Jesus the magician? Unlikely archaeological find as first reference to Jesus Christ
Underwater find
A newly discovered bowl in Alexandria, Egypt, and dated to the period from the late 2nd century BC. C. and principles of century I d. C. has an engraving that may be the oldest known reference to Jesus Christ in the world. The engraving says chrstou ogoistais day, translated by the excavation team as “by Christ the Magician”. According to French marine archaeologist Franck Goddio, co-founder of the Oxford Center for Maritime Archeology, and Egyptologist David Fabre, the phrase could well be a reference to Jesus Christ, as he was one of the leading exponents of white magic.
The team found the bowl during their underwater excavation of the ancient port of Alexandria. They speculate that a first century wizard may have used the bowl to divine luck. They note that the bowl is very similar to that depicted on two early Egyptian statuettes believed to show a divination ritual. Ancient divination manuals describe a technique in which the fortune teller would pour oil into the water and then go into a state of ecstasy while studying the spinning mixture. In the hallucinatory state, the fortune teller expected to meet mystical beings who could raise questions about the future. The inscription, archaeologists theorize, may have served to legitimize divination by invoking the name of Christ, recognized as a wonder-worker.
How important is the evidence?
or Is it “Christ” or “Good”? – Archaeologists may have confused one Greek word with another in their interpretation. A glance at the photograph of the mug reveals a letter between rho (“P”) and sigma (“C”). The letter, although poorly formed, unmistakably looks like the letter eta (“H”). If this identification is correct, then the lexical form of the inscribed Greek word is not christos, target chrestos, which means “kind, loving, good, merciful.”
The prepositional phrase, then, probably indicates that the bowl was a gift, given “out of kindness” from some benefactor. It seems obvious that chrestou it is much more likely that Christou for the recorded word. Instead of referring to the power of Christ, the word chrestou It could be a reference to the person who gave the mug as a gift, as we could write on a gift “from Donald with best wishes.” This explanation seems as plausible as its alternative is unlikely.
o References to christos too lazy to be certain – However, even if Christou is the correct word, we are still far from being certain that it is a reference to Jesus Christ. We must remember that the word christos it was not a personal name of Jesus but a title, the Greek translation of the Hebrew word mashiach (“Messiah, anointed”). Like its Hebrew counterpart, this Greek term could be applied to any number of people. It appears in the Hebrew Scriptures more than 60 times, designating priests, prophets, and kings, as well as the anticipated Messiah. It even describes the pagan ruler Cyrus of Persia (Isa. 45: 1, LXX). Call someone christos it does not necessarily identify that person with Jesus. Even the Greek Scriptures warn that many would claim that title (Mark 13: 21-22).
o The meaning of goistais – In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Delling defines he, the lexical form behind goistais, as “impostor, charlatan, who makes magic through formulas”. Its only New Testament appearance is in 2 Timothy 3:13: “… evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.” Delling says that among ancient people, those who believed in demon possession tended to hold the gos in high regard, while educated people tended to despise that person. (See also the entry for he in the Liddell-Scott-Jones lexicon, which defines him as “sorcerer, wizard” and, secondly, as “juggler, trickster”).
If this term goistaisTherefore, if it were a reference to Jesus Christ, it would be most inappropriate. Jesus did not perform miracles through formulas like abracadabra, alacazam, gold presto. When he spoke, he gave simple commands, such as “Be healed!” or “Get up and walk!” Even the words ephphatha Y talitha koum from Mark 5:41 and 7:34, respectively, are simply “Open up!” and “Girl, I tell you, get up!”, in Aramaic, the mother tongue of Jesus. Instead of using formulas, Jesus constantly varied the means by which he healed people, sometimes by touching (eg, Mark 1:31), or saying a few words (eg, Mark 2:11), or healing without touching (eg, Matthew 12). : 13) or even without being present (for example, Mark 8:13). Some scholars believe that it is probable that He varied His healing procedures for the same purpose of avoiding magical associations.
Archaeologists have apparently forced their translation, as if goistais is genitive singular, like chrestou, and it works in the phrase as an appositive. The word goistaisHowever, it is dative plural, which makes its suggested translation impossible. The phrase chrestou goistais day probably means “[Given] through kindness to magicians. “
o The date is probably too early – In the time of Jesus, tens of centuries before the printing press and two millennia before the digital age with its instantaneous communication, events in one part of the empire often had little impact beyond the immediate vicinity. It would take a few years for the domino effect of Jesus’ ministry to reach Alexandria, and at first it would only be felt in Christian circles and later in Jews. For it to reach the pagans as the owner of the soothsayer’s bowl would take even longer. And not only would the magician have to know the miraculous power, but he would have to spend enough time to convince him that the clients would also know Jesus.
