|
Churches today really enjoy
reading the biblical story of the first church from the book of Acts.
The persecution and their faith through it often inspires their
twenty-first century offspring on to try bigger and better things in
the name of Jesus Christ. Christians read about how all of these
churches have started in the book of Acts but what happen after that?
How did they grow and how did they live? After all, what does it
matter if there is a church today? They must have survived because
Acts never mentions anything to the contrary, right? Besides, some of
the churches, like those in Ephesus, Thyratira, Laodicea, are
mentioned in the book of Acts and other Pauline books are also
mentioned by John in the final book of the bible, Revelation, so it
is obvious that they survived until the second century. What about
the very first church in Jerusalem? When the temple fell, what
happened to the believers there? This paper will examine the thoughts
and practices of the very first church between 30 C.E., roughly when
Pentecost takes place, and 70 C.E., when Titus destroy the temple.
Hopefully, by using the Bible, historical accounts and modern day
archaeological findings, an accurate history of the Church can be
determined.
30 C.E. to
44 C.E.
The first half of the book of Acts
is primarily about the Jerusalem church. Pentecost ushered in a new
feeling into this community of followers that saw their teacher and
friend ascend into heaven. The Spirit of God has given them abilities
that they did not know was possible. They were meeting together in
each others' homes and bending over backwards for one another. The
gospel started to be proclaimed in Jerusalem in the Temple counts
which brought down the ire of the Jewish officials. Peter and John
are imprisoned. They are released and keep on preaching in the temple
courts. There soon after,a problem arise with the caring for the
widows of the Hellenists. Stephen and others are elected to care to
their needs while the elders and teachers continue with their work of
explaining the gospel to every man, woman, and child they can find.
Meanwhile, a pharisee committed to the eradication of the Jesus
movement named Saul of Tarsus converts and Peter gets a dream
allowing him to eat all the meats under the sun.
This is a
fairly straight summary of what is happening in the fifteen years of
the church in Jerusalem. The church was struggling to find how to
exert its new identity to the world. They were preaching in a Jewish
context under the auspices of the Holy Spirit and under scrutiny of
the same Jewish leaders that killed their teacher. The Jewish
disciples of Jesus had to figure out what Judaism with a risen
Messiah and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The first place they
started at was preaching at the temple like any other Jewish teacher
of that day, and much like their own leader, Jesus, had done before
he died.
This is why in
spite of persecution by the Jewish elite, the church is able to grow.
They have a solid focal point for theology (Jesus) and a solid
paradigm for worship (the Jewish temple). From this starting point,
they added their own twist based upon the message of Christ. The
meeting together and sharing meals thing they did would not be seen
as “seriously flouting convention or disregarding the law” in the
eyes of many of the pharisees.
They were simply adding to the Jewish way. The followers of Jesus
were seen as another Jewish sect added to the pantheon of other
Jewish groups that went to the temple to worship and interact. Jerome
Crowe suggests that this group was a kind of Pharisaic havurah
since this group believes in the resurrection of the dead and other
beliefs the Pharisee held to during this time.
Peter and his band of followers were simply preaching their
views on the Jewish religion to a Jewish audience at the Temple in
light of the risen Messiah.
Problems began
to arise as the church's message began to resonate with a non-Jewish
audience both in and around Jerusalem. The “Hebrews” had to
respond to the neglecting of the “Hellenist” widows. Apparently,
some non-Jewish Christians were missing out on some of the resources
for some reasons, which is interesting since the “Hellenists”
would have more access to any available aid from Rome since it was a
good chance they were in better standing with the Empire than any Jew
would be, Christian or not.
Obviously, this Jesus movement was no longer one homogeneous movement
consisting of only Jewish cast offs. The Jewish church was trying
deal with the influx of new people and did not know what to do.
