Freethought & Rationalism Archive

joedad · 10-01-2008, 07:48 AM

Earliest reference describes Christ as Magician

Quote:

Oct. 1, 2008 -- 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.

Would this make the appearance of wise men or kings or magicians or magi more understandable?

Ben C Smith · 10-01-2008, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joedad

Earliest reference describes Christ as Magician

Quote:

Oct. 1, 2008 -- 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.

Would this make the appearance of wise men or kings or magicians or magi more understandable?

I am sure we will all have to wait for the inevitable hubbub to settle down before reasonable judgments will prevail, but, as an initial issue, the transcription is given as:

DIA CHRSTOU O GOISTAIS

But here is the photo:

There seems to be a letter between the rho and the (lunate) sigma, and that letter looks like an eta to me (corrections welcome). If so, then the name would actually be Χρηστου, the genitive of our familiar Χρηστος (Chrēstos or Chrestus).

But there are already 663 hits on Google (almost all of them in languages other than English) for the phrase DIA CHRSTOU O GOISTAIS, with no hits at all for what I proposed, DIA CHRHSTOU O GOISTAIS.

Also, I cannot see the other side of the bowl, but the phrase O GOISTAIS seems odd to me. A γοης is a magician or an enchanter (this is a word that Josephus likes to apply to his false prophets and false kings). I do not recognize goistais (which of course may say more about me than about the bowl or its inscriber). And why ο instead of του? Perhaps it is just completely ungrammatical, as if by someone for whom Greek was a second language? Or is it supposed to be the definite article (but in a clause with no verb)?

Just my initial thoughts.

Ben.

ETA: There are 4 hits on Google for DIA CHRESTOU O GOISTAIS, transliterating the eta as an e rather than as an h. So at least I am not the only one to have noticed the extra letter.

aa5874 · 10-01-2008, 09:23 AM

It is a known fact that words "the anointed", "anointed" by God, "the anointed one" pre-dated the so-called Jesus by hundreds of years.

Anyone in antiquity could have been self-proclaimed a Christ or could have been called Christ by others.

Without the word "Jesus", and a range of about three hundred years, it is virtually impossible to make any credible claim with respect to the engraving and Jesus of the NT.

gstafleu · 10-01-2008, 09:54 AM

My first reaction upon seeing the picture of the bowl is the same as Ben's: What is that character between the rho and the sigma? It looks a bit like a pi, but I take it the sticking up part at the upper left makes an eta more likely?

In any case, why is that character not reported anywhere? Clearly the text is not "dia chrstou" but at a minimum "dia chr?stou" And the ? does not look like an iota, I think. A bit of disingenuity on the part of those reporting the find? Not reporting the non-iota keeps the interpretation "christou" open, something like that I suppose.

Gerard Stafleu

Toto · 10-01-2008, 10:10 AM

It looks like the old Chrestos-Christos switch.

But read to the second page:

Quote:

Bert Smith, a professor of classical archaeology and art at Oxford University, suggests the engraving might be a dedication, or present, made by a certain "Chrestos" belonging to a possible religious association called Ogoistais.

Klaus Hallof, director of the Institute of Greek inscriptions at the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy, added that if Smith's interpretation proves valid, the word "Ogoistais" could then be connected to known religious groups that worshipped early Greek and Egyptian gods and goddesses, such as Hermes, Athena and Isis.

Hallof additionally pointed out that historians working at around, or just after, the time of the bowl, such as Strabon and Pausanias, refer to the god "Osogo" or "Ogoa," so a variation of this might be what's on the bowl. It is even possible that the bowl refers to both Jesus Christ and Osogo.

Ben C Smith · 10-01-2008, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is a known fact that words "the anointed", "anointed" by God, "the anointed one" pre-dated the so-called Jesus by hundreds of years.

Anyone in antiquity could have been self-proclaimed a Christ or could have been called Christ by others.

:banghead:

The whole point is that the inscription apparently does not really say Christos; it probably says Chrestos.

Ben.

Ben C Smith · 10-01-2008, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

What is that character between the rho and the sigma? It looks a bit like a pi, but I take it the sticking up part at the upper left makes an eta more likely?

It does to me. But I freely admit I am no expert on actual Greek script.

Ben.

andrewcriddle · 10-01-2008, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Bert Smith, a professor of classical archaeology and art at Oxford University, suggests the engraving might be a dedication, or present, made by a certain "Chrestos" belonging to a possible religious association called Ogoistais.