However, the last date assigned for the bowl is the beginning of the first century. Since the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ did not happen before 30 CE, that only allows 20 years before we reach the middle of the century. It could take a hundred years or even more for the wave to flood the pagan consciousness of Alexandria.
What can we conclude?
If the engraving referred to Jesus Christ, it would constitute extra-biblical confirmation that Jesus was a miracle worker. This is similar to the impact of what is now known as the Magical Paris Papyrus, dated around 300 AD Describes an elaborate exorcism ritual, beginning, “I conjure you by the god of the Hebrews,” and then listing a series of mystical names, of which Jesus is the first. The incantation continues with numerous references to Biblical events and people, some of which are confusing. The point of the New Testament studies is the confirmation that in Egypt, some 150 years after the resurrection, Jesus was known as a successful exorcist and called “the god of the Hebrews.” This latest discovery would make a similar argument from evidence much, much earlier.
This evidence runs counter to claims that skeptics have made for generations that all of Jesus’ miracles have rationalistic explanations. Eyewitnesses found sufficient evidence in the works of Jesus to discern the almighty hand of God. In the words of the apostle Peter, Jesus “went about doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him” (Acts 10:38). Even if it were legitimate, this evidence would not constitute proof that Jesus was a magician, despite the claims of books such as Jesus the Magician: Charlatan or Son of God? by Morton Smith, published 1978. (See Barry Crawford’s largely negative review, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Religion [10/26/1978].)
However, the problem is that the evidence is too early and too ambiguous to be credible. It seems to be another example of archaeologists trying to make headlines by placing their latest discovery in the same sentence with the words “Jesus Christ.” This unjustified coupling often contributes to unwarranted conclusions about Jesus among the ignorant and the credulous.
Do you want to go deeper?
Recommended to buy
Howard Clark Kee. What can we know about Jesus? Cambridge, 1990. – Kee explores both biblical accounts of the life and work of Jesus and extra-biblical material on this topic. Extra-biblical references to Christ include the writings of non-Orthodox Christians, pagan and Jewish authors. Kee analyzes all the relevant material to determine what can be accurately deduced about Jesus from these various accounts, written by both friends and enemies.
Craig L. Blomberg. The historical reliability of the gospels. 2nd ed. Inter-Varsity, 2008. – Blomberg reveals the flawed analysis and assumptions that have led to erroneous conclusions about the Gospels, providing scholarly criteria for judging these books and biblical answers to our difficult questions. Readers will find that over the past twenty years, the argument for the historical reliability of the Gospels has grown enormously stronger.
CK Barrett. The background of the New Testament. HarperOne, 1989. Contains a discussion of the Paris Magic Papyrus together with its text in English translation (pp. 34 and following). It also contains a great deal of other material relevant to New Testament studies.
Recommended for online reading
Details about the Magical Paris Papyrus at GA Deissmann, Light of the Ancient East. Hodder and Stoughton, 1910. pp. 254ff.
Gary R. Habermas, “The Resurgence of the Late Twentieth Century
Naturalistic Responses to the Resurrection of Jesus “. Trinity Journal, 22 NS (2001): 179-196.
Larry W. Hurtado, lord Jesus Christ. Eerdmans, 2005, pp. 358-364. – A short but useful discussion on the title “Christ” (“Messiah”).
You may want to study the oldest accusation that Jesus was a magician, made by the anti-Christian polemicist Celsus in the third century. The church father Origen skillfully defended the orthodox viewpoint by pointing out that, in contrast to the magi, all of Jesus’ miracles had a moral purpose. See Origins, Against Celso, book 1, chapter 68. See also the anticipation of this argument by Justin Martyr in the second century in his First apology, chapter 30.
If you’re curious about Morton’s Smith’s book, take a look at Professor Smith’s exchange with Frank Kermode about the latter’s review of Smith’s book in the New York Book Review. This exchange includes a summary of Smith’s main points and the rationale for Kermode’s critique. Be sure to read all four essays, the first two published on December 21, 1978 and the second on February 21, 1978. 8, 1979. Unfortunately, Kermode’s original review, “The Search for the Magical Jesus,” is not available. without a subscription to the Magazine. Also available online is a brief review of Smith’s book by Terrance Callan from the Library Journal (June 15, 1978).