Meanwhile,
persecution was beginning. Stephen gets killed and the Christians
starts to spread to out from the city into other regions. As Luke
notes in Acts 8:1, that a great persecution arose in Jerusalem
causing many to leave. Philip went down to Samaria to preach the
Gospel to people like Simon the magician. Then on the road to Gaza,
Philip helped baptize the Ethiopian Eunuch and then turned north to
preach the Gospel along the shore until Caesarea. Plus, on the road
to Damascus, Christ revealed himself to Paul and was baptized by a
Christian already in Damascus. The Gospel is radiating outward from
Jerusalem and making head way.
Most Christians will say that this
is when the Jerusalem church stopped being the leader of the
movement. Once missionaries began going into the world as a result of
the persecution the spotlight focused squarely on where the Gospel is
going and not worrying about who is in charge at that point. After
all, the Gospel should be the focus is what many will argue. The
problem is that this is theologically inconsistent. Many commentators
point out that Isaiah 2:2-3 is guiding their theology. It says:
It shall come
to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the LORD
shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be
lifted up above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it, And
many peoples shall come, and say: “Come, let us go up to the
mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may
teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.” For out of
Zion shall go the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.”
While there is
probably not any clear references to these verses in the New
Testament, it is not an outrageous claim since this Old Testament
book is quoted extensively in the first church. Isaiah is the book
that the Ethiopian eunuch on the road to Gaza was reading when
Phillip found him. Stephen's last words are from the last chapter of
Isaiah. Couple this with the fact that Jesus quoted Isaiah more than
any other Old Testament book, with perhaps the exception of the
Psalms, it is not surprising that Isaiah is forming the first
Church's theology. Since Jerusalem or Zion is a major theme in
Isaiah, this not a surprise that it is continuing to be that way.
Even in the writing of Justin Martyr in the middle of the second
century, he refers to Jerusalem as the place where all Gentiles will
converge upon and displace the House of Jacob.
Some will argue
that Luke's account in Acts cannot be trusted. He is describing these
accounts at the time after the fall of the Temple and he could be
making a point of some type. People like F.C. Baur suggest that Luke
elevated the Jerusalem church in order to downplay the tension
between Paul and Jerusalem.
Richard
Bauckham says that this cannot be the case for two major reasons.
First, he argues that Strabo and Luke both geographically place
Jerusalem in the center of the Diaspora, meaning that synagogues
reach as far to the east as it does to the west. Luke's list in Acts
2:9-11 has Judea in the middle of that list. The second major reason
is all of the references to Jerusalem throughout the New Testament
point to an emphasis on Jerusalem. As Bauckman says, “ Luke's
'Jerusalem bias' is not peculiarly Luke's, but derived from the early
Jerusalem church itself.”
With this
theological basis, the expansion happens in a relatively short time
after the death and resurrection of Christ. While dating is difficult
most claim that this is all taking place in the first five years
after the death of Christ. A good estimate of the date of Paul's
conversion is either 33 or 34 C.E.
There is a lot of changing and reorganizing happening in the Jesus
Movement during the first five years. They were reaching new people
in new areas. There was an infrastructure set-up throughout the Roman
Empire that fostered the growth of the Jesus Movement but Jerusalem
was still in the center of everything. Paul migrated to Jerusalem
after his conversion. Philip returned to Jerusalem after his
exploits. Peter returned to Jerusalem after experiencing the dream
with the flying animals and his experience with Cornelius.
Biblically speaking, everything was revolving around Jerusalem.
As Acts moves
forward, Jerusalem remains the focal point in the early days of
Paul's evangelistic mind. He goes to Jerusalem after spending three
years on his own in roughly 36 or 37 C.E. In Galatians, he mentions
that “nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles
before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to
Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit
Cephas and remained with him fifteen days.”
The phrase “the apostles before me” is an interesting insertion.
This statement implies that the apostles are leading the church of
Jerusalem. Since they control the Jerusalem church, they then are in
charge of the entire church throughout the world for the theological
reasons mentioned early. The account in Acts backs up this assessment
of the apostles leading the church. In Acts 6, the apostles are
devoting themselves to “the ministry of the word.”
