And I must say it’s brilliant! Go check out Darrell Pursiful’s round-up of March Madness (and it has been quite mad).
(Updates at the bottom)
The Biblioblog-o-sphere is run amok with talk over the lead tablets recently publicized by sensational media. (There is also a Wiki page here, though it has not been updated to include today’s new updates, particularly the note from Margaret Barker about her misquotes by the Media) Unfortunately the reports so far have been pretty terrible. Aside from being generally confusing, vague, and full of false claims (which we shall see below), we have a few people standing tall behind these tablets who, probably, ought to sit down and let the experts handle them. In this post I wish to address the subject as a whole while engaging with many of the already brilliant posts made by those throughout the Biblioblogging community and also offer some additional thoughts which seem to have been overlooked by many in their analyses. But first, let’s discuss the main players behind the “discovery”.
David Elkington, though I do not know him personally, seems to me a bit dubious in character (doctorate in what, exactly?). Perhaps I’m the last person to suggest that an uncredentialed individual can’t bring something useful to the academic table, and I would be a hypocrite if I did. So don’t get me wrong, that is not my argument. However his situation is much different than mine. First, he is labeled as an scholar, expert, and archeologist who has, himself, been portrayed as someone who deciphered the script (“but experts like David have deciphered images, symbols and a few words.. .”) rather than the actual scholars and experts who were sent unclear, foggy pictures of the tablets and of the script. And none of them are saying much, other than expressing extreme caution and care in how we frame these tablets which is the appropriate measure everyone should be taking.
Second, his background is in art, not history. He calls himself an Egyptologist…what? Then someone posted a comment up over at Unsettled Christianity (Joel Watt’s blog) about David Elkington, calling him ‘Paul’ (apparently his real name) and saying he is a “conman” and “needs medical attention.” I do not know if this is true, since I’ve never met him (and to be frank, I have no desire to meet anyone with an association with the likes of Andrew Collins or Colin Andrews), but I will say that, upon some investigating, I did find that David Elkington and Paul Elkington are one in the same:
Name: (Paul) David Elkington
Email: (Email Removed)
Dates: 1980 – 1983
Date: 17 May, 2004
BAA was a real inspiration and I’d love to get back in touch with some of the guys I knew there. It was a whole experience that successfully broke my conformist conditioning, even to the degree of finding myself on a lone streak through Corsham town at dead of night!
I’m now a writer/egyptologist and have a few books out at the moment, but studying at Corsham was a great foundation, even though I didn’t finish the course and left somewhat under a cloud which was later identified as ill-health, now cleared, thank goodness. After leaving I had various jobs in film and TV until I got the ‘egypt’ bug and pursued a new career in the field of ancient history and linguistics. I occasionally saw some of the guys in the years immediately after leaving, but I left the country for a couple of years and I’ve seen no one since returning. I particularly remember my room mate at Church Street, Paul Bridger who was a painter. Paul was best man at my wedding in 1986 – I’d love to get back in touch with him again. We had some extraordinary adventures, but who at Corsham didn’t? (Alas, the marriage didn’t last!) I also remember Cathy Humpries and Sheran Hemmings, also painters, John Woodhouse – a year above me in graphics and Mike Smith from the Corsham DIY shop. Can anybody tell me what happened to Bob Craven lately of ‘The Pack Horse’? I can remember having a temporary job back in 1987 as a gardener. One night there was a call for a gardening team to go to the old Beechfield site and ‘tidy things up’. I wish that I had never gone – it was like the opening to Waugh’s Brideshead Revisited: mournful and sad now that it was empty of all presence, an echo of the past. Memory flooded into my skull – it was very upsetting, one really grew very fond of the place! I remember my room mates in my first year, Karen Kinton, ceramics and Anthony Parker, Graphics, from Nottingham. Whatever happened to Kate Luck, our Art History tutor? And Robin Whalley? And Julia Garrett? Tutors all.
I fell in love at Corsham and the feeling of it has never left me, I often raid the memory of it all for ideas in my writing and I am sure that some people out there will recognise themselves as characters in certain of my forthcoming books. Long live Corsham, it was a great privilege and it was a joy.
So to some extent, the poster was correct. Granted, we must be careful when it comes to anonymous posters since they have intentions of their own, and one can never be certain of that agenda.
