info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Capernaum - or Bethsaida?
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Kendall K. Down
Oct 22, 2021, 12:40:07 AM10/22/21
to
The ruins of Capernaum reveal a town with narrow streets and black
basalt houses, rather like the better preserved town of Chorazin just up
the hill. The most notable structure was the remains of the "White
Synagogue", a marble structure built over the foundations of the "Black
Synagogue". Most visitors fail to realise that the White Synagogue dates
from a century or so after the time of Christ.
A hundred yards down the slope from the synagogue the excavators who
uncovered the remains of Capernaum discovered the foundations of a
strange octagonal structure overlying a rectangular structure. The
rectangular structure was identical to the other houses in the street.
With no very good evidence, the excavators (who were from the Franciscan
order, I believe) decided that the octagonal structure was a church.
If so, it must have been a tiny chapel, with barely room for a celebrant
and a deacon or two. So far as I know, no putative altar was discovered,
so it is merely the shape of the building which leads to the conclusion.
However the Franciscans then made the leap of faith and declared that if
a church was built over a house, it must be because the house had
belonged to Simon Peter. Given that any building work in the crowded
lanes of Capernaum would have to be on top of a previous house, I am not
convinced that the conclusion necessarily follows!
Nevertheless, it was interesting and a generation of guides pointed out
the supposed church and rehearsed the supposed conclusion and pious
pilgrims crossed themselves and went away feeling a little bit closer to
the "Big Fisherman".
Unfortunately they also made offerings and the blighted Franciscans
carefully banked them and stored them up until at last they were able to
afford to build a modern church.
Clearly a modern church would have to be considerably larger than the
octangon that had been discovered. Equally clearly it could not be built
on top of the ancient ruins - the Israeli Department of Antiquities
would not atand for it. The result is an out-and-out concrete
monstrosity, a sort of flying saucer that stands on massive legs which
straddle the site. The floor is dished and has a massive hole in it so
that the faithful can still peer down between their legs at the
octagonal foundations and below them at the alleged remains of St
Peter's house.
The only thing that stops me praying for a kindly earthquake is the
thought that were the modern building to collapse, it would bury the
ruins it is supposed to commemorate beneath tons of concrete and smash
them to pieces.
Now, however, there is even better news. Excavators at Bethsaida, a
couple of miles up the road, have uncovered a building that is clearly a
church, complete with mosaic inscription which indicates that it was of
sufficient importance to have been repaired after being damaged in a
storm. Accounts by Byzantine period pilgrims refer to a church in
Bethsaida built over the homes of Peter and Andrew - and this is almost
certainly that church.
We are used to the Catholics having several heads of John the Baptist
and enough pieces of the true cross to build a barn. Now it appears that
they are faced with two houses of St Peter. Either he was a good deal
more prosperous than your average fisherman, or one of them is false -
and given the lack of sacerdotal trappings in the Capernaum ruins, my
money is on the Bethsaida one being genuine.
But if Peter did have two homes, the burning question is, which was his
real home and which the "buy-to-let" property? We can look forward to an
infallible papal pronouncement on the matter in the near future. It will
not displease me in the slightest to see the Franciscans left with egg
all over their hideous flying saucer.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
basalt houses, rather like the better preserved town of Chorazin just up
the hill. The most notable structure was the remains of the "White
Synagogue", a marble structure built over the foundations of the "Black
Synagogue". Most visitors fail to realise that the White Synagogue dates
from a century or so after the time of Christ.
A hundred yards down the slope from the synagogue the excavators who
uncovered the remains of Capernaum discovered the foundations of a
strange octagonal structure overlying a rectangular structure. The
rectangular structure was identical to the other houses in the street.
With no very good evidence, the excavators (who were from the Franciscan
order, I believe) decided that the octagonal structure was a church.
If so, it must have been a tiny chapel, with barely room for a celebrant
and a deacon or two. So far as I know, no putative altar was discovered,
so it is merely the shape of the building which leads to the conclusion.
However the Franciscans then made the leap of faith and declared that if
a church was built over a house, it must be because the house had
belonged to Simon Peter. Given that any building work in the crowded
lanes of Capernaum would have to be on top of a previous house, I am not
convinced that the conclusion necessarily follows!
Nevertheless, it was interesting and a generation of guides pointed out
the supposed church and rehearsed the supposed conclusion and pious
pilgrims crossed themselves and went away feeling a little bit closer to
the "Big Fisherman".
