TedM

Now that I have your attention, here's the article. What's the scoop on this stuff?

http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html

Comments?

TedM

Sorry. I see this has been discussed here before:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...hlight=Bagatti

Even if the article is exceedingly biased, I'm curious about the crosses on some of the ossuaries. If early 1st century ossuaries had crosses on them, what does that mean? Given the location--Mt Olives (the mountain Jesus was said to have ascended from), just outside of Jerusalem itself--I highly doubt that the cross would have some inspiration from a Greek, Roman, or other myth or legend. So, why a cross? In addition to the possibility that it was--as is found on tombstones today--a symbol of their Christian faith? Of course it COULD BE. But, what else COULD it reasonably have represented? Could it be those people with crosses were themselves crucified? Other?

ted

Toto

Ted - read the link on the original thread. Crosses were a common symbol in antiquity.

Phlox Pyros

That's not a new discovery. It looks like the Dominus Flevit tomb. This was discussed by James Tabor in his new book.

TedM

That article contains no footnotes and ends with a description of the millions of people Christians have killed over the years--including these questionable claims:

, so it is hard to verify how accurate it is scientifically, and easy to detect an anti-Christian sentiment.

However, the article says:

This begs the question--if it wasn't found in the tombs of the catacombs of Rome and early Christianity had little knowledge of it, then why was it found on ossuaries from the 1st century taken from the Mount of Olives?

Where is the Jewish connection? The article claims various types of cross symbols have been used throughout history, but what cross symbols were at the heart of Judaism--the location of these ossuaries? Where is the discussion of it in Jewish literature? If the symbol is found at the heart of Judae and it is associated with the idea of life and pleasing the JEWISH GOd and not the pagan gods mentioned in the article, why don't we find that in the Jewish literature?

ted

Didymus

The original article, entitled, Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit, was written by two Catholic priests, P. Belarmino Bagatti and J. T. Milik. And it does describe an ossuarium found at the site of the Dominus Flevit monastery on the Mount of Olives. An old and tediously pietistic and tendentious article claiming that St. Peter is buried there can be viewed at http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm, and there's a link to the original articles and photos.

The Franciscan "cyberspot" http://www.christusrex.org/www1/ofm/san/TSflevitmn.html has some beautiful pictures of the place, including the ossuaries. The site avoids exaggerated claims for the catacombs, merely stating that:

On the ossuaries were found many more or less symbol signs (crosses, tau, Constantinian monograms) and 43 inscriptions (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek) incised or traced with charcoal. Of interest is the recurrence of names common in the New Testament, as Mary, Martha, Philo the Cyrene, Matthew, Joseph, Jesus. For the religious, historical and artistic value of these tombs consult Gli scavi del Dominus Flevit by Bagatti and Milik, Jerusalem, 1968.

I recently tracked down the Sukenik ossuary discovery, which took place near Jerusalem in 1947. Supposedly from as early as 42/43 CE, it too had crosses and what was promoted as an inscription appealing to Jesus for resurrection. I finally came across this passage in Crossan and Reed's "Excavating Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk)":

After a description of the discovery -

But. Later and more careful inspection of those orssaries, along with consideration of the vast array of available ossuary inscriptions and their crosslike markings, dismissed those claims. The cross, it turns out, was perhaps simply the letter tau or a mason's mark indicating where the lid was to be positioned. The initial reading of the charcoal graffito ignored additional marks that resembled the Greek letter delta.... These temporaily spectacular inscriptions simply identified the dead person, as did the names on the chambers other ossuaries, which is always the purpose of ossuary inscriptions. No cross, no appeals to Jesus, no earliest Christian record.

There's no reason to think that the old Dominus Flavit discovery is any more likely to be an actual Christian ossuarium.

The relatively recent discovery of an early Christian church in Megiddo prison, Israel, has spectacular Christian mosiacs that include the fish symbol, but no crosses. As far as I can determine, the church, conservatively dated to 323 CE or thereafter and of Byzantine, not local, origin, is the earliest credible archeological evidence of Christian activity in Palestine.

Unless I see something a lot more credible than the hyperbolic articles on Dominus Flavit, I'll stay with my view that the Jerusalem Christian community in the 1st and 2nd centuries was tiny at best, that the Jews of Palestine didn't reject Christianity out of perfidy but because of an absence of factual support, and that in reality Christianity was demographically a religion of the Diaspora from the very beginning.

Didymus

TedM

Do you know what he says about them?

Thanks for the info on the other ossuaries. On the other thread I listed the reasons I think it began in Palestine, which I assume you have seen. May I ask--and you can answer back there--what are the reasons you reject those, and favor the idea that it began in the Diaspora?

thanks,

ted

Chris Weimer

Concerning Sukenik's discoveries, we discuss them here. At the bottom of the 2nd page you can find a link to Walt's paper.

Regards.

andrewcriddle

The archaeological evidence for Christianity before 200 CE is very limited anywhere.

I don't think the absence of clear Christian artefacts from 2nd century Palestine really tells us much about the relative strengths of 2nd century Christianity in Palestine and the Diaspora at that time.

Andrew Criddle

mountainman

Hi Andrew,

I would be greatly appreciative of any comprehensive index of
any such archeological evidence before 300 CE, let alone 200 CE,
aside from the following:

1. Paleographically dated manuscripts and papyrii fragments thereof.
2. The Dura-Europa "house church".
3. The Inscription of Abercius
4. The Meggido "church" and tiled inscriptions

Your phrase "limited everywhere" I believe to be some form
of understatement. Many thanks to anyone with references
to this specific question.



Pete Brown
http://www.mountainman.com.au/namaste_2006.htm
NAMASTE: "The spirit in me honors the spirit in you."