Did Pella exist?

[utunumsint]

Does anyone know of any catholic historians who believe that Pella existed, and that the Christian Jews fled to it just before the destruction of Jerusalem under Titus?

I’m asking because many modern scholars doubt its existence.

God bless,
Ut

 

[JeanneH]

Pella did/does exist. I don’t know about the rest.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pella

 

[utunumsint]

Thanks for posting!!

I’m thinking about a different Pella, named after Alexander the great’s home town of Pella, but located just outside of Jeruslaem. Eusebius mentions that the Christians fled there just before the destruction of Jerusalem under TItus.

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Pella

The Pella I’m thinking about also exists, but some scholars are doubting that Christians would have fled to it. I’m looking for serious historical research that suggestes that they did go there.

God bless,
ut

 

[JeanneH]

Thanks for posting!!

I’m thinking about a different Pella, named after Alexander the great’s home town of Pella, but located just outside of Jeruslaem. Eusebius mentions that the Christians fled there just before the destruction of Jerusalem under TItus.

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Pella

The Pella I’m thinking about also exists, but some scholars are doubting that Christians would have fled to it. I’m looking for serious historical research that suggestes that they did go there.

God bless,
ut

Hummm
Now you’ve got me curious. If Eusebius mentions it wouldn’t that be good enough for you? Just asking? What about the writings of Josephus any thing there?

Jeanne

 

[annem]

utunumsint

Does anyone know of any catholic historians who believe that Pella existed, and that the Christian Jews fled to it just before the destruction of Jerusalem under Titus?

I’m asking because many modern scholars doubt its existence.

THis is a fascinating question, and I hope somebody out there has good information.

I do recall that the Pella everyone knows about has had archaeologists digging there for years, but with no proof of EARLY Christian ties. There are are later one.

The mention in Eusebius is good enough for me, but of course all the atheist scholars cast doubt on it.

One small point mentioned by various scholars: after 70 AD the Jewish and Christian religions are forever split, something that wasn’t quite clear when Paul was writing his epistles. Then, Paul could go to preach in synagogues…before everybody caught on and threw him out.

THe reason I bring up this point is that it proves, to me, at least, that the Christians fled to Pella. This would be a very valid reason for Jews to be furious with the Christians, since the war resulted in the deaths of over a million Jews. Those who weren’t killed were dragged back to Rome, paraded and humiliated in a triumph, and then forced to live as slaves.

Some Christian (not just Catholic) scholars have suggested two other points about Pella. One, the Christians in Jerusalem were selling everything they owned and pooling all the money, something that doesn;'t seem to have happened elsewhere. Second. the Christians had been warned by Jesus that the temple would be destroyed in one generation.

What information do other people have? Different opinions?

God bless, Annem

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. . .

One small point mentioned by various scholars: after 70 AD the Jewish and Christian religions are forever split, something that wasn’t quite clear when Paul was writing his epistles. Then, Paul could go to preach in synagogues…before everybody caught on and threw him out.

THe reason I bring up this point is that it proves, to me, at least, that the Christians fled to Pella. This would be a very valid reason for Jews to be furious with the Christians, since the war resulted in the deaths of over a million Jews. Those who weren’t killed were dragged back to Rome, paraded and humiliated in a triumph, and then forced to live as slaves. . …

I hadn’t heard of Pella
There’s a lot haven’t heard of]. However, I have heard from several sources that the refusal of the Christians to participate in the revolt was the cause of the final rupture between Jews and Christians.

 

[utunumsint]

utunumsint

THis is a fascinating question, and I hope somebody out there has good information.

I do recall that the Pella everyone knows about has had archaeologists digging there for years, but with no proof of EARLY Christian ties. There are are later one.

The mention in Eusebius is good enough for me, but of course all the atheist scholars cast doubt on it.

One in particular called Baeur cast all sorts of doubts on it, but based on the flimsiest of evidence. I also find it hard to doubt that there must have been some sort of Jewish Christian presence since Eusebius is able to trace over 15 generation of Jewish bishops until the time of Bar Cocheba and the final destruction of Jerusalem. After that Eusebius records the establishment of a gentil Christian bishop, and the line of succession goes on from there.

One small point mentioned by various scholars: after 70 AD the Jewish and Christian religions are forever split, something that wasn’t quite clear when Paul was writing his epistles. Then, Paul could go to preach in synagogues…before everybody caught on and threw him out.

