Earliest Reference to Jesus... as Magician?

Franck Goddio and team recently announced the discovery of an inscribed bowl that may be the earliest known reference to Christ. Found during their underwater exploration of the Eastern Harbor of Alexandria, the inscription on the bowl reads “by Christ the magician” or something like that (Gk. Transliterated CHRSTOU O GOISTAIS), according to Goddio and Egyptologist David Fabre. They have dated the bowl between the late 2nd century BC and the early 1st century AD. The report suggested that this discovery could “provide evidence that Christianity and paganism at times intertwined in the ancient world.” Gushed Goddio, “It could very well be a reference to Jesus Christ… the primary exponent of white magic.”

Sorry to rain on the parade guys, but Franck and crew have got this one all wrong. First off, there is plenty of evidence without this inscription to show that Christianity and paganism were sometimes mingled together… it’s called Gnosticism (post-Christian varieties vs. pre-Christian). Look it up, y’all might learn something. Second, there is a slight problem here with the REAL STORY… if this is indeed the earliest reference to Jesus Christ, dating to more than a century before he was born (late 2nd century BC), then this is direct proof of prophecy man! LOL Finally, Goddio’s statement about Jesus the “white magician” is laughable, to say the least. ALL of the New Testament references to sorcerers, sorcery and sorceries (Gk. magos, mageuo and mageia) are negative in connotation, associated with false-prophecy, deceit, fraud and unbelief! Cf. Acts 8:9 ff and 13:6 ff. Indeed, neither the word magos nor any of its derivatives is EVER applied to Jesus and/or his miracles, signs and wonders. And these are the earliest established textual sources that historians have available to them! It is only in secondary, hostile literature that Jesus is ever referred to as a sorcerer, perhaps, for example, in the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a).

Simply put, the suggestion that this inscription refers to Jesus of Nazareth is absurd, better suited for pseudo-scholarly documentaries than for real scholarship. This inscription does not refer to Jesus of Nazareth at all, as hinted at by the Greek scholars quoted later in the article, but rather to some other unidentified individual from antiquity.