Everything up to this point laid
the foundation for the changes that were about to happen during 44
C.E. While the Jerusalem church meant in homes to “honor their
neighbors” and were doing things different from their Jewish
cousins, the temple played a significant part in the new Jesus
movement. Most of the believers saw Jerusalem as the center of
worship as the prophecies in Isaiah claimed. Plus, the actions of the
Apostles themselves point to the Twelve as the rulers of this new
movement. Of course, all of the information we have for this time is
from the Biblical accounts and extra-biblical source.
The
archaeological record does not provide much help in verifying much of
what has been concluded above. Some say that the synagogue on Sion
just outside of Jerusalem points to the presence Jewish Christians
during this time. The supposed “upper room” where Pentecost took
the disciples by storm could have been used as another place for the
reading of the Bible.
An unknown Christian “saint” explains that Emperor Hadrian left
the city destroyed apart from “a small church of the Christians,
which was built on the place where the disciples went after the Lord
had ascended into heaven. It was built in that part of the city that
remained on Mt. Sion . . . .”
The Crusaders built up this site but it is unlikely that it was the
actual upper room. When pilgrims from Bordeaux visited in 333 C.E.,
they did not write that this was a functioning church during this
time.
Bellarmino Bagatti argues that it is was because was operating as a
synagogue and they did not decide to include it.
Plus, graffiti on the wall in this room is very similar to other
Christian sayings from the Early Church.
Despite Bagatti argument, there is nothing solid that says that this
is the upper room or that Christians met there from the outset.
44 C.E. to 62 C.E.
The church
experienced a lot of change upon the death of Herod Agrippa I in 44
C.E. Political turmoil began to be the norm as seen in the death of
James, brother of John, at the hand of Herod Agrippa I in Acts 12:2
and Peter is put in jail. Herod's alliance with the Sadducean high
priesthood encouraged him to put the clamps down on the followers of
Jesus and some of their disregard for Jewish law by proclaiming the
risen Messiah.
It was at this point in the book of Acts that the focus then shifts
to Paul's travels. Spreading the Gospel from Judea was the important
message for Luke to communicate so passing on information on the
Jerusalem church is no longer a priority in Acts. Information on this
period comes solely from two places: (1) inferences from the writings
of Luke and Paul and (2) Extra-biblical writers from the Early Church
like Eusebius of Caeserea. In order to construct an accurate picture
of the church, the information from both places needs to be distilled
compared to one another.
Based on the
information in the Book of Acts, there is a change of leadership in
the Jerusalem church when Herod Agrippa I dies. The apostles and
other major leaders are starting to branch out from Jerusalem. Of
course, this is a guess since the apostles are not mentioned by name
after the first two chapters of Acts. For some reason, Luke switches
in Acts 11 to using the phrase “elders” instead of the “twelve”
when talking about the leadership in Jerusalem. There are some that
say that these are saying the same thing but it is unlikely. Luke
characteristically reserved the title of “The Twelve” for those
that were Jesus' companions and witnesses to his resurrection.
Also, a simple look at the letter the Council of Jerusalem sends to
Antioch shows that this is not the same since it starts with “it
seemed good to the apostles and the elders.”
Most likely, the word apostles is being using in place of the Twelve
since they are all now spread out through the Empire. Plus, apostles
can be used of anyone who witnessed the Christ's life, as evidence by
Paul's reference of James as an apostle.
Peter's exit from the book of Acts denotes this fact. Luke records,
“'Tell these things to James and to the brothers.' Then he departed
and went to another place.” The story no longer focuses on Peter.
Yet, in the Acts 15, Peter is present at the council, which means his
role must have changed and is probably an apostle while elders in
Jerusalem are no in charge.
This is where
James, the brother of Jesus, enters the story. Notice that in Peter's
exit speech he asks that James be told about everything that was
happening to him before he left.. But where did James could from?
After all, he was against Jesus during his time of ministry in the
Galilee. There might be some additional hatred in the heart of James
since Jesus, the first-born of the family, left his family, and thus
the responsibilities of the first-born to James, the second-born.
So why the charge in heart? Acts 1:14 says that Jesus' brothers were
in Jerusalem at the time of Pentecost. Ben Witherington III wonders,
“why would the writer of Acts (Luke) mention 'the brothers of
Jesus' unless they were destined to play a leadership role?”
