If so, a pre Fall of Jerusalem Christian church is indeed a huge discovery.
This I’m guessing is NOT from the pre 70 AD section.
I’ve no idea of the validity of the claim as unless I recognize the name of the archaeologist or the university they’re affiliated with I tend to be skeptical on biblical archaeology. (So much of it is the fodder of History Channel “could this treehouse in Syria be Noah’s Ark?” type stuff.) If it is legit, it’ll be well documented soon I should think.
Oh. . . this historian is very skeptical. I suspect that this early dating is based on giving a very early date to the more recent George church, which is probably already really really pushing it. This sounds like they’re really reaching. It would predate more dependably dated sites by 200 years, and other reports note that pottery in the immediate vicinity dates to 300-600 (somehow validating the 1st century date?) (and yes, the mosaic is in the later church). And honestly, an underground chamber with a rounded end and seating around the sides? That, IMO, would be completely impossible to discount as a Mithraic site-- how they intend to identify this as a Christian site with any certainty will be an interesting exercise. I wouldn’t believe a word of it until an archaeological group not based in Rihab (and preferably non-denominational) backs it up.
“At the entrance to the church, archaeologists discovered a crude bulletin board and what is believed to be the world’s oldest known bake sale announcement.”
I love the photograph especially, with the dramatic shaft of light and the scientists kneeling down to study nothing in particular. “Yep, it definitely appears to be sunlight.” You can tell that they’re already writing the book in their heads (soon to be a dramatic made-for-TV movie).
Wow. Even the current church (from 230 AD) is really impressive. Think about that date for a moment. To the people who built that church, Jesus and the Apostles weren’t any more ancient or distant than George Washington and the Founding Fathers are to a modern-day American.
It’s highly dubious. They found a catacomb under a 3rd Century Church. It’s probably older than the Church, but there is nothing there to date it to the 1st Century. The oldest artifacts are 3rd century potsherds. The dating of “33-70 AD” is pulled completely from their asses and based on nothing but the circular conclusion that the “70” mentioned in the later mosaic should be identified with a specific group mention in the New Testament as disciples of Jesus. The inscription does not say that, but wouldn’t be particularly meaningful even if it did.
Thus far, there is no reason to date this cave to the 1st Century or to associate it with 1st Century Christians. This appears to be mostly wild-eyed speculation and tourist hype.
The “archaeologists” in this case do not strike me as very professional or even very educated. If they are indeed trying topositively date this site between “33-70 AD,” then not only are they making a hugely unwarranted leap, but they don’t even have the date of the crucifixion right.
And again we should note that the 230 date given to the later church is somewhere between controversial and outright dubious-- that’s already shooting for ‘earliest church’ status; it would make it (judging by photos on other news sites) a full basilican style church building at about the same date . . . actually several decades before the domus ecclesia at Dura Europos, and 100 years before Constantine. Big burden of proof.
[hijack]
Is the date of the crucifixion known that exactly? I thought it was generally accepted to be “somewhere between about 27 and 35 but we don’t know exactly when”
Well, non-Biblical sources only tell us it was under Pilate (26-36), so I guess any of those dates are possible, but nailing it to 33 is operating under the mistaken impression that (presuming Jesus was 33 when he was crucified) he was born in 1 CE, when that date is actually erroneous. If Jesus was born while Herod the Great was King, he could not have been born later than 4 BCE, because that’s when herod died. That would put the date of the crucifixion (presuming he was 33), no later than 30 CE.
Of course, the fly in this is the presumed age of 33 (which is inferred from Luke’s statement that Jesus was “about 30 years old” when he began his ministry and John’s claim that his ministry lasted for three Passovers) which may or may not be accurate. Josephus implies that John the Baptist was killed in 35 (but the wording is ambiguous) and Irenaeus implies in Adversus Haereses that Jesus was over 50, when he dies (citing direct apostolic tradition as his source), so who really knows for sure?
My point, though, is that 33 CE is not a date that real historians point to and it betrays an ignorance that the Dionysian calander is in error – something one would not expect to see from real archaeologists.