Pre-Constantinian Church discovered in Israel

[Praefectusclassis]

Chiliarchos = Tribunus or Praefectus in the case of auxiliary millary units?

[hoplite14gr]

Chiliarchos = Tribunus or Praefectus in the case of auxiliary millary units?

Not a Latin expert but I think Tribunus is more likely.
Kind regards
Stefanos

[Carlton Bach]

In some Egyptian papyri, chiliarchos is used for what are centurions. I never did any Greek epigraphy, so I don't know how inscriptions compare. I think 'tribune' is transcribed directly.

[floofthegoof]

Archeologists would never date present time in your house by old dishware sollely, but by mostly used kitchen ware, besides other stuff. This is common sense.

I just mentioned it because they did so in the article. It would seem to me, that pottery shards are excellent for determining if a site dates from 2000 BC or 1000 BC, but maybe not so much for determining between 280 CE and 350 CE. Some people have some old pottery lying around.

[Praefectusclassis]

On the other hand, it is fairly amazing what archaeologists know on production-centres, styles and types of pottery. And even 'ballpark' dates from pottery (i.e. 'post quem' or 'ante quem') are useful.

[floofthegoof]

In that case, you could determine a maximum age of the site perhaps with accuracy, but not really a minimum. The other 'bracket' is still wide open.

[Praefectusclassis]

Depends. If you find only pottery and only of one style, then yes. But usually, there's more. But perhaps one of the archaeologists here can explain that. I fell asleep during the class about Dressel-types. :oops:

[floofthegoof]

If you have a large collection of pottery, I suppose the *absence* of certain well-used types might push the argument for an earlier date.

[Carlton Bach]

It's really a combination of several factors IIRC. First of all, for many styles of pottery we have production time windows, in the Principate era sometimes measurable in decades, so if they are found at a site ypou have a definite post quem. There are also pottery types that were in widespread use, so if they were missing that might mean something - it's not terribly good evidence, though, as it might simply mean the person(s) in question didn't like the type of fish sauce that came in that particular amphora. At least back when I took the class, we weren't able to map consumer bwehaviour yet. More importantly, a lot of Roman coarseware was basically disposable goods, so the assumed useful life of such an item was no more than a few years. Even if we assume a particularly poor or careful household, the 'give' in these categories is a few decades, not more. You are basically dating by the Roman equivalent of Tropicana bottles and milk cartons. Fineware, especially sigillata, is harder to use this way because some pieces stayed in use for many decades (I think one second century bowl was even found in a Merovingian grave field, though that was probably a freak survival). The catch is that our evidence is not as good everywhere and for all times. So if an archeologist comes out and publishes this estimate together with the pottery finds, I'll take it seriously, but if this comes from the Israel Tourist Board...

[Arahne]

As Carlton said roman period pottery could be measurable in decades, I just want to add that usually and especially in sites like this one, poterry is just one criterium used for dating both relative and absolute.

[floofthegoof]

Regarding the public display of worship by a Roman soldier, I have a question. When did the persecutions actually begin? Usually, persecutions don't happen until there is a threat perceived, so there should be a period of growing popularity, followed by a backlash. Is it conceivable that the church comes from a time before Romans would have thought to persecute? When Christianity had not yet been deemed a threatening foreign influence?

[Nathan Ross]

Regarding the public display of worship by a Roman soldier, I have a question. When did the persecutions actually begin?

Rich - it depends who you believe! Tacitus has Nero persecuting the Christians, but that seems to have been an isolated event, brief in duration. In the following two centuries there were episodes of persecution in various parts of the empire, but not as part of a grand scheme to destroy the religion - the main problem was that Christians were seen as members of a secret society, and therefore detrimental to the state.

The first true and determined persecution only happened under Decius in 250, and even then it was in the form of an edict for all citizens to sacrifice to the imperial Gods. It was an attempt to enforce loyalty in a difficult period, and those who refused - i.e the Christians - therefore labelled themselves disloyal citizens, and were duly punished.

