- This topic has 3 voices and 2 replies.
-
Posts
-
Is this the kind of archaeologist conclusion that is problematic?Jordan archaeologists unearth 'world's first church'I read through the story which claims the church dates to 33 A.D. - 70 A.D. What is problematic, however, is that the article refers to the claim that an apse and area for the clergy was found in the structure which supports the church claim. However, as far as I am aware, early church buildings, such as that of Dura Europus (early- to mid-3rd cent.) were actually within houses (domus eclesia) rather than formal separate structures in the basilica plan that we know of today. I'm note sure the presence of an apse is necessarily Christian either as I know that this feature was included in other Roman structures of the time. That the archaeological find was made below another church is significant in suggesting a possible original use, but I don't think it's necessarily conclusive. I'm sure there are other facts about the find that were not included in the article, but it seems to me that based on what was given we don't really have a substantiated claim that it was the "world's first church".
Hmm, wow, that would put it older than St. Peter's in Antioch, Turkey which was supposed to have been dug out of the cliff-side by Peter himself anywhere between 40-50 AD.http://www.sacred-destinations.com/turkey/antioch-cave-church-of-peter.htm
It would stand to reason that Christians could not build their first church. They had to use existing buildings (namely the houses of wealthy members etc…). The Romans would not have allowed open construction of a house of worship for an outlawed religion. The Catacombs might as well be considered the first “church.” 🙂
Lo and behold…Doubts Raised About Ancient Christian Shrine in Jordan
