Ancient Bowl May Contain First Reference Ever To Christ

[maklelan]

Article here.

Pictures here and here.

Here's the gist:

A team of scientists led by renowned French marine archaeologist Franck Goddio recently announced that they have found a bowl, dating to between the late 2nd century B.C. and the early 1st century A.D., that is engraved with what they believe could be the world's first known reference to Christ.

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."

I disagree with the first translation, since o goistais would need to be in the genitive to be in apposition to chreistou, but it's clearly not. The second one makes more sense, but problems are evident. First, the name "Christ" is spelled with an eta rather than a iota. This has been done before, though, and the word goistais uses a iota where we would expect an eta. April DeConik, however (Rice University spoilsport), argues that chreistou is a common title for a Sethian Gnostic archon named Athoth, and means "The Excellent One." Others argue it's a fake. Whatever it is, it's pretty cool.

[katherine the great]

After watching a recent show on the plethora of really good fakes on the antiquities market,without good documentation I'd vote for fake.

[maklelan]

After watching a recent show on the plethora of really good fakes on the antiquities market,without good documentation I'd vote for fake.

The unique thing about this situation, though, is that the bowl was found by professionals (from Oxford!) at an excavation that documented the provenance. It has as much documentation as an artifact can have.

[alter idem]

My question is, are there other examples that have been in museum collections for many years of cups from this time period with writing scratched in them? Was it common to make a nice cup or bowl and then crudely scratch writing on it?

[Ron Beron]

Article here.

Pictures here and here.

Here's the gist:

I disagree with the first translation, since o goistais would need to be in the genitive to be in apposition to chreistou, but it's clearly not. The second one makes more sense, but problems are evident. First, the name "Christ" is spelled with an eta rather than a iota. This has been done before, though, and the word goistais uses a iota where we would expect an eta. April DeConik, however (Rice University spoilsport), argues that chreistou is a common title for a Sethian Gnostic archon named Athoth, and means "The Excellent One." Others argue it's a fake. Whatever it is, it's pretty cool.

Good analysis. I'm opting for an alternate explanation other than a reference to Jesus, something akin to someone like Chrestus ala Suetonius.

[juliann]

This immediately brought to mind Ancient Christian Magic : http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Christian-Ma...7536&sr=1-3

From Publishers Weekly

Traditionalists may find heretical the use of "Christian" as a modifier for "magic." But it's an apt combination for this gathering of previously untranslated curses, recipes and spells ritualistically cast by Egyptian Christians. In the Coptic language of the early Gnostics the words for "religion" and "magic" have common roots. While the texts offered here are individually intriguing (especially those about sex and healing), their cumulative effect is, as the editors note, that "they demonstrate that Christianity can take the form of a folk religion . . . making use of ritual power for all sorts of practical purposes." There is, however, something else happening here as well. The materials gathered in this book largely date from the era of the Nag Hammadi Library, which, since its 1945 discovery in Egypt, has revealed aspects of early Christianity in a manner and scope comparable to that with which the Dead Sea Scrolls have illuminated the study of ancient Judaism; as a result, this collection also deepens and broadens our knowledge of how believers in Christ lived before the "Church" evolved.

Hmmm....folk magic. It has a familiar ring. For some reason Egypt has never gotten due credit for its foundational role in Christian development. The book begins by explaining how inappropriate the term magic is. It is just the "you do magic, I do religion" pejorative nonsense. (Richard Smith was my Coptic instructor at the time and he said the publisher put "magic" in the title, the authors did not.)

[Flyonthewall]

I don't claim any indepth, or even topical knowledge about the language used, but didn't "magician" come from the term "magi'? and didn't "magi" mean wiseman or something to that effect?

[Chris Smith]

April DeConik, however (Rice University spoilsport), argues that chreistou is a common title for a Sethian Gnostic archon named Athoth, and means "The Excellent One."

I am skeptical of Ms. McConick's interpretation. While I am of the school that says a proto-gnosticism must have predated and influenced Christianity, I think it is highly unlikely that a full-scale Sethian gnosticism complete with archons existed during the timeframe indicated. Just as Christian scholars might be inclined to grab hold of any early evidence for the existence of Jesus-- magical or no-- Ms. McConick will be inclined to grab hold of any early evidence for the existence of Sethian gnosticism, because that's her area of study.

The interpretation of Crestou as good or excellent one, however, is viable.