1 Corinthians 15:7 says that Jesus appeared to James after his
resurrection. Based on this, there is evidence that James was a part
of the Jesus movement in Jerusalem at the time of Agrippa's
persecution.
James would be
the perfect candidate to assume leadership. Since James was once
hostile to Jesus and his band of disciples, he would not be
associated with “The Twelve.”
Also, James had a reputation for being pious and was probably
well-respected among Jewish circles.
James' request of Paul in Acts 21 to take a Nazirite vow shows how
much James values the Jewish aspects of the new “Christian”
movement. Hegesippus, as recorded by Eusebius of Caesarea, describes
James him in the following way:
Control of the
Church passed to the apostles, together with the Lord's brother
James, whom every everyone from the Lord's time till our own has
called the Righteous, for there were many Jameses, but this one was
holy from his birth; he drank no wine or intoxication liqour and ate
no animal food; no razor came near his head; he did not smear himself
with oil, and took no baths. He alone was permitted to enter the Holy
Place, for his garments were not of wool but of linen. He used to
enter the Sancturary alone, and was often found on his knees
beseeching forgiveness for the people, so that his knees grew hard
like a camel's from his continually bending them in worship of and
beseeching forgiveness for the people. Because of his unsurpassable
righteousness he was called the Righteous and Oblias
– in our own language 'Bulwark of the People, and Righteousness' –
fulfilling the declarations of the prophets regarding him.
The Early
Church Fathers make James out to be a holy and pious Jewish leader.
Ivor Davidson infers that James could have managed to be on
“reasonable terms” with the Pharisees, thus being a good public
relations in helping the image of Jesus' followers.
With a new vacuum of leadership in Jerusalem, James could rise to
power and direct the church because of all these factors .
As the New
Testament unfolds, the Jerusalem church with James at the helm plays
a significant part in the activities of the rest of the New
Testament. As missionaries went out, they were still keeping tabs on
the needs and the desires of the Jerusalem Church. Acts 11:30 and
Acts 12:25 talks about the aid that Paul and Barnabas brings to
Jerusalem, presumably during the famine in 46 C.E.
Again, in letters written in the 50''s, some ten years later, Paul
writes about bringing aid to Jerusalem. In the epistle to the Romans,
Paul writes
“At
present, however, I am going to Jerusalem bringing aid to the saints.
For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make some contribution
for the poor among the saints at Jerusalem. For they were pleased to
do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles
have come to share in their spiritual blessings, they ought also to
be of service to them in material blessings.
There
is an obvious respect present in Paul's words towards the Jerusalem
church. Paul is honoring the first church since the Gentiles would
not have the Gospel without their work in Jerusalem. Also, in the
first letter to the Corinthians, he talks about presumably this same
gift that he gets to take to the saints in Jerusalem.
Not only were
people physically paying tribute to the “mother” church but the
other churches were looking to Jerusalem for theological leadership.
In fact, James was one of the biggest catalysts in helping to resolve
the Gentile question. As seen already, gentiles were starting to
become a stronger force in the whole church., let alone the Jerusalem
church.
Peter's dream allowing the eating all foods provides more tension in
the Gentile-Jewish Christian relationship. Obviously, if James was
able to become the leader of the Jerusalem while being so “Jewish”,
it shows that the Church there favors a more Jewish flavor. It was
probably some of James' followers that stirred up some controversy in
Antioch. Paul records in Galatians that “before certain men came
from James, [Peter] was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came
he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.
And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that
even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.”
His speech to the council of 49 C.E. helped seal the compromise
between the factions. He proclaims,
Brothers,
listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles,
to take from them a people for his name. And with this the words of
the prophets agree, just as it is written, “'After this I will
return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will
rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of
mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my
name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.'
Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the
Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from
the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from
what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations
Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read
every Sabbath in the synagogues.
It is
interesting that James is the one that proposes the building of a
bridge between the two factions. The Pharisaical Jews wanted everyone
to be circumcised, Peter and Paul did not want anyone to live under
that burden, while James tried to unite the two.