Now the other individual, Robert Feather (whom Rogueclassicism rightly points out is metallurgist and not a scholar either), of so-called ‘Holy Lance‘ fame, who is championed in these reports is also portrayed as an expert. Bob Cargill called Feather out on Bible and Interpretation not too long ago:
Others, like author Robert Feather, have written several books touting the Copper Scroll’s connection to treasures from Egypt. The fact that most scholars have wholly dismissed claims by the Barfields, Golbs, and Feathers of the world has not stopped the latter from publishing books and raking in money from a public more than willing to entertain speculation and sensationalist claims over scholarly consensus and sound academic research.
While Feather might be a great metallurgist, he does not have a background in history (he writes technical manuals). So the fact that he and Elkington have bizarre, if not outright tragic, beliefs about the past (see Elkington’s odd beliefs here and here) which are more “New Age-y” than real scholarship leads me to automatically wonder on the authenticity of these tablets. In other words, we’re talking about dilettantes and I’m sure Jim West agrees.
Now, the only thing keeping my interest at all is the involvement of legitimate scholars (like Philip Davies and Margaret Barker) whom I respect; but while Philip has admitted to seeing only pictures and one tablet slab, he is urging caution until a more thorough investigation beyond his (seemingly) cursory involvement–and rightly so. He writes:
I have seen images and also seen one actual lead sheet. I have said nothing publicly yet, but privately I have said only that I think they are unlikely to be forgeries, but I did not use the word ‘genuine’ because it’s not clear what that would mean.
I do not know what these are are, or exactly how old. Like everyone else, I am waiting to see what further scientific tests show.
I am not so sure I agree with Margaret Barker’s assessment that these are evidence of Christian teachings as early as 33 CE, since that is rather specific for something that has not yet been dated and presented to the Academe.
But that is part of the problem, isn’t it? There are all these absurd claims being made by the media and it is impossible to know which is true and which is false; we already know Philip Davies was misquoted in one of the earlier press articles as saying the tablets were “genuine”, a statement rather unlike Philip to those of us who have the pleasure of knowing him. So what can really be gleaned from all of these sensational news articles?
As April DeConick pointed out, there is a lot of confusion here. An example she uses is the claim to the number of codices found–is it 70 or 20? But there are so many other discrepancies. When were these plates discovered? Was it 5 years ago or 2 years ago? Is the provenance known or were they found by a Bedouin and kept for years? Were they smuggled out of Jordan or were they there the whole time? And what’s up with the code?
That is something odd. Why is this script in odd forms and code? And why is there more than one type of script (paleoHebraic and Greek, some have said)? ”Coded script” has meant “spellbook” for many scholars studying magic and mysticism in antiquity, even for early Christians, particularly in the second and third centuries, which raises another problematic aspect of the date of composition given by Barker. Philip has said there is a “T” shaped cross which he felt was especially “Christian”. But the cross was not a Christian symbol until, at the earliest possible dating, the second century (Hershel Shanks, one of the individuals who got behind the James ossuary–also proved to be a forgery–actually is less forgiving about the date than I am, suggesting that the cross was not used until the fourth century); it would make no sense for the first Christians to have used the cross as a symbol only to abandon it and then bring it back two hundred years later. So are these Christian spellbooks from the second century?
And why is it made out of lead? Lead? Really? While some have pointed out the irregularity of lead tablets (April DeConick and David Meadows, as well as others), lead curse tablets are well known to classicists (see also Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from the Ancient World by John G. Gager for Christian examples from the second-sixth centuries; cf. Night’s Black Agents by Daniel Ogden, 138-145, and Magic, Witchcraft, and Ghosts in the Greek and Roman Worlds: A Sourcebook by Ogden, particularly Ch. 10, 210-226 for a great deal of translated tablets). Ogden remarks that often in tablets from Egypt and the Near East, even if written in Greek, Hebrew names and words were used, though garbled, as well as images (not unlike those found on other lead tablets). And these do not have to be curses in a negative sense, but binding spells and prayers have been found on lead slabs as well. This practice goes back 2400 years.