[maklelan]

I checked my LSJ and found chreisteis (gen. sing. chreistou) as meaning a creditor or userer. Dia plus the genitive, in addition to "through," can mean "by the mouth of," or a number of other prepositions of agent, instrumentality, or manner.

[LifeOnaPlate]

very interesting discussion!

[The_Monk]

My question is, are there other examples that have been in museum collections for many years of cups from this time period with writing scratched in them? Was it common to make a nice cup or bowl and then crudely scratch writing on it?

Yes. Or at least, not uncommon. Cyrus Gordon wrote a good bit about bowls with "magic" Aramaic incantations on them, for example.

[Ron Beron]

Yes. Or at least, not uncommon. Cyrus Gordon wrote a good bit about bowls with "magic" Aramaic incantations on them, for example.

Along that line BAR published a whole article on the subject awhile back. BAR 33:01, Jan/Feb 2007 Magic Incantation Bowls

[Anijen]

The cup looks old but the scratches do not appear to be old at all IMO

[MormonMason]

I don't think it has anything to do with Christ. At least it does not mention his name. There is a form of dubious meaning that is found in the writings of Hesychius, the word being diachrestos, the genitive form of which would be diachrestou. A parallel passage in the same work seems to give it a related meaning to labrostomeo or labrostomia, which means "I am talking boldly" or "I am talking rashly."

The syntax is strained thereby, however, but I see the message on the cup possibly being a warning of some sort concerning the contents, or it may extoll the virtue of the contents depending upon context. It may be wine that is in question or even poison. It may well have been a cup used in the mysteries. However, the context of its finding may have bearing on which interpretation may be correct.

On the other hand, the compound word may not be a compound word at all. It may be two distinct words, thus: dia chrestou, which may be translated "through a good...," or a number of other related meanings regarding taste or usefulness. Interestingly enough, the term chrestes (also written as chrestou) may also refer to an oracle. Many of the oracles of the day sniffed poisonous gases from volcanic vents or drank various intoxicants or poisons to bring them into trances before pronouncing the messages of the gods.

I will have to do a little more research work on the text to be sure of the translation in its entirety but at this point I do not see it referring to Christ or to magicians. One difficulty with the text is the use of the singular article with a plural word on the one side of the cup in addition to the fact that one cannot be certain as to whether the word on the other side is a compound word or two separate words written together. On the other hand, the word may be a verb-form, which would then make sense to have a singular article, meaning together representing something like "he who ...s" or "one ...s". The cup may say something like "one ...s through good (taste)" or possibly some related meaning.

There is too little text and context to be certain of anything at this point. I'll have to give this some more thought as I find the time. At this point I am not even sure as to the dialect. It may even be the case that the person inscribing it was illiterate or it may even be a fake. The photo does not tell us much regarding its provenance. In point of fact, some archaeological discoveries have been forgeries, planted under the noses of the professionals when they weren't looking. Such is the case with the Kinderhook plates and certain other "finds."

[maklelan]

I will have to do a little more research work on the text to be sure of the translation in its entirety but at this point I do not see it referring to Christ or to magicians. One difficulty with the text is the use of the singular article with a plural word on the one side of the cup in addition to the fact that one cannot be certain as to whether the word on the other side is a compound word or two separate words written together. On the other hand, the word may be a verb-form, which would then make sense to have a singular article, meaning together representing something like "he who ...s" or "one ...s". The cup may say something like "one ...s through good (taste)" or possibly some related meaning.

But the only participle that ends in -ais is a feminine dative plural. The only other way is to call it a deponent, but then you're missing a number of letters. Also, goeis is a third declension noun, which can't have -ais even in the feminine plural nom. or voc.

There is too little text and context to be certain of anything at this point. I'll have to give this some more thought as I find the time. At this point I am not even sure as to the dialect. It may even be the case that the person inscribing it was illiterate or it may even be a fake. The photo does not tell us much regarding its provenance. In point of fact, some archaeological discoveries have been forgeries, planted under the noses of the professionals when they weren't looking. Such is the case with the Kinderhook plates and certain other "finds."

The state of archaeology at Oxford has matured somewhat since the mid-19th century, and modern archaeologists know when something's been tampered with. I've dug stuff out of dirt that has been there for thousands of years, and it's quite a different process than digging something out that's only recently been buried.

[MormonMason]

But the only participle that ends in -ais is a feminine dative plural. The only other way is to call it a deponent, but then you're missing a number of letters. Also, goeis is a third declension noun, which can't have -ais even in the feminine plural nom. or voc.

