You Know, This Doesn't Really Surprize Me!

Headline on Fox News website: Doubts Raised About Ancient Christian Shrine in Jordan

OK, I know that there have been some so-called Biblical related discoveries in the Middle-East that have later been proven to be false. It happens. & I agree that there does need to be some caution. But then caution is usually the middle name of most archeologists.

That is why I suspect that many of these same people wouldn't be so skeptical if this wasn't related to the Catholic Church. (Or any Christian group for that matter.) Over the years I've noticed a lot of anti-Christian bias when it comes to accepting evidence relating to anything Christian. A prime example is the Bible. Many people question the accuracy of the oldest Biblical manuscripts even though when compared to the oldest extant versions of writings by secular authors, these manuscripts were produced much closer in time to the originals. For example, the oldest New Testament manuscripts are from 130 AD. The books were written between 50-100 AD (at the latest). 30 to 80 yrs seperate them. about 24,000 copies exist from this period. Homer wrote the Iliad about 900 BC. The oldest manuscripts date from about 400 BC. A 500 yr difference. Only 643 copies from that time exist. Yet which are more readily accepted as accurate? I could go on.

Just a reminder of what the archeologist reporting this said (empghasis mine): "Archaeologist Abdel-Qader al-Housan, head of the Rihab Center for Archaeological Studies, said this week that the cave was unearthed in the northern Jordanian city of Rihab after three months of excavation and shows evidence of early Christian rituals."

The article goes on to say: "Al-Housan said there was evidence that the underground cave was used as a church by 70 disciples of Jesus during the first century after Christ's death around A.D. 30, which would make it the oldest Christian site of worship in the world."

The reaction of Thomas Parker, a historian at the University of North Carolina-Raleigh: "An extraordinary claim like this requires extraordinary evidence, We need to see the artifacts and dating evidence to suggest such an occupation in the 1st century A.D."

Why is this an extraordinary claim? It is a well documented fact that in the early centuries of the Catholic Church newer churches were built on top of older structures/sites. This strikes me as more of an ordinary claim. The only reason I suspect he has for his unwillingness is anti-Christian bias.

Australian archaeologist Kate da Costa of the University of Sydney said: "And even if the cave can be proved to have been in use in the first (century) A.D., there needs to be additional evidence that it was used by Christians." OK, I can buy that, but what is the standard of additional evidence? & does what has already been found go beyond what is normally acceptable?

Ms. da Costa also pointed out that there isn't universal agreement that St. Georgeous is the oldest known church. What is failed to be mentioned is the fact of how rare it is for there to be universal agreement.

"Da Costa said a date of 230 for a constructed church "is over 200 years earlier than any other known church."" SO? Sounds to me like there is the use of selective facts to raise doubts when there is no need. I would remind her of how many other questioned as accurate written facts we had that archeology later proved were true.

My faith IS NOT dependant on whether or not this site ever was a Catholic Church. But, I again state that it is my suspicion that the doubts expressed here wouldn't be so great, or even exist if this had nothing to do with Christianity. Still it is nice to know there is some evidence that may support what I believe.

(Quotes from Fox News article)