The language appeals to both sides and they then go on to adopt
basically what James argued the church should do.
Part of that
speech has some additional interest. James quotes a verse from the
prophet Amos that implies that God is building a new
tabernacle/temple for God to dwell in among his people. This is
should be read in relation to what Paul writes about James and other
leaders in Galatians, probably written a year or so after the
council. Paul calls them pillars Bauckham points out that this
terminology needs to be looked at in the context of the new
“eschatological” and eternal Temple built on the leadership of
these “pillars” in much of the same way that the Qumran community
saw themselves as temporary replacement for the temple.
It would be a stretch to say that James started the use of this
imagery in the Early Church but it shows that Temple theology
emanates from the Jerusalem church where the Temple is still in use.
More evidence
of James' influence on the theology of the church is the epistle of
James. In the mid to late 50's C.E., this letter was complied by
James “to the twelve tribes in the Dispersion.”
Some commentators argue that this was meant to be an encyclical to
any Jewish Christian Community addressing issues that believers would
typically encounter from the head of the “mother church.”
James is using his influence to help all believers with a Jewish
flavor worship his half-brother, the Jewish Messiah.
The language in James' letter
might also reflect the changing dynamics of the Jesus movement. The
words James uses in addressing the letter were focused on Jewish
believer. When looking at Paul's later epistles, there are no longer
any references to the church in Jerusalem or Judea. In 1
Thessalonians, Romans, 1 Corinthians, and Galatians, Paul makes some
type of reference to to either Jerusalem or Judea. In the Prison
epistles and other later letters, Paul does not mention anything
about their brethren. As the 50's come to an end, there looks like a
clear division in operation between the two groups.
While the
Gentile Christians were fighting Judaizers and focusing on the west,
the Jewish Christians were fighting Jewish officials in Palestine and
focusing on the east. From the mid-40 onward, Josephus records that
the Jews in Palestine were becoming more and more unhappy with
affairs in their country because of abuses in power, high taxation,
and mounting corruption and incompetence of Roman Governors.
Everyone was jockeying for power in politics and in the temple. This
was the story of the early 60's and James would become a casualty.
Josephus describes the political situation as such,
And now Caesar,
upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as
procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and
bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was
also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest
Ananus proved a most fortunate man. . . was a bold man in his temper,
and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are
very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as
we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this
disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise
his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the
road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before
them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was
James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had
formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he
delivered them to be stoned. . . .
Eusebius goes
on to describe James' trial. The sanhedrim asked him to recant but
James used the platform to proclaim Christ so they threw him down
from the top of the Temple. After surviving the fall, the Jewish
leaders began to pelt James with stones as he was praying for his
persecutors.
Eusebius adds
one more thing that tantalizes archaeologists. The fourth century
historian claims that James was buried on the very spot in the Kidron
Valley “where his monument still remains.”
There is a tomb next to the tomb of Zechariah that has an inscription
that has nothing to do with James' death but the “sons of Hezir”
but the letter date to the first half of the first century C.E though
the tomb itself dates to the second century B.C.E.
While there is nothing concrete that James' body is there, tradition
holds that his remains are there. Recently there has been a lot of
debate surrounding the ossuary of James found east of Jerusalem.
Supposedly, the ossuary was found in the same region as this
inscription. Witherington III makes the claim that the inscription
could have meant “on a stone box” and thus tradition can
corroborate this finding.
That is probably forcing an interpretation of the archaeological
record. Whether or not the ossuary is authentic, Witherington III's
explanation helps to show that this can be reconciled with tradition
and that James was probably buried in this area in some form or
another.
62 C.E. to 70 C.E.
Once
James died, the Jerusalem church was left to figure out the next step
for operation and for Leadership. Eusebius actually records that a
cousin of Jesus became the next “bishop” of Jerusalem, Symeon,
son of Clopas; he was then martyred between 100 C.E. – 110 C.E at
120 years old.