I agree that it is problematic but there were a number of differing dialects with their peculiarities as well as local idiosynchasies. Nevertheless, the form of the word is problematic on its own. You must admit as to its appearance, however. In addition, you are assuming that the root is goeis, which also is problematic by the fact of its spelling and the singular lack of the eta. (I admit that ancient scribes did misspell from time to time themselves).

The cup was inscribed after it was fired so any number of problems present themselves. Then again, that is assuming that it is not another word. It may well be a much older form of a quotation that had one or two of its letters modified as the original initial letter was dropped by the time the cup was inscribed. For instance it could have been a word that originally started with F (had roughly the sound of English W) which was dropped from Greek and replaced with gamma by the time the cup was inscribed.

The state of archaeology at Oxford has matured somewhat since the mid-19th century, and modern archaeologists know when something's been tampered with. I've dug stuff out of dirt that has been there for thousands of years, and it's quite a different process than digging something out that's only recently been buried.

It has matured but some things still slip through the cracks, as it were. Besides, the cup originally was found at sea. Kind of hard to tell such a thing as you suggest under water. The engraving has the looks of something modern made to look ancient. Testing the patina inside the engravings as well as an electro-microscopic scan of the engravings might give us a more accurate picture of the date of the inscription on the cup. But, as I said, there is too little text and no context to make clear what the inscription said or meant to its inscriber. All are guesses that differ from one another.

[maklelan]

I agree that it is problematic but there were a number of differing dialects with their peculiarities as well as local idiosynchasies. Nevertheless, the form of the word is problematic on its own. You must admit as to its appearance, however. In addition, you are assuming that the root is goeis, which also is problematic by the fact of its spelling and the singular lack of the eta. (I admit that ancient scribes did misspell from time to time themselves).

No other options seem to present themselves.

The cup was inscribed after it was fired so any number of problems present themselves. Then again, that is assuming that it is not another word. It may well be a much older form of a quotation that had one or two of its letters modified as the original initial letter was dropped by the time the cup was inscribed. For instance it could have been a word that originally started with F (had roughly the sound of English W) which was dropped from Greek and replaced with gamma by the time the cup was inscribed.

But the digamma isn't replaced with the gamma in any Greek dialect. The digamma just drops out completely.

It has matured but some things still slip through the cracks, as it were. Besides, the cup originally was found at sea. Kind of hard to tell such a thing as you suggest under water.

I have a friend who does underwater archaeology in the Yucatan, and he tells me there's still a big difference.

The engraving has the looks of something modern made to look ancient. Testing the patina inside the engravings as well as an electro-microscopic scan of the engravings might give us a more accurate picture of the date of the inscription on the cup. But, as I said, there is too little text and no context to make clear what the inscription said or meant to its inscriber. All are guesses that differ from one another.

I'm willing to give Oxford's team of archaeologists the benefit of the doubt, as they discovered the artifact in situ. Fakes also tend to be far less cryptic. There's no reason for a person to spend that much time and money to have a group discover something that could very well be determined to be relatively meaningless. A fake would have used easily recognizable words.

[MormonMason]

No other options seem to present themselves.

A few possibilities are there but I will need a little time to narrow them down.

But the digamma isn't replaced with the gamma in any Greek dialect. The digamma just drops out completely.

Not entirely true. While may be true that Digamma just drops out in numerous places, there are words that originally had it but which then later were written with Gamma instead. See the unabridged LSJ, ninth edition, page 356a, for a few examples. Look carefully. They are easy to miss. Even I missed them the first perusal of the page.

I have a friend who does underwater archaeology in the Yucatan, and he tells me there's still a big difference.

That would depend on the artifact. Testing the patina inside the engraving and studying the surface of the artifact would give me more definitive evidence concerning this artifact.

I'm willing to give Oxford's team of archaeologists the benefit of the doubt, as they discovered the artifact in situ. Fakes also tend to be far less cryptic. There's no reason for a person to spend that much time and money to have a group discover something that could very well be determined to be relatively meaningless. A fake would have used easily recognizable words.

I am willing to give Oxford the benefit of the doubt as well. I do not believe that they as a whole would have forged something just to make a startling discovery. But, what about others? As to your point about lack of crypticness in using easily recognizable words, I personally know of several artifacts that have been found over the years that have unusual phrases and cryptic elements to them. Some are just downright incoherent babble! On the other hand, I have seen some of the genuine with similar kinds of elements, so, as I said, let's get some results on the patina and engravings.

