DaVinci Code, the Roman Catholic Church brainwashed everybody!"

Yeah, there were a lot of gospels out there, but with a little reading, it's fairly obvious why they weren't confirmed. Basically, the generation after the apostles needed to agree on which letters one could appeal to in debate. So only the ones that were widely accepted became canonical.

Imagine, some church leader appeals to the gospel of Thomas to prove a point, and the other guys says: "So what? I don't trust the gospel of Thomas." So only the most reliable ones survived. It wasn't like there was a list of potential books at the Council of Carthage in 397, that were voted in, or out, like some media portrays - the four gospels had been established as the most reliable 237 years before.

But yeah, many of the "lost" gospels weren't really lost, so much as forgotten. As they're being found, the religions that used them are gaining strength again. But as for me, the Gnostic Gospels don't change a thing - I can't even understand them!

 

[thardey]

But in doing this you are doing exactly what the early Church was trying to avoid. I think that looking to all the interpretations and writings you are more likely to find the truths you seek, but the early Christian leaders didn't want people to do that. Hence the somewhat hardline development of canon. It was aimed at quelling the diversity that competed with the orthodoxy of Catholicism, in particular Arianism, Marcionism, Gnosticism, and Montanism.

The interesting thing is this took 250 years starting in AD 140ish and not really being complete until the Synod of Hippo in AD 393 when the 27 book New Testament was approved. This is probably why we can get at Gospels that were not included in the canon.

Sorry- Cross-posted.

What makes you say it was a "somewhat hardline development?" Sure, the individual church leaders would disagree with a text, usually comparing it to the basic ideas of Paul's most reliable letters. "Othodox Christianity" as we know it basically came from Paul, and his interpretation of the teachings and actions of Jesus. But there really wasn't a central church government that organized these things. Those that followed Paul's interpretation would naturally disagree with Gnosticism, and vice-versa. They simply developed into different sects.

I know of no thinking Christian who would deny the reading a familiarization of the "lost Gospels." In fact, I have copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas, and the Gospel of Mary. They're no threat to me - it's a different religion. The warnings from the early church fathers regarding this stuff was to warn against mixing the religions. Gnosticism and Orthodox Christianity are incompatible, and to try and harmonize the two would be disastrous. That didn't mean you couldn't study it.

The idea of a "heretic" was used by Irenaus as those who disagreed with him. It wasn't until later that the charge of "heresy" became such a curse. Later, in the Roman Catholic church, even reading "heresies" could get you killed, but at the beginning, there was no such stigma.

It was aimed at quelling the diversity that competed with the orthodoxy of Catholicism, in particular Arianism, Marcionism, Gnosticism, and Montanism.

Not to quell it so much as define it. They were all using the name "Christian" and so confusing people. Irenaus began using the term "orthodox" to distinguish Pauline belief from Arianism, Marcionism, Gnosticism, Montanism, and the rest.

The term "Catholic" at this point simply meant "Universal." There was no Catholic church as we know it until it split from the Orthodox Church in 1054, over debates about how much authority the Pope of Rome had over the other four "Popes". (Called "Bishops" at the time.)

 

[Steel Tiger]

But as for me, the Gnostic Gospels don't change a thing - I can't even understand them!

Gnosticism has a certain appeal to me, but like you, I can't really understand it. I am a big fan of mysticism in its many forms.

At least you know why you can't understand the Gnostic Gospels.

Basically they explain that you can't understand the Gnostic Gospels if you try to read them using the framework of Christianity. You have to use the Gnostic framework to plumb the "secret meanings."

I guess by somewhat hardline I mean only that the early Christian leaders were looking to establish their perception of Christianity as the orthodox, for want of a better word. It really was a sorting process with certain types of ideas being put aside in favour of others. They were much more reasonable about this sort of thing than later leaders (try Germanus and the Pelagians) except where Arianism was concerned. It really was quite a different view and it genuinely seemed to offend the many early leaders.