He claims that he has lost the dates but there were fifteen bishops
of the circumcision starting with James until the end of second
Jewish revolt in 135 C.E.
Based on the biblical account, there is no reference to James being a
“bishop” but probably ruled with some elders. Plus, Eusebius also
records that these thirteen bishop must have been exceedingly
short-lived since each would have to rule some two years each.
It is likely that Eusebius adds the last twelve names from the group
of elders that ruled with James from the beginning.
Regardless, since Symeon was killed for being a “decedent of David
and a Christian,” meaning that his Jewish tendencies and that of
the church survived this time into the second century at the very
lest.
Practically, this mix of the “old”
way with the “new” way no longer became welcomed in Jerusalem.
The holy city was becoming hostile to anyone of a Jewish flavor not
matching that of its leaders. Zealots started to exert their
influence on the socio-political environment of the day. Things began
to be more and more unstable for any organization to operate, let
alone Christian. Jerusalem was now home for zealous Jews bent on
purifying the city at the cost everyone and everything else.
Conditions were spiraling out of control until the Romans under
General Titus overpowered the disorganized Zealots and destroyed the
Temple in 70 C.E. So what are the Christians to do?
During this time, as the city was
becoming unsafe, people were making their way out of Jerusalem. The
Christians were no exception. Traditions say that the Jewish
Christians fled Jerusalem and proceeded to go about twenty-eight
kilometers south of the Sea of Galiee in the Easter Jordan valley. In
the region known as the Decapolis, this city called Pella is across
from Scythopolis. The town itself has been mentioned as early as an
early conquest of Tuthmosis III in the fourteenth century B.C.E.
According to sources like Josephus, Eusebius, Pliny, and Ptolemy, the
location of Pella can be linked to the model town of Tabaqat Fahl.
This
is by far the most popular tradition as to what happened to the
Jewish Christians after the death of James. Through there is nothing
expressly in the Bible that supports it, the theory has plenty of
extra-biblical writings to back the claim up. Eusebius writes, “The
members of the Jerusalem church, by means of an oracle given by
revelation to acceptable persons there, were ordered to leave the
City before the war began and settle in a town in Peraea called
Pella. To Pella those who believed in Christ migrated from
Jerusalem.”
Epiphanius, a contemporary or Eusebius, is the only other person that
mentions this idea when he is addressing the beginning of the Ebonite
Hersey.
Robert Hudson Smith assumes that both men are drawing from the same
source that dates back to second century.
Both Early Church historians claim that Symeon then led some of the
Christians back to Jerusalem after the revolt.
Based
on the extra-biblical information, there are some real doubts about
this tradition. First of all, Josephus writes that when the revolt
started in 66 C.E. bands of Jews went through the countryside
“pillaging” various towns, including Pella.
If the Christians did move there before the Jewish Revolt of 66 C.E.
in order to avoid problems, why would they stay at a place that got
ransacked? They left because of the death their major leader, James,
at the hands of Jewish Zealots. When some show up at Pella in 66
C.E., there is no doubt that the collective community would have a
“gag reflex” and want to leave before history repeats itself.
Also, the source originates in the second century during the
formative period for the “Ebonite” hersey in the Palestine state.
Epiphanius says in the fourth century that the heresy got its
beginnings around the area of Pella at the end of the first century
C.E. It would not be a stretch to consider that a leader of a later
group linked his movement to the earlier Jerusalem brethren. Joan
Talyor argues that the certain members of the Jewish Christian
community probably resisted the changes in the church as a whole
during this time and wished to stay in Pella from which they could
influence people east of the Jordan, hence why the large numbers of
Ebonite Christians in this region later on.
While
it is possible that a small number of believers from Jerusalem made
it to Pella, it is very unlikely that the city itself could have
supported a large group of people. Acts talks about five thousand
people receiving the Gospel at the outset of the church. If it were
assumed that number of Jerusalem Christians were at least close to
that number, the archaeological record of the city makes the trek
questionable on the basis that the town probably could not support
that amount of people. Pella was destroyed by the Hasmonean ruler
Alexander Jannaeus in 83/82 B.C.E. and rebuilding did not begin until
the later years of first century B.C.E. with economic vigor following
to the latter part of the first century C.E.