THe reason I bring up this point is that it proves, to me, at least, that the Christians fled to Pella. This would be a very valid reason for Jews to be furious with the Christians, since the war resulted in the deaths of over a million Jews. Those who weren’t killed were dragged back to Rome, paraded and humiliated in a triumph, and then forced to live as slaves.

That is a good point.

It must have been hard for Jewish Christians to see the temple destroyed, since they would have most likely still been performing all the normal temple sacrifices. Josephus even mentions that James (whom he called “the Just”) was constantly praying in the temple and interceeding for the people. He blames the destruction of Jerusalem on the murder of James. If James was so highly reguarded by someone like Josephus, who was in charge in Gallile during the revolt, and if James was clearly associated with the Christian movement, it could very well be that the Christians understood that their time was up in Jerusalem after James’ martyrdom. It makes perfect sense to me, especially in the light of what was decided during the Jerusalem council reguarding new Gentile converts and their exemption from the requirements for them to follow the Jewish ceremonial law. This made it intellectually and theologically possible for them to abandone Jerusalem and temple worship, for a safer place, such as Pella.

You can see how testy the Jews were becoming about the issue of temple worship when Paul came to Jerusalem. They accused him of allowing gentils into the inner temple and were almost ready to riot. Everyone knew what Paul preached about the ceremonial law, and even though the Jerusalem council had decided in favour of not forcing Gentiles to follow the Jewish laws, you can see from the conflict between Peter and Paul, that this was a very sensitive issue for James’ group.

Again, James’ death may have shocked them into abandoning the temple though. This would certainly have angered the Jews, but I believe the Christians would have felt justified in leaving, especially considering James’ death. I can also see how prophetic reactions and pronouncements against Jerusalem would have resulted from this and further alienated Christian Jews from the rest of the Jerusalem community.

Some Christian (not just Catholic) scholars have suggested two other points about Pella. One, the Christians in Jerusalem were selling everything they owned and pooling all the money, something that doesn;'t seem to have happened elsewhere. Second. the Christians had been warned by Jesus that the temple would be destroyed in one generation.

This is where the athiest scholars want to cast doubt on this traditional description of the early Jerusalem community. But I agree with you that the traditional picture painted in Luke’s Gospel is much more likely, and that the Jewish Christians already felt themselves as distinct from the Jewish population.

God bless,
Ut

 

[KyivAndrew]

From Ian Wilson Jesus: The Evidence:

“…Church tradition that a contingent of them (Jewish-born Christians) headed for Pella on the east bank of the Jordan. These, later variously to be labelled ‘Nazarenes’ and ‘Judaeo-Christians’, appear to have had as their gospels both an early Aramaic version of the Matthew gospel and the ‘Gospel of the Hebrews’, both long lost. As some evidence of their settlement in Pella, excavations in 1967 of Pella’s ancient West Church revealed a sarcophagus beneath the apse, which judging from its Jewish style of decoration and Christian context may once have belonged to an early leader of this community.
But according to the tenth-century patriarch Eutychius, who seems to have had access to earlier documents no longer extant, at least some of the Judaeo-Christians ‘returned to Jerusalem in the fourth year of the Emperor Vespasian * and built there their church’. What may well be remains from this church have recently been identified by Benedictine monk Bargil Pixner in a dressed stone edifice erroneously labelled ‘the Tomb of David’ tucked amidst a complex of buildings next to the Dormition Church on Jerusalem’s south-western hill today called Mount Zion. Comprising part of a later Church of the Apostles (thought to mark the house with the upper room where the apostles assembled after Jesus’ ascension), this edifice has in the lower parts of its walls massive and beautifully dressed stones of exactly the type used for Herod’s Temple…they seem to have been rescued from the rubble of the Temple site ( a salvage operation we might expect of the Temple-going Jerusalem Christians of Acts 2:43-7), and used for a synagogue style building, in which regard a particularly tell-tale feature is that this is not oriented to the Temple, as any true synagogue would have been, but to the tomb of Jesus as marked by the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
If this thinking is correct, this very early church would have been constructed on the orders of Simeon, son of Cleopas, who is recorded to have succeeded James, brother of Jesus, as head of Jerusalem’s Judaeo-Christian community. Since Simeon’s father, Cleopas (almost certainly the same Cleopas to whom Jesus appeared on the road to Emmaus, Luke 24:13-35), was the brother of Jesus and James’ father Joseph, Simeon would have continued Jesus and James’ own Davidic blood-line, there apparently followed thirteen other ‘Bishops of Jerusalem’, some also with this same blood-line.”

Not sure this helps.*