Recent finding referencing "Chrstou," possibly Jesus

[Seri]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26972493/

Very interesting little mug, there. Thoughts?

[Messor Mortis]

Sounds like the same thing as when they discovered the "tomb of jesus".

[Bill the Cat]

It's from Alexandria, home of the Nag Hammadi texts, right?

[Johnny MacManky]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26972493/

Very interesting little mug, there. Thoughts?

Let's assume (for the purposes of discussion) it's a genuine reference to our Jesus.

The article states:

If the word "Christ" refers to the Biblical Jesus Christ, as is speculated, then the discovery may provide evidence that Christianity and paganism at times intertwined in the ancient world.
The full engraving on the bowl reads, "DIA CHRSTOU O GOISTAIS," which has been interpreted by the excavation team to mean either, "by Christ the magician" or, "the magician by Christ." (My emphasis.)

Yeah, I suppose it "may", but what an uniformed initial reaction. Don't these dudes know that even much later Jewish references of considered to be about Jesus call him a "sorcerer who led Israel astray", or that other pictures have been found showing Jesus using a magic wand? They make it sound like this is something new, when its an accusation that's as old as the Gospels.

[The Curtmudgeon]

Never mind that Jesus is not mentioned at all in the inscription. "Christ" is not a name, it's a title, and a title that has been claimed by or for others as well as Jesus (whether legitimately or not). All "Christou" means is "Anointed One", and this inscription says nothing about who was anointed, by whom he was anointed, nor for what purpose he was anointed. There is very little reason, on the face of it, to associate this with Jesus of Nazareth.

The (it's just the media trying to sell papers) Curtmudgeon

[JB]

My $0.018:

Supposing that it does refer to Jesus Christ--and, to my knowledge, that seems at least plausible--then it's hardly surprising. It would then date to the late 1st century AD, and those in Alexandria would undoubtedly be aware of a new Jewish religious movement with (it would seem) a new divine founder famed for performing healings, exorcisms, and other powerful wonders. Those inclined to syncretistic magic would have no problem trying to horn in on the act. (Heck, Acts already reports non-Christian exorcists trying to invoke the name of Jesus, and of course one can't forget the case of Simon Magus.) This merely strikes me as an early example of the same phenomenon found over and over again in the Papyri Graecae Magicae, which often attempt to invoke YHWH, the archangels, and Christ alongside various pagan divinities and unknown powers. It's a bit of a surprise to find it so early, but that's about the only surprise involved here. To say, as the article does, that this sort of thing is "evidence that Christianity and paganism at times intertwined in the ancient world" is more sensationalism than accurate reporting.

[technomage]

It's from Alexandria, home of the Nag Hammadi texts, right?

It's too early to be related to the Nag Hamadi stuff. However....

Let's assume (for the purposes of discussion) it's a genuine reference to our Jesus.

The article states:

If the word "Christ" refers to the Biblical Jesus Christ, as is speculated, then the discovery may provide evidence that Christianity and paganism at times intertwined in the ancient world.
The full engraving on the bowl reads, "DIA CHRSTOU O GOISTAIS," which has been interpreted by the excavation team to mean either, "by Christ the magician" or, "the magician by Christ." (My emphasis.)

Yeah, I suppose it "may", but what an uniformed initial reaction.

Not "uninformed," so much as being pitched to the general public, many of whom are uninformed. The information that teachings about Jesus were (for instance) associated or assimilated into such varying groups such as Gnosticism is not exactly widely disseminated: most people only know about Gnosticism from the brief (and erroneous) mentions in Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code.

[Seri]

Never mind that Jesus is not mentioned at all in the inscription. "Christ" is not a name, it's a title, and a title that has been claimed by or for others as well as Jesus (whether legitimately or not). All "Christou" means is "Anointed One", and this inscription says nothing about who was anointed, by whom he was anointed, nor for what purpose he was anointed. There is very little reason, on the face of it, to associate this with Jesus of Nazareth.

The (it's just the media trying to sell papers) Curtmudgeon

Generally my impression as well. As mentioned towards the end of the article, Chrstou (notice that it was missing a vowel, which is important) could be referencing Chrestos, a regional deity, or any other person with the title Christos from the area. There is little to no definitive evidence to pinpoint it as referencing to Jesus specifically. At this point, it is purely speculative.