Unfortunately they also made offerings and the blighted Franciscans
carefully banked them and stored them up until at last they were able to
afford to build a modern church.
Clearly a modern church would have to be considerably larger than the
octangon that had been discovered. Equally clearly it could not be built
on top of the ancient ruins - the Israeli Department of Antiquities
would not atand for it. The result is an out-and-out concrete
monstrosity, a sort of flying saucer that stands on massive legs which
straddle the site. The floor is dished and has a massive hole in it so
that the faithful can still peer down between their legs at the
octagonal foundations and below them at the alleged remains of St
Peter's house.
The only thing that stops me praying for a kindly earthquake is the
thought that were the modern building to collapse, it would bury the
ruins it is supposed to commemorate beneath tons of concrete and smash
them to pieces.
Now, however, there is even better news. Excavators at Bethsaida, a
couple of miles up the road, have uncovered a building that is clearly a
church, complete with mosaic inscription which indicates that it was of
sufficient importance to have been repaired after being damaged in a
storm. Accounts by Byzantine period pilgrims refer to a church in
Bethsaida built over the homes of Peter and Andrew - and this is almost
certainly that church.
We are used to the Catholics having several heads of John the Baptist
and enough pieces of the true cross to build a barn. Now it appears that
they are faced with two houses of St Peter. Either he was a good deal
more prosperous than your average fisherman, or one of them is false -
and given the lack of sacerdotal trappings in the Capernaum ruins, my
money is on the Bethsaida one being genuine.
But if Peter did have two homes, the burning question is, which was his
real home and which the "buy-to-let" property? We can look forward to an
infallible papal pronouncement on the matter in the near future. It will
not displease me in the slightest to see the Franciscans left with egg
all over their hideous flying saucer.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
Timreason
Oct 22, 2021, 3:10:08 AM10/22/21
to
Tim.
Mike Davis
Oct 22, 2021, 7:40:06 AM10/22/21
to
On 22/10/2021 05:30, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> The ruins of Capernaum reveal a town with narrow streets and black
> basalt houses, rather like the better preserved town of Chorazin just up
> the hill. The most notable structure was the remains of the "White
> Synagogue", a marble structure built over the foundations of the "Black
> Synagogue". Most visitors fail to realise that the White Synagogue dates
> from a century or so after the time of Christ.
Indeed!
> basalt houses, rather like the better preserved town of Chorazin just up
> the hill. The most notable structure was the remains of the "White
> Synagogue", a marble structure built over the foundations of the "Black
> Synagogue". Most visitors fail to realise that the White Synagogue dates
> from a century or so after the time of Christ.
> A hundred yards down the slope from the synagogue the excavators who
> uncovered the remains of Capernaum discovered the foundations of a
> strange octagonal structure overlying a rectangular structure. The
> rectangular structure was identical to the other houses in the street.
> With no very good evidence, the excavators (who were from the Franciscan
> order, I believe) decided that the octagonal structure was a church.
>
> If so, it must have been a tiny chapel, with barely room for a celebrant
> and a deacon or two. So far as I know, no putative altar was discovered,
> so it is merely the shape of the building which leads to the conclusion.
> However the Franciscans then made the leap of faith and declared that if
> a church was built over a house, it must be because the house had
> belonged to Simon Peter. Given that any building work in the crowded
> lanes of Capernaum would have to be on top of a previous house, I am not
> convinced that the conclusion necessarily follows!
township - it was reasonable to commemorate Peter in some way.
> Nevertheless, it was interesting and a generation of guides pointed out
> the supposed church and rehearsed the supposed conclusion and pious
> pilgrims crossed themselves and went away feeling a little bit closer to
> the "Big Fisherman". Unfortunately they also made offerings and the blighted
> Franciscans
> carefully banked them and stored them up until at last they were able to
> afford to build a modern church.
> Clearly a modern church would have to be considerably larger than the
> octangon that had been discovered. Equally clearly it could not be built
> on top of the ancient ruins - the Israeli Department of Antiquities
> would not atand for it. The result is an out-and-out concrete
> monstrosity, a sort of flying saucer that stands on massive legs which
> straddle the site. The floor is dished and has a massive hole in it so
> that the faithful can still peer down between their legs at the
> octagonal foundations and below them at the alleged remains of St
> Peter's house.
beneath had minimal disturbance - so why not make it ship-like?
(Remember the ark and the metaphor that the Church is an ark.)