And what of this supposed talk of resurrections? I have not read anything from either Philip or Barker of ‘resurrection’ language. I have to wonder if, these are indeed curse or binding tablets, this language refers to the same sorts of language about the resurrected spirit (rather than a body) which is meant to read the tablets after they cross over. After all, we know from other lead curse tablets that the spells or prayers are meant to be enacted by those who have crossed over (i.e. ghosts or those from the underworld, or those in heaven or by angels or God, etc…) beyond life.
So is it possible these tablets are not necessarily ‘forged’ (though apparently it is possible that some scholars have already staked their career on them being forged–and Daniel O. McClellan has posted photos of the tablets from the emails which do indeed look to be faked) but are simply being hyped as something they aren’t (i.e. early Christian texts dating to the life of Jesus instead of being lead spellbooks or curse scrolls from late Antiquity)? I don’t know if either are the case here. Of course I can only speculate with everyone else since nothing of substance is known. Even if there are only 20 codices and all of them have several lead tablets in each, the press and those involved have only given the description of perhaps a handful. So for those who want answers directly, the news is pretty bleak–and bleaker still if there in fact 70 books, since that would greatly increase the amount of information we don’t have.
And of the information we do have, I don’t even think we can say with certainty these are Christian tablets–something I have been saying since the very beginning. Even with the inclusion of a “T’ symbol and certain messianic images, I’m certain that most scholars (not the rag-tag band of pseudoscholars discussed at the beginning of this article) recognize that these sorts of symbols predate Christianity and there are more sects of Jews from the second temple period than for what we have records (we know of at least 33 sects by name, but there were many, many more we don’t have names for and probably more we don’t even know about).
So it is quite possible that these are easily Jewish rather than Christian, and I’m not so sure that the verdict is easily drawn at all from the evidence. I highly doubt that the media has more information than the scholars and experts out there, so the seasonal (Easter is around the corner!) drive to promote Christian artifacts is quite strong, it seems, since the first claims made by BBC and others were that these were the “secret writings of the last years of Jesus”–yet Jesus is not even discussed in any of the press releases! And then there is the claim that these are indeed Christian documents and are probably the earliest yet found! Again, it’s rubbish. And unfortunately those most likely to fall prey to these sorts of bogus claims are those without any knowledge of the historical background and information–so everyday laypeople which make up most of the population.
And now on top of that you have the conspiracy of it all, so eloquently pointed out by David Meadows:
Of course, it wouldn’t be for a metallurgist dabbling in a field he seems to have no real credentials in, and once again we are presented with the ‘outsider taking on the establishment’, which the press seems to love so very much.
I met with British Archeologist David Elkington who heads the British research team investigating the find during early March 2010 and was sworn to secrecy about this discovery and the huge implications that could follow. There is still much more going on behind the scenes than has so far been disclosed. David and his wife, whom I also met had been given armed protection which was the result of both of them being shot at during this investigation and also receiving more death threats. Someone it seems does not want the information on these tablets released.
I must again restate that David/Paul is not an archaeologist. That aside, this is beyond dubious. I feel like this is all one big April Fools prank. When will Philip come out and say “Surprise, I got you!”
In conclusion, I will again stress caution and agree with Larry Hurtado and what he recommends: “Chill, dude. Take a breath.” But not only must we be cautious in our speculations and our excitement with this very odd, rather specious find that seems to reflect a tabloid newsreel rather than scholarship, but we must also be careful with our language. These are not Jesus scrolls, or messianic tablets, or anything really–they’re nothing but inscribed lead tablets until the whole of the Academe can examine and weigh in on them. They might be elaborate forgeries by two dilettantes or they might be legitimate finds but dated much later than what the dilettantes and newsreels are claiming.
The email from Peter Thonemann, posted over at Daniel O. McClellan’s blog is indeed authentic. This severely hurts the case for the tablets authenticity and makes Elkington look even more suspect.
Also Margaret Barker responds to my inquiry about her statements about the tablets here.
** UPDATE 4/4/11 **
I have posted a new roundup from the weekend, including picture-comparisons from where some of the images on the tablets might have come. I believe we can now say that the tablets we have been allowed to see are indeed fakes.