The only ruins that date to the Roman period found at Pella are an
Odeum, some baths, a temple to Zeus/Baal, and a nymphaeum. The baths
are dated to the early first century C.E. which is not surprising
since Pliny says that Pella has an abundance of water.
The rest of the structured are dated to after 82 C.E., which is the
time the first coins from the town were made.
A good portion of the ruins were destroyed by Byzantine construction
which accounts for the “wide-defined stratum of that period is
noticeably absent” from the excavations of this civil complex in
the town.
There is not anything of substance until the second century or the
very late first century. Either way, the later dating would call in
question why this place was picked as the new home of Jerusalem
Christianity.
Even
if the city was not thriving, there is nothing that points to Jewish
Christians in Pella before the second century in any large number.
The pottery that was found dates to first century is very limited.
The sherds are typical as what was found at the Citadel and the Pool
of Siloam in Jerusalem but also Tulul Abu el Alayiq and any first
century assemblage for that matter.
Some of the kitchen ware had some limestone inclusions but nothing
made completely up of limestone. This calls into question how Jewish
the people were here at Pella since most other Jewish places had a
proliferation of limestone kitchen items.
One out of the ordinary item that was found often were “Galilean”
bowls similar to those found in Capernaum dated to the middle of the
first century, perhaps coming from the same shop maker.
Most other artifacts are missing from the site. The only element that
points to worship of any type was a small 54 cm limestone altar was
found in the debris from the Civic Complex at Pella but it had an
oinichoe, a bundle of grain, and a patera engraved on it for use in
pagan ceremonies.
In
one of the early reports from the site, Smith points out that there
might be some corroborating evidence found at Pella found in some of
tombs on this site. In the West Church area, a sarcophagus was found
made of fine-grain limestone that exist some close parallels with
Early Roman period and mostly to the last third of the first century
and the first third of the second century C.E.
Smith claims that they are very similar the Jewish ossuaries found in
the Palestine. that that “this evidence alone” would link the
sarcophagi with Jewish Christianity from the Christian flight from
Jerusalem, even though carbon-14 testing on the bones do not yield
that date.
Nothing more is mentioned though in the mid-term report concerning
this as a Early Roman artifact or finding. The final report available
only discusses the Civil Complex (Area IX) and this was found in the
West Church (Area II) so it would not discuss it.
Based
on the available evidence, it is hard to imagine that the official
Christian Church of Jerusalem picked up and fled to Pella. It is
reasonable to assume that some faithful followers did migrate up the
Jordan but it would be difficult for a city to support the shear
numbers of the Jerusalem Church. Wedderburn points out that “were
the claim to be the traditions of Jerusalem church accepted by other
churches, one would then have expected the church of Pella to
exercise something of the same influence and authority that the
Jerusalem church had once enjoyed, but of that there is no trace.”
This is probably the much compelling evidence that Jerusalem Church
probably was pulled apart at the seems during the war in Jerusalem.
Later migrants into Jerusalem to holy sites most likely reestablished
the church. Eusebius and other fourth century Christians were bent on
establishing apostolic succession and thus used this story to connect
the later Jerusalem church with the church of James' day.
Conclusion
With
all due respect to the current Patriarch of Jerusalem, the Jerusalem
church spoken about in the Bible most likely disappeared with the
fall of the Temple in 70 C.E. As the larger Christian culture began
more and more gentile, it became increasingly more difficult for the
church to maintain its Jewish identity. The Christians in Jerusalem
at that time migrated to other locations and most likely were
absorbed into the newer Gentile Christian communities.
What does the story of this church teach the church today? This story
of the church should serve lesson to all churches today in a church
planting culture that if the mother church is not careful, she will
be absorbed into the newer churches. In other words, if other
churches are entrancing change, it is not surprising to see the
original church to fade into the background during tension. Also, a
church may start off strong and spawn great change but may not finish
strong and simply disappear.
|