I mostly wanted to generate discussion on the topic. It seemed interesting enough to discuss.

[Mountain Man]

Ben Witherington has an in-depth analysis of this find at his blog:

http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/...ist-magus.html

His conclusion:

Ben Witherington

My reading of the inscription is that the first phrase requires the translation "THROUGH CHRIST". That is Christ is the agent, not the actor here. The actor would be 'Ho Goistais' whatever precise nuance one wants to give this term. The whole phrase then may refer to a diviner or magician who used Christ or the name of Christ in his incantation-- he worked 'through Christ'. The rendering suggested in the news release, whilst more sensational seems less probable to me.

. . .

What makes this incantation bowl piece of evidence especially interesting is that it shows that Jesus was so famous and well known as an exorcist or healer that even non-Christians or syncretists tried to gain acces to his power. This comports nicely with what we find for instance in a text like Acts 8 which tells us of Simon 'the Magus' who wanted access to this Jesus power through Peter, and it may even be relevant to that obscure text in the Gospels which tells of unknown exorcists using the name of Jesus to produce cures, which the disciples don't like and want to put a stop to, but Jesus objects (Mk. 9.38).

© source where applicable

So as far as Witherington is concerned, this is a genuine reference to the Biblical Jesus.

[JohnStevenson]

Am I the only one who noticed that the Greek text does not exactly match the supposed transliteration in the news article? Look at the spelling of what is supposed to be "CHRSTOU."

[FreezBee]

Never mind that Jesus is not mentioned at all in the inscription. "Christ" is not a name, it's a title, and a title that has been claimed by or for others as well as Jesus (whether legitimately or not). All "Christou" means is "Anointed One", and this inscription says nothing about who was anointed, by whom he was anointed, nor for what purpose he was anointed. There is very little reason, on the face of it, to associate this with Jesus of Nazareth.

The (it's just the media trying to sell papers) Curtmudgeon

I believe to have understood that Christos isn't actually a word, it is derived from a word meaning oil used for anointment, but it didn't exist as an adjective. The Greeks had another word for an anointed person. Whether it was Christians that invented the name or not, I don't know, but it is possible. Even if, it doesn't imply that we are dealing anything that we today would recognize as Christian, in the first round it only bears witness to that the word Christos was in use.

- FreezBee

[Dispen4ever]

Soothsayers and others may have referred to Jesus as a magician, but that does not mean that he practiced magic. It is their interpretation of the Jesus they had heard about, nothing more. To attempt to attach "magic" to Jesus, the Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, is blasphemy at its worst.

[popaface]

My initial reaction was "fascinating".

Though, having read many of the responses here, I think it's fair to point out that this is really just a headline. Judaisms and Hellenisms were "penetrating" each other since both began, really. There were Jewish sorcerers, and Greek prophets, these aren't exclusive terms, these aren't even dubious categories.

This discovery is not surprising since it made absolute sense to talk about Jesus as a magician, because he was one. Magicians are people who by the power of the divine make miracles or magic happen.

I also don't like immediate association of this discovery with Nag Hammadi. For starters, Alexandria is no where near Nag Hammadi, Alexandria is in the Delta and Nag Hammadi is all the way in Upper-Egypt. Secondly, there was a smorgsborg of Christianities in the first century which were shaping themselves against Judaisms and dealing with Hellenism. Some remained exclusively Jewish ("Judaizers": particularists), some like Paul and indeed all the NT (proto-orthodox), caught onto a branch of universalist Judaism and defined themselves using Hellenistic philosophy, language and terms. Others, felt that the Christian myth was exclusively Hellenistic and this developed into Marcionism. That was the cultural milieu of earliest Christianity.

So if one was too Jewish, one was a "Judaizer" and if one was too Hellenistic, one was a "Gnostic". Christianity developed in the first few centuries in attempting to define itself, give itself an identity between those poles. The point of reference always was Judaisms (not rabbinic Judaism which developed alongside Christianity as a sibbling).

These findings are probably on this range or pendulum between Hellenism and Judaism which was of course a form of Judaism; Christianity was not the only bridge between the two identities.

Allan