Picture:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/watchman/3733394898
Scroll right (right arrow) and you'll see some of the interior (and the
mosque where Jesus never preached.
I like the church - what would you want - a Gothic Cathedral?
> The only thing that stops me praying for a kindly earthquake is the
> thought that were the modern building to collapse, it would bury the
> ruins it is supposed to commemorate beneath tons of concrete and smash
> them to pieces.
> Now, however, there is even better news. Excavators at Bethsaida, a
> couple of miles up the road, have uncovered a building that is clearly a
> church, complete with mosaic inscription which indicates that it was of
> sufficient importance to have been repaired after being damaged in a
> storm. Accounts by Byzantine period pilgrims refer to a church in
> Bethsaida built over the homes of Peter and Andrew - and this is almost
> certainly that church.
>
> We are used to the Catholics having several heads of John the Baptist
> and enough pieces of the true cross to build a barn.
Now you are just being silly!
> We are used to the Catholics having several heads of John the Baptist
> and enough pieces of the true cross to build a barn.
> Now it appears that
> they are faced with two houses of St Peter. Either he was a good deal
> more prosperous than your average fisherman, or one of them is false -
> and given the lack of sacerdotal trappings in the Capernaum ruins, my
> money is on the Bethsaida one being genuine.
Peter's family DNA, anything could go. The point of all this religious
tourism is to try to get closer to the events in the Bible and in some
way closer to Jesus.
> But if Peter did have two homes, the burning question is, which was his
> real home and which the "buy-to-let" property? We can look forward to an
> infallible papal pronouncement on the matter in the near future. It will
> not displease me in the slightest to see the Franciscans left with egg
> all over their hideous flying saucer.
prejudices to yourself!! ;-)
Mike
--
Mike Davis
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Timreason
Oct 22, 2021, 8:00:07 AM10/22/21
to
On 22/10/2021 12:33, Mike Davis wrote:
>
> I like the church - what would you want - a Gothic Cathedral?
>
Oh well. I first saw it back in 1993, and I didn't like it then.
>
> I like the church - what would you want - a Gothic Cathedral?
>
Mind you, to be fair, I don't know what else could be done in order to
protect the site and yet let masses of people see it close up.
Tim.
Kendall K. Down
Oct 22, 2021, 2:20:07 PM10/22/21
to
On 22/10/2021 08:03, Timreason wrote:
> I remember being horrified by that 'Flying Saucer' thing!
And you, I think, do not remember the place as it was before the flying
> I remember being horrified by that 'Flying Saucer' thing!
saucer was built. One of the worst examples of religious credulity or
even superstition leading to cultural vandalism.
Kendall K. Down
Oct 22, 2021, 2:20:09 PM10/22/21
to
On 22/10/2021 12:33, Mike Davis wrote:
> Sorry you don't like it, I understand that it's raised so that the ruins
> beneath had minimal disturbance - so why not make it ship-like?
> (Remember the ark and the metaphor that the Church is an ark.)
If you think that ships are commonly built circular in plan, you need to
> beneath had minimal disturbance - so why not make it ship-like?
> (Remember the ark and the metaphor that the Church is an ark.)
visit the docks some time!
> Picture:
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/watchman/3733394898
> Scroll right (right arrow) and you'll see some of the interior (and the
> mosque where Jesus never preached.
interested to see it.
> I like the church - what would you want - a Gothic Cathedral?
>> We are used to the Catholics having several heads of John the Baptist
>> and enough pieces of the true cross to build a barn.
> Now you are just being silly!
of Luther?
> It may not be one or the other! Given the difficulty in identifying
> Peter's family DNA, anything could go. The point of all this religious
> tourism is to try to get closer to the events in the Bible and in some
> way closer to Jesus.
where they erected their church, I totally agree.
If you want to get closer to Jesus, you do so by uncovering the city of
His day, not by building flying saucers over it.
> Come off it, Kendall! Stick to archaeology and keep your architectural
> prejudices to yourself!! ;-)
Kendall K. Down
Oct 22, 2021, 2:30:07 PM10/22/21
to
On 22/10/2021 12:58, Timreason wrote:
> Mind you, to be fair, I don't know what else could be done in order to
> protect the site and yet let masses of people see it close up.
Leave it as it was. There was no problem with masses of people seeing
> Mind you, to be fair, I don't know what else could be done in order to
> protect the site and yet let masses of people see it close up.
the octagonal foundations when all that separated them was a low fence.
