The BBC reports that recently found codices are "the major discovery of Christian history" - But, is this a story that's far too good to be true?

Various reports have circulated in the past two days, concerning the discovery of about 70 ancient books, supposedly Christian, and dating from the middle of the 1st century. Apparently, these lead and copper sealed texts, otherwise known as codices, were actually found around 4 years ago, by a Jordanian Bedouin. According to the Jordanian government, this man turned smuggler and sold the codices to a Galilean farmer, called Hassan Saeda. Whilst the Jordanian authorities are desperate to reclaim the books, a team of British archaeologists, led by David Elkington (an Egyptologist), is convinced that the find is "the major discovery of Christian history".

The BBC's report on this story, by Robert Pigott, seems quite sensationalist. Pigott begins his piece by suggesting that the codices "could be the earliest Christian writing in existence, surviving almost 2,000 years in a Jordanian cave." He goes on to add that, "They could, just possibly, change our understanding of how Jesus was crucified and resurrected, and how Christianity was born." What he fails to consider, though, is that these books could be forgeries - for, as pointed out in yesterday's Telegraph, Israeli archaeologists have repeatedly said that Hassan Saeda appears "every few years", attempting to sell the codices. According to the Israelis, and other leading scholars, previous examinations have shown the books to be forgeries.

The BBC seems to take the view that "little is known of the [Christian] movement after Jesus' crucifixion until the letters of Paul several decades later", so these codices might prove to be some missing link to the earliest history of the Church. But, contrary to what Robert Pigott suggests, the history of the early Church is quite well documented, especially in comparison with other ancient religious movements. Paul didn't write his letters "several" decades later - he was writing between 20 and 30 years after Christ's Resurrection. The Apostle himself had been around since the very beginning, and his letters were to Churches that had been founded by him many years before. Also, although the Acts and the Gospels were written later, between about 65 - 100 AD, they rely on much earlier sources (from Mark, oral traditions and other texts). Luke's account of the early Church in Acts is partly an eye-witness account, whilst much of his book, which follows on from his Gospel, relied on the evidence of the earliest apostles and Christian missionaries.

The Telegraph reports that Hassan Saeda is adamant that the codices have been in his family for four generations, since his great-grandfather discovered them. Israeli archaeologists and other leading scholars from around the world attest to this, pointing out that this is not the first time that these books have been revealed to the world. The BBC, though, tends to lend credence to David Elkington and the Jordanian government - both of which want to get their hands on the codices before Saeda might sell them on the black market, or they get destroyed. Of course, now that both the Jordanians and the British archaeologists have caused this fuss over the books, their price will have rocketed - which is good news for Hassan Saeda!

The BBC also quotes Philip Davies, Emeritus Professor of Old Testament Studies at Sheffield University, who claims that the images, especially the map of Jerusalem, found in some of the books prove their Christian origins. According to Professor Davies the map shows "...a cross in the foreground, and behind it is what has to be the tomb [of Jesus], a small building with an opening, and behind that the walls of the city. There are walls depicted on other pages of these books too and they almost certainly refer to Jerusalem." He then goes on to say that the T-shaped cross in the image, "...is a Christian crucifixion taking place outside the city walls". Does this mean that Philip Davies is suggesting that a Christian is being crucified, or that Christians are crucifying someone else? One assumes, though, that he means that this image is one of Christ's crucifixion. If this is the case, then scholars of early Christian art would surely beg to differ - as there are no known early artistic portrayals of the Crucifixion, with the first being on a Roman sarcophagus from the Catacomb of Domitilla (mid-fourth century). Also, one wonders whether Jewish Christians, who possibly fled to the Jordanian desert around the time of the Destruction of the Temple, would have dared create such a sacred image so early on in the Church's history?

Both the BBC and the Telegraph report that there are some links between the codices and the Book of Revelation - though fail to mention what these links might be, except that, according to Pigott, "The Book of Revelation refers to such sealed texts". In other words, the BBC seems to be suggesting that the codices appear to conform to the image of a sealed book as described in Revelation. Pigott quotes Margaret Barker, an authority on the New Testament, who says that "The Christians were particularly associated with writing in a book form rather than scroll form, and sealed books in particular as part of the secret tradition of early Christianity." But, I remember viewing the St John Fragment at the John Rylands Library a few years ago. This tiny piece of papyrus containing John 18:31-33; 37-38 dates from around 120 AD, and isn't part of a copper or lead book. One also wonders why Margaret Barker believes that copper books would prove more secretive than a papyrus scroll? Of course, Barker says that Christians had to be secretive, meaning that they had to be careful because of the persecutions they suffered - the implication in the BBC's report, though, is that Christianity was some secretive mystery cult.

It also seems that, according to Adrian Bloomfield in the Telegraph, "the sealed texts... have already become the subject of intrigue worthy of an Indiana Jones plot line." Apparently, there have been death threats against the British archaeologists - which, is one of the "stories of subterfuge [that] abound". Needless to say, all this intrigue adds to the excitement - but isn't it all a bit over the top?

Readers might have noticed that I am a bit sceptical about this alleged find. Having said that, I hope that these books do turn out to be 1st century eye-witness accounts of the earliest years of Christianity. They would do no harm, and it would be fascinating to know what they reveal about the Jewish Christian community - for they seem to be mainly written in Hebrew and, from what I've read, abound with Jewish references. Who knows, they might be books that belonged to the "Judaisers" who had infiltrated parts of the early Church - such as in Galatia (cf Paul's letter to the Galatians, dated sometime between 48 - 55 AD)?

My scepticism, though, arises from the fact that the story seems to be typical of the type of thing that appears - especially on the BBC - just before Easter. Robert Pigott's tone seemed to imply that the codices would somehow undermine the Christian faith, whilst only referring to Christ's resurrection once and his death several times. Of course, I don't expect the BBC to preach the Christian message, but other programmes (such as last night's rather eccentric The Bible's Buried Secrets) constantly refer to "Mohammed's ascent to Heaven" as if this was undoubted truth!

Time will tell whether or not these codices are early Christian books, but I fear this might just be one of those stories that is just too good to be true!

Link:

For the best images of the books, please see the Daily Mail.