Filed under: Ancient Near East, Archaeology, Belief, Biblioblogging, Blog Memes, Classical History, Life, Minimalism, New Testament, Scholarship | Tagged: April DeConick, christianity, curse tablets, David Elkington, Dilettante, James McGrath, jesus, Jesus tablets, Jim West, Joel Watts, Jordan, Judaism, lead tablets, messianic tablets, Paul Elkington, pseudo-archaeology, pseudo-christianity, pseudo-scholarship, Robert Feather | 22 Comments »
In other news, water still wet.
SAN LUIS OBISPO, Calif. — A California woman facing nearly five years in prison for forging drug prescriptions showed up for sentencing with a phony doctor’s note seeking a delay in the proceedings.
Michelle Elaine Astumian was free on $45,000 bail and pleaded no contest in January to felony counts of forgery and using a fraudulent check.
The 41-year-old woman arrived Monday for sentencing in a San Luis Obispo County courtroom and presented a note with a doctor’s signature asking for a postponement.
Prosecutor Dave Pomeroy called the doctor, who said the note is a forgery.
The judge immediately ordered Astumian into custody and she collapsed to the floor. An ambulance took her to a hospital.
Pomeroy told the San Luis Obispo County Tribune that Astumian will be sentenced later, but he doesn’t know when.
Richard Carrier sets the facts straight for those of you who are under the false impression that Obama has done something illegal. In fact, this false claim can fall under the same claims that we hear all the time without any shred of reason or verisimilitude. Claims like ‘Obama is a practicing muslim’ or ‘Obama is like Hitler’ or any other radical, incredulous statement. Here is a snippet:
There has been much said of late (by both liberals andconservatives, even on the usually well-informed Daily Show) to the effect that Obama is a war criminal, because his aerial assault on Libya was unconstitutional and had no legal standing. Simply because he didn’t get congressional permission first. This keeps getting repeated, by members of congress no less (who of all people ought to know better), even though it’s obviously false to anyone actually aware of the law (much less its precedents: Reagan and Clinton both did exactly the same thing, multiple times, despite being icons of an “ideal president” for both the right and the left).
On the Libya attack being constitutional (and legal) and no different from actions even Reagan and Clinton took: if you doubt this, then read the sound and accurate analysis of the law by Erik Uliasz, “Is President Obama’s Attack on Gaddafi’s Forces In Libya Unconstitutional?,” which carries particular weight since Uliasz is morally opposed to Obama’s action and thus has every reason to sing the popular tune rather that admit, begrudgingly, that Obama obeyed the law, to the letter.
Definitely read on. Even if you’re morally opposed to what he has done. or war in general, or democrats in general, or politics overall (whichever), one has to admit that he has, in fact, done everything right, as far as the law goes. He should, after all he went to law school!
Good. Though I am a firm believer that such nuanced labels like ‘atheist’ should go away, it’s an unexpected and hopefully fruitful turn for everyone involved. I suppose the Vatican could learn to use a little more doubt, and I’m sure that certain atheist organizations could learn something from the Vatican. (Queue the dozens of ignorant and hateful comments about the destruction and devastation the church has caused, while conveniently ignoring the good it has done)
VATICAN CITY (RNS) A new Vatican initiative to promote dialogue between believers and atheists debuted with a two-day event on Thursday and Friday (March 24-25) in Paris.
“Religion, Light and Common Reason” was the theme of seminars sponsored by the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Culture at various locations in the French capital, including Paris-Sorbonne University and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
“The church does not see itself as an island cut off from the world … Dialogue is thus a question of principle for her,” Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi told the French newspaper La Croix. “We are aware that the great challenge is not atheism but indifference, which is much more dangerous.”
The events were scheduled to conclude with a party for youth in the courtyard of the Cathedral of Notre Dame on Friday evening (March 25), featuring an appearance via video by Pope Benedict XVI, followed by prayer and meditation inside the cathedral.
The initiative, called “Courtyard of the Gentiles,” takes its name from a section of the ancient Temple of Jerusalem accessible to non-Jews, which Benedict has used as a metaphor for dialogue between Catholics and non-believers.
There is an interesting article in the Huffington Post about a legislation the House is attempting to pass through:
The agenda for the House of Representatives contains a bill, recently reported out of the Judiciary Committee, that asks our elected officials to reaffirm “In God We Trust” as our national motto. News reports indicate the bill’s supporters appear particularly keen on having public school classrooms display the motto, so that children can spend their days gazing upon it.