[maklelan]

A few possibilities are there but I will need a little time to narrow them down.

I'm interested to see what you come up with.

Not entirely true. While may be true that Digamma just drops out in numerous places, there are words that originally had it but which then later were written with Gamma instead. See the unabridged LSJ, ninth edition, page 356a, for a few examples. Look carefully. They are easy to miss. Even I missed them the first perusal of the page.

I'll check it out when I get home.

That would depend on the artifact. Testing the patina inside the engraving and studying the surface of the artifact would give me more definitive evidence concerning this artifact.

Agreed. I don't know if there's going to be enough doubt raised to catalyze such testing, but it could very easily happen.

I am willing to give Oxford the benefit of the doubt as well. I do not believe that they as a whole would have forged something just to make a startling discovery. But, what about others? As to your point about lack of crypticness in using easily recognizable words, I personally know of several artifacts that have been found over the years that have unusual phrases and cryptic elements to them. Some are just downright incoherent babble! On the other hand, I have seen some of the genuine with similar kinds of elements, so, as I said, let's get some results on the patina and engravings.

We'll see what they decide to do with the artifact.

[MormonMason]

I wanted to add that there are other words where Digamma was replaced by another letter rather than merely dropping it in some dialects. For one some examples, see the brief and slightly dated discussion at Carl Darling Buck, The Greek Dialects [1955, Chicago: University of Chicago Press], 46-52.

I should also point out that the main body of LSJ has not been updated since 1940, that updates in the Revised Supplement are out-of-date and incomplete, and that a number of words from various dialects are not to be found in LSJ at all but may be seen in other Lexicons such as Lampe's Patristic Greek Lexicon (there are secular usages in the volume as well) and others. (Unfortunately, I do not at this moment have access to a copy of Lampe's Lexicon, however).

[MormonMason]

There is a lengthier discussion concerning digamma in the Greek dialects, though dated a bit in places but including information regarding restoring the missing digamma in the words of the works of Homer via the aid of the problems with the Hexameter in his poetry, in D.B. Monro's A Grammar of the Homeric Dialect, 2nd Edition Revised and Enlarged, Reprint (1992, Philadelphia: William H. Allen), on pages 361-383.

[maklelan]

There is a lengthier discussion concerning digamma in the Greek dialects, though dated a bit in places but including information regarding restoring the missing digamma in the words of the works of Homer via the aid of the problems with the Hexameter in his poetry, in D.B. Monro's A Grammar of the Homeric Dialect, 2nd Edition Revised and Enlarged, Reprint (1992, Philadelphia: William H. Allen), on pages 361-383.

I'm familiar with that discussion. That's the great thing about Hebrew. We have so many cognate languages that are represented further back in time than Hebrew that we can fill in almost all the gaps in historical grammar. Greek's a little more annoying.

[MormonMason]

I'm familiar with that discussion. That's the great thing about Hebrew. We have so many cognate languages that are represented further back in time than Hebrew that we can fill in almost all the gaps in historical grammar. Greek's a little more annoying.

Oh, I agree--particularly with Classical Greek dialects and their attempted revivals during the Koine period. Makes it all the more confusing. That is why I like Koine so much. At least that has been recovered to such a degree that much is almost certain and the gaps can be filled there due to the recovery of the scraps in the trash heaps of the ancient world. Classical Greek is a whole "'nother" animal!

Attestation is more limited and the attempted revivals of the old dialects are confused and abortive. Makes things more difficult to track down and analyze at times.

[maklelan]

Oh, I agree--particularly with Classical Greek dialects and their attempted revivals during the Koine period. Makes it all the more confusing. That is why I like Koine so much. At least that has been recovered to such a degree that much is almost certain and the gaps can be filled there due to the recovery of the scraps in the trash heaps of the ancient world. Classical Greek is a whole "'nother" animal!

Attestation is more limited and the attempted revivals of the old dialects are confused and abortive. Makes things more difficult to track down and analyze at times.

That's why my Greek is primarily used for Septuagint and NT studies, and Koine's pretty much caveman talk compared to Sophocles and Euripides. Hebrew historical grammar is right in my wheelhouse, though.

[The_Monk]

That's why my Greek is primarily used for Septuagint and NT studies, and Koine's pretty much caveman talk compared to Sophocles and Euripides. Hebrew historical grammar is right in my wheelhouse, though.

Yeah! Up with Semitics!