Adam Funk
Oct 22, 2021, 2:50:10 PM10/22/21
to
On 2021-10-22, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 22/10/2021 12:33, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> Sorry you don't like it, I understand that it's raised so that the ruins
>> beneath had minimal disturbance - so why not make it ship-like?
>> (Remember the ark and the metaphor that the Church is an ark.)
>
> If you think that ships are commonly built circular in plan, you need to
> visit the docks some time!
I've never heard the Church described as a coracle.
> On 22/10/2021 12:33, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> Sorry you don't like it, I understand that it's raised so that the ruins
>> beneath had minimal disturbance - so why not make it ship-like?
>> (Remember the ark and the metaphor that the Church is an ark.)
>
> If you think that ships are commonly built circular in plan, you need to
> visit the docks some time!
And remember, while you're out there risking your life and limb
through shot and shell, we'll be in be in here thinking what a
sucker you are. --- Rufus T. Firefly
Stuart
Oct 22, 2021, 5:50:06 PM10/22/21
to
In article <skuvbq$6tc$1...@dont-email.me>,
from firing the guns tende to make it rotate about it's own axis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_monitor_Novgorod
--
Stuart Winsor
Tools With A Mission
sending tools across the world
http://www.twam.co.uk/
Kendall K. Down <kendal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> If you think that ships are commonly built circular in plan, you need to
> visit the docks some time!
There was once a circular battleship, not a great success as the recoil
> If you think that ships are commonly built circular in plan, you need to
> visit the docks some time!
from firing the guns tende to make it rotate about it's own axis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_monitor_Novgorod
--
Stuart Winsor
Tools With A Mission
sending tools across the world
http://www.twam.co.uk/
Kendall K. Down
Oct 23, 2021, 3:20:08 AM10/23/21
to
On 22/10/2021 19:37, Adam Funk wrote:
> I've never heard the Church described as a coracle.
Yes, the "caracle of salvation£ just doesn't have the right ring to it,
> I've never heard the Church described as a coracle.
somehow.
Kendall K. Down
Oct 23, 2021, 3:30:08 AM10/23/21
to
On 22/10/2021 22:46, Stuart wrote:
> There was once a circular battleship, not a great success as the recoil
> from firing the guns tende to make it rotate about it's own axis
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_monitor_Novgorod
Or not, as the Wikipedia article makes plain.
> There was once a circular battleship, not a great success as the recoil
> from firing the guns tende to make it rotate about it's own axis
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_monitor_Novgorod
Mike Davis
Oct 23, 2021, 10:20:08 AM10/23/21
to
On 22/10/2021 12:58, Timreason wrote:
'non-sensitive' areas (6 IIRC)so that the ground underneath is intact.
Kendall K. Down
Oct 23, 2021, 4:10:09 PM10/23/21
to
On 23/10/2021 15:13, Mike Davis wrote:
> It's supported on circular columns erected in archaeologically
> 'non-sensitive' areas (6 IIRC)so that the ground underneath is intact.
How convenient that the good people of ancient Capernaum left six
> It's supported on circular columns erected in archaeologically
> 'non-sensitive' areas (6 IIRC)so that the ground underneath is intact.
non-sensitive areas so neatly spaced in their town. Prophetic insight or
what?
Mike Davis
Oct 23, 2021, 4:50:07 PM10/23/21
to
Kendall K. Down
Oct 24, 2021, 2:30:08 AM10/24/21
to
On 23/10/2021 21:45, Mike Davis wrote:
>> How convenient that the good people of ancient Capernaum left six
>> non-sensitive areas so neatly spaced in their town. Prophetic insight
>> or what?
> My suspicions too, but that was the answer I was given! ;-)
I think the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies apply: "They would,
>> How convenient that the good people of ancient Capernaum left six
>> non-sensitive areas so neatly spaced in their town. Prophetic insight
>> or what?
> My suspicions too, but that was the answer I was given! ;-)
wouldn't they."
Jason
Oct 24, 2021, 3:02:40 PM10/24/21
to
On Sat, 23 Oct 2021 15:13:33 +0100, Mike Davis wrote:
> On 22/10/2021 12:58, Timreason wrote:
>> On 22/10/2021 12:33, Mike Davis wrote:
>>>
>>> I like the church - what would you want - a Gothic Cathedral?
>>>
>>>
>> Oh well. I first saw it back in 1993, and I didn't like it then.