Granted, “In God We Trust” has a long public record, dating back to 1864, when the government first started engraving it on our coinage. It became the national motto when Congress voted it as such in 1956. Think those two years might have shared anything? In each case, the nation perceived itself in a life-or-death struggle — the Civil War in the first instance, the Cold War in the second. And given that the principal enemy the second time around was the Soviet Union, the idea of adopting “In God We Trust” as our national motto must have seemed a pretty clear way to distinguish Americans from the godless Commies in Moscow.
The God whose name shows up on our currency and is at the heart of the proposed legislation is, I’m inclined to believe, a national deity, considered by Americans as our special guardian. In other words, this is not the biblical God, but a deity invoked by politicians who close their speeches with a ritual plea, “God Bless America.” I hear that as a prayer — and sometimes it sounds foreshortened, with the longer version being, “America’s God, Bless America.”
Forty-four years ago, the eminent sociologist Robert Bellah wrote a wonderfully perceptive and influential essay about Americans’ “civil religion,” which he identified as a set of beliefs and rituals that draw some inspiration from Christianity and Judaism, but which exist separately from them. This faith includes a God invoked on public ceremonial occasions, has its own roster of martyrs (heroes fallen, defending the nation) and celebrates its own holidays (especially, Memorial Day).
But there’s another way to look at “In God We Trust,” and it’s one that ought to be of real concern to religionists.
Twice in the last three decades, the Supreme Court has specifically identified that phrase as being void of substantive sacred meaning. The justices describe the phrase as “ceremonial deism.” The late Justice William Brennan wrote that the motto falls into a category of public expression that has “lost through rote repetition any significant religious content.”
If you are a believing monotheist, is that how you want God’s name treated?
Read on. It seems odd that Congress is attempting to do this now. After all, why didn’t our founding fathers incorporate this language into the constitution, into the Bill of Rights? Why wasn’t this made our official motto in 1782, rather than now in 2011?
Legislators who wish to change the motto of this nation seem more like a board of directors who, despite the urging of the founder of the company, think their selfish means are more important than those they step on–even if it goes against everything the founder had intended for his dream. That dream here, folks, is the American dream so laid out in our proper (original) motto:
E pluribus unum: Out of many, one.
This new legislation turns that on its head. It dissolves all individuality, all uniqueness, and says, in effect, that everyone in this country falls under “God” and this, rather than education, rather than family, rather than science, is where we place our trust. I for one think that is far too shortsighted and no nation which claims to be just and free should incorporate such language, with such implications, into any manner of government and national legislation.
Gustav Niebuhr spells out the problem effectually in his short article:
Of warring Northerners and Southerners, Lincoln said, “Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other … The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes.”
The last six words are a powerful theological statement. Congressional supporters of the motto might do well to meditate on them before pushing their bill any further.
Nobody is saying ‘don’t believe in God’ (I’m certainly not). And nobody is saying that you shouldn’t put some of your trust in that God, if that is what you believe. But don’t tell me I have to, or that I do, or that anyone else should or does. Then you trample on my rights in my country. I am one of many. Let’s keep it that way, lest you–those supporters of this bill–become akin to me, so slanderously stratified into the lot with everyone else, against my own will, oppressed in fact to put my trust in something that I can not even define.
This is old hat as far as scholars go, but I’m glad it is getting wider distribution. TIME posted the follow article (snippet version):
Some scholars say early versions of the Bible featured Asherah, a powerful fertility goddess who may have been God’s wife.
Research by Francesca Stavrakopoulou, a senior lecturer in the department of Theology and Religion at the University of Exeter, unearthed clues to her identity, but good luck finding mention of her in the Bible. If Stavrakopoulou is right, heavy-handed male editors of the text all but removed her from the sacred book.
What remains of God’s purported other half are clues in ancient texts, amulets and figurines unearthed primarily in an ancient Canaanite coastal city, now in modern-day Syria. Inscriptions on pottery found in the Sinai desert also show Yahweh and Asherah were worshipped as a pair, and a passage in the Book of Kings mentions the goddess as being housed in the temple of Yahweh.
J. Edward Wright, president of The Arizona Center for Judaic Studies and The Albright Institute for Archaeological Research, backs Stavrakopoulou’s findings, saying several Hebrew inscriptions mention “Yahweh and his Asherah.” He adds Asherah was not entirely edited out of the Bible by its male editors.