Even by that point, however, Christianity was a powerful religion, especially in the east. By the time of the 'Great Persecution' of 303, some cities - Antioch for instance - were largely composed of Christians. The church in Nicomedia - Diocletian's capitol - was taller and grander than the imperial palace! As the first act of the persecution, Diocletian had it levelled by the Praetorian guard.

This page has a good (and thorough) summary of the later persecutions:

[url:2xm37d40]http://www.people.vanderbilt.edu/~james.p.burns/chroma/saints/Persecution.html[/url]

In earlier centuries, Christians would commonly meet in houses - 'church' at first referred to the congregation, not the building. These 'house churches' would have existed all over the empire - several are known in Rome itself in the first century, so the discovery of what seems to be one in Israel is not surprising. The Lacus Curtius site has Lanciani's description of the earliest known 'oratories', and a (perhaps rather wishful) theory on how later churches developed from 'Pompeian' style houses! Check the chapter on 'Christian Churches' here:

[url:2xm37d40]http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Places/Europe/Italy/Lazio/Roma/Rome/_Texts/Lanciani/LANPAC/home.html[/url]

The rest of the Lanciani text is worth looking at too - packed with intriguing stuff about Nero, amongst others.

[Thiudareiks Flavius]

Yes, I am familiar with the Biblical centurio. Even if we consider the Bible as a historical source, I'd probably consider him the exception that proves the rule.

Perhaps he was. And we certainly can consider the texts that make up what we call 'the Bible' as potential sources of history, so long as (as with all ancient sources) we look at their contexts, intended audiences and objectives and handle them with care. They need to be analysed with more care than, say, Tacitus, but it doesn't make sense to reject them completely.

Judaism in Jesus' time was actually going through a phase where it encouraged non-Jewish converts and we have several references to these Gentile 'God Fearers' (which is the origin of my name: 'Timothy'). The centurion at Capernaum, who had funded the building of a local synagogue, is mentioned in the gospels. So the centurion Cornelius would have fallen into this category as well, since 'Christianity' at this point was still simply a sect of Judaism.

It was only later, once the persecutions started, that some Church Fathers (but not all) had trouble reconciling Christianity with military service and the military had similar trouble with the same issue.

Tertullian, writing around 175 AD, mentions in passing that there were many Christians in the Roman Army, though he himself didn't approve of Christians fighting. He tells the story of the 'Miracle of the Rain' and how the prayers of Christian soldiers in the Legio XII Fulminata saved the army during the reign of Marcus Aurelius (Apologeticum, 5.6). Dio Cassius tells the same story, though he doesn't attribute the miracle to Christian prayers. That aside, Tertullian certainly believed that there was a sizeable number of Christians in the Legio XII Fulminata.

Tertullian also tells the story of a Christian soldier in the army of Severus (De Corona, I), who was executed because he refused to wear a laurel wreath in a parade.

Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD) instructed that a Christian soldier should 'abide in that calling wherein he was called'.

In the year 217 AD the tomb of an imperial official, Marcus Aurelius Prosenes, received a supplementary inscription from his freedman, the Christian Ampelius, who described himself as 'returning from the campaigns.' Another inscription, about the middle of the third century, found at Hodjalar in Phrygia, gives us the epitaph on the family tomb of two Christian soldiers.

From the reign of Gallienus onwards the stories of Christian soldiers announcing their faith and being executed as a result become so common that it's pretty obvious that Christianity was spreading rapidly through the army. There are references to military authorities turning a blind eye to Christians making the sign of the cross at sacrifices and one reference to Christians being in the household guard of Diocletian himself.

So there's good evidence of Christians (and proto-Christain 'God Fearers') in the Roman army from the earliest period of Christianity. Their numbers clearly increased steadily up to the time of the Battle of the Milvian Bridge and the Edict of Milan.

[drsrob]

Chiliarchos = Tribunus or Praefectus in the case of auxiliary millary units?

Not a Latin expert but I think Tribunus is more likely.
Kind regards
Stefanos

Up to at least the 1st century AD Chiliarchos is the normal translation for tribune; militum was often - incorrectly - thought to be derived from milia=thousands.
By the fourth century it was - I believe - simply transcribed as tribounos

[Praefectusclassis]

Interesting Tim. Thanks!