Klaus Hallof, director of the Institute of Greek inscriptions at the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy, added that if Smith's interpretation proves valid, the word "Ogoistais" could then be connected to known religious groups that worshipped early Greek and Egyptian gods and goddesses, such as Hermes, Athena and Isis.

Hallof additionally pointed out that historians working at around, or just after, the time of the bowl, such as Strabon and Pausanias, refer to the god "Osogo" or "Ogoa," so a variation of this might be what's on the bowl. It is even possible that the bowl refers to both Jesus Christ and Osogo.

The reference to Ogoa in Pausanias is here http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=n...um=4&ct=result

Andrew Criddle

Atheos · 10-16-2008, 05:33 AM

I found my head nodding when I read Ben's post earlier, although I thought the letter was a Pi. Eta makes sense.

I took 20 semester hours of Koine Greek in college but it's all been squandered due to 25 years of disuse. That doesn't stop me from bringing the full force of my pitiful personal expertise of the subject to bear on this.

When I looked at the photo I saw a dative proper noun (Xphston), not a genetive (Xrhstou). I can't remember how this might alter the interpretation, but I'm thinking the genetive version would imply authority, "Through authority of Chrestus the magician" as opposed to "Made by Chrestus the magician". Scholars will no doubt be able to correct me on this easily.

Either way I think it's irresponsible to claim that the inscription references the greek work "Xristos" when that ETA is squatting right in the middle of the word as obvious as the proverbial turd in the punchbowl. I can't help thinking this was done on purpose to increase the value of the artifact.

Ben C Smith · 10-16-2008, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

When I looked at the photo I saw a dative proper noun (Xphston)....

That form would be the accusative, not the dative, which would be Xrhstw.

Quote:

...not a genetive (Xrhstou). I can't remember how this might alter the interpretation, but I'm thinking the genetive version would imply authority, "Through authority of Chrestus the magician" as opposed to "Made by Chrestus the magician". Scholars will no doubt be able to correct me on this easily.

I am no scholar, but look how the upsilons are formed in the phrase tou Xristou (abbreviated to tou Xu) in the codex Alexandrinus text of Acts 2.31:

That v-shaped letter is just how the upsilon was formed in uncial script.

Quote:

Either way I think it's irresponsible to claim that the inscription references the greek work "Xristos" when that ETA is squatting right in the middle of the word as obvious as the proverbial turd in the punchbowl. I can't help thinking this was done on purpose to increase the value of the artifact.

I tend to share your suspicion.

Ben.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-01-2008, 09:23 AM	#3
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	It is a known fact that words "the anointed", "anointed" by God, "the anointed one" pre-dated the so-called Jesus by hundreds of years. Anyone in antiquity could have been self-proclaimed a Christ or could have been called Christ by others. Without the word "Jesus", and a range of about three hundred years, it is virtually impossible to make any credible claim with respect to the engraving and Jesus of the NT.

10-01-2008, 09:54 AM	#4
gstafleu Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: London, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,719	My first reaction upon seeing the picture of the bowl is the same as Ben's: What is that character between the rho and the sigma? It looks a bit like a pi, but I take it the sticking up part at the upper left makes an eta more likely? In any case, why is that character not reported anywhere? Clearly the text is not "dia chrstou" but at a minimum "dia chr?stou" And the ? does not look like an iota, I think. A bit of disingenuity on the part of those reporting the find? Not reporting the non-iota keeps the interpretation "christou" open, something like that I suppose. Gerard Stafleu

10-16-2008, 05:33 AM	#9
Atheos Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Heart of the Bible Belt Posts: 5,807	I found my head nodding when I read Ben's post earlier, although I thought the letter was a Pi. Eta makes sense. I took 20 semester hours of Koine Greek in college but it's all been squandered due to 25 years of disuse. That doesn't stop me from bringing the full force of my pitiful personal expertise of the subject to bear on this. When I looked at the photo I saw a dative proper noun (Xphston), not a genetive (Xrhstou). I can't remember how this might alter the interpretation, but I'm thinking the genetive version would imply authority, "Through authority of Chrestus the magician" as opposed to "Made by Chrestus the magician". Scholars will no doubt be able to correct me on this easily. Either way I think it's irresponsible to claim that the inscription references the greek work "Xristos" when that ETA is squatting right in the middle of the word as obvious as the proverbial turd in the punchbowl. I can't help thinking this was done on purpose to increase the value of the artifact.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.