Read on for the full article. There are some problematic things with article (for one, the ‘Bible’ did not yet exist at the time when Asherah would have (a) been included in the books referenced and (b) when the redactors would have removed her, so the title is misleading). Overall it is a decent public expression of the facts, and a lot of it is acceptable. But while TIME is just posting this now, the concept behind this article had been expressed years ago, perhaps best noted by “maximalist” William Dever (we minimalists sometimes give Bill a free pass) in *gasp* BAR (I know, sacrilege!) in 2008:
The small house shrine published here for the first time provides significant support for the contention that the Israelite God, Yahweh, did indeed have a consort. At least this was true in the minds of many ordinary ancient Israelites, in contrast to the priestly elite.1 In what I call folk religion, or “popular religion,” Yahweh’s consort is best identified as “Asherah,” the old Canaanite mother goddess.2
Some of the most powerful evidence for this contention is in the Bible itself. The fact that the Bible condemns the cult of Asherah (and other “pagan” deities) demonstrates that such cults existed and were perceived as a threat to Israelite monotheism. Based on the Biblical texts alone, we can conclude that many ancient Israelites, perhaps even the majority, worshiped Asherah, Astarte, the “Queen of Heaven” and perhaps other female deities. Their sanctuaries (ba¯môt, or “high places”), we are told, were “on every hill and under every green tree.” (The phrase recurs numerous times in Kings and the Prophets.)
Some of the clearest physical evidence for the existence of a cult of Asherah is the growing collection of small house shrines. The technical name is naos (plural, naoi), a Greek word that means “temple” or “inner sanctum.”
And the great scholar, the late G. W. Ahlström, in his book The History of Ancient Palestine (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1994) discusses the subject to some degree and earlier still, in 1963, in his book Aspects of Syncretism in Israelite Religion (C.W.K. Gleerup).
Also Mark S. Smith deals with this subject extensively in his many works on the origins of Biblical monotheism (The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002], The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts [Oxford: OUP, 2003], God in Translation: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010]) and the contextual “religious” aspects of the ancient world.
Of course this list isn’t comprehensive, but it does express a very large gap in time between what scholarship discusses and when the public learns about it. This is a problem that hopefully the internet will continue to solve, though for those interested, above are reliable resources for the study of the subject matter.
Filed under: Ancient Israel, Ancient Near East, Archaeology, Belief, Hebrew Bible, Minimalism, Scholarship | Tagged: Asherah, Bible, Gosta Ahlström, israel, Mark S. Smith, monotheism, polytheism, William Dever, Yahweh | Leave a Comment »
This coincides with the continuing discussion on this blog here and here. I now have to accept that, if the provenance is correct and the books are indeed not forgeries, and if they can be dated to the period in which the press release claims, these are probably early Jewish-Christian in origin. However the implications cannot be known until more investigations can be done and, moreso, a study is published with the full findings.
Philip did respond to my inquiry earlier this morning with a similar statement, but I shall repost Jim’s since he appears to have permission from Philip (I didn’t ask and feel it irrelevant now to do so).
This is precisely what I had expected of his response, however. It is in line with what the appropriate academic response should be–one of caution, of curiosity, rather than one of carefree assumptions that the title of the article would imply. I especially like that Philip has clarified the difference between “doesn’t appear to be a forgery” and “genuine” as there are different implications to both statements, and he is right to show the distinction.
We shall watch this story closely to determine what precisely can be said and what shouldn’t be said of these artifacts and whether they can have any bearing on the origins of Christianity or on Jesus specifically (which, at this point, seems doubtful).
I shall also be keeping an watchful eye out for the misuse of this information, since such things abound on the interwebs. Which internet/televangelical apologist will jump on these first, I wonder?
I also think we should be cautious with the terminology as well. Should we really be calling these ‘Jesus slabs’ or ‘Jesus Scrolls’? Do we have any information these are related to Christianity at all? I haven’t read any study saying anything like that (just the article where the nonexpert sensationalized what appear to be eschatological beliefs of the scroll author). Perhaps we might best be suited to call them ‘Messianic plates’ or something quite similar, which best reflect the data we have now, until we can determine the full extent of the translation of the ‘script’?