>>
>> Mind you, to be fair, I don't know what else could be done in order to
>> protect the site and yet let masses of people see it close up.
>
> It's supported on circular columns erected in archaeologically
> 'non-sensitive' areas (6 IIRC)so that the ground underneath is intact.
I've never even heard of this structure, so thanks for posting the
> On 22/10/2021 12:58, Timreason wrote:
>> On 22/10/2021 12:33, Mike Davis wrote:
>>>
>>> I like the church - what would you want - a Gothic Cathedral?
>>>
>>>
>> Oh well. I first saw it back in 1993, and I didn't like it then.
>>
>> Mind you, to be fair, I don't know what else could be done in order to
>> protect the site and yet let masses of people see it close up.
>
> It's supported on circular columns erected in archaeologically
> 'non-sensitive' areas (6 IIRC)so that the ground underneath is intact.
pictures. Surely it's common to erect buildings to cover archaeological
remains to protect them? I've seen these structures (of greater or
lesser archaeological merit) all over the place, both in this country,
numerous in and around Rome and elsewhere around the world. The dilemma
I guess is "what do you do once you have excavated foundations and
ruins"? Some are simply examined, photographed, and reburied. Other
options are leave them open to the elements to decay. Or you build
something over to protect them while allowing people to visit them. I
don't think there are any easy answers, especially at sites with huge
numbers of visitors.
Kendall K. Down
Oct 24, 2021, 3:30:06 PM10/24/21
to
On 24/10/2021 13:22, Jason wrote:
> I've never even heard of this structure, so thanks for posting the
> pictures. Surely it's common to erect buildings to cover archaeological
> remains to protect them? I've seen these structures (of greater or
> lesser archaeological merit) all over the place, both in this country,
> numerous in and around Rome and elsewhere around the world.
But this structure was *not* erected to preserve the ruins; it was
> I've never even heard of this structure, so thanks for posting the
> pictures. Surely it's common to erect buildings to cover archaeological
> remains to protect them? I've seen these structures (of greater or
> lesser archaeological merit) all over the place, both in this country,
> numerous in and around Rome and elsewhere around the world.
erected out of a supertitious desire to say mass as close as possible to
where - supposedly - St Peter lived.
> Or you build
> something over to protect them while allowing people to visit them. I
> don't think there are any easy answers, especially at sites with huge
> numbers of visitors.
that could have been provided by the sort of shelter you have seen
elsewhere and which has been erected in numerous sites in Palestine.
Jason
Oct 25, 2021, 3:09:35 PM10/25/21
to
On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 20:27:56 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 24/10/2021 13:22, Jason wrote:
>
>> I've never even heard of this structure, so thanks for posting the
>> pictures. Surely it's common to erect buildings to cover
>> archaeological remains to protect them? I've seen these structures (of
>> greater or lesser archaeological merit) all over the place, both in
>> this country, numerous in and around Rome and elsewhere around the
>> world.
>
> But this structure was *not* erected to preserve the ruins; it was
> erected out of a supertitious desire to say mass as close as possible to
> where - supposedly - St Peter lived.
Ah, sorry, I've misunderstood the purpose of the structure; I thought it
> On 24/10/2021 13:22, Jason wrote:
>
>> I've never even heard of this structure, so thanks for posting the
>> pictures. Surely it's common to erect buildings to cover
>> archaeological remains to protect them? I've seen these structures (of
>> greater or lesser archaeological merit) all over the place, both in
>> this country, numerous in and around Rome and elsewhere around the
>> world.
>
> But this structure was *not* erected to preserve the ruins; it was
> erected out of a supertitious desire to say mass as close as possible to
> where - supposedly - St Peter lived.
was essentially a giant umbrella to protect the site, making use of the
space above as a 'visitor centre' type thing into the bargain.
Kendall K. Down
Oct 25, 2021, 3:30:07 PM10/25/21
to
On 25/10/2021 18:08, Jason wrote:
> Ah, sorry, I've misunderstood the purpose of the structure; I thought it
> was essentially a giant umbrella to protect the site, making use of the
> space above as a 'visitor centre' type thing into the bargain.
I take it that Mike's pictures didn't show the altar and pews?
> Ah, sorry, I've misunderstood the purpose of the structure; I thought it
> was essentially a giant umbrella to protect the site, making use of the
> space above as a 'visitor centre' type thing into the bargain.
0 new messages