                               
July 6, 2008
Ancient Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection
JERUSALEM — A three-foot-tall tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew that
scholars believe dates from the decades just before the birth of Jesus
is causing a quiet stir in biblical and archaeological circles,
especially because it may speak of a messiah who will rise from the dead
after three days.
If such a messianic description really is there, it will contribute to a
developing re-evaluation of both popular and scholarly views of Jesus,
since it suggests that the story of his death and resurrection was not
unique but part of a recognized Jewish tradition at the time.
The tablet, probably found near the Dead Sea in Jordan according to some
scholars who have studied it, is a rare example of a stone with ink
writings from that era — in essence, a Dead Sea Scroll on stone.
It is written, not engraved, across two neat columns, similar to columns
in a Torah. But the stone is broken, and some of the text is faded,
meaning that much of what it says is open to debate.
Still, its authenticity has so far faced no challenge, so its role in
helping to understand the roots of Christianity in the devastating
political crisis faced by the Jews of the time seems likely to increase.
Daniel Boyarin, a professor of Talmudic culture at the University of
California at Berkeley, said that the stone was part of a growing body
of evidence suggesting that Jesus could be best understood through a
close reading of the Jewish history of his day.
“Some Christians will find it shocking — a challenge to the uniqueness
of their theology — while others will be comforted by the idea of it
being a traditional part of Judaism,” Mr. Boyarin said.
Given the highly charged atmosphere surrounding all Jesus-era artifacts
and writings, both in the general public and in the fractured and
fiercely competitive scholarly community, as well as the concern over
forgery and charlatanism, it will probably be some time before the
tablet’s contribution is fully assessed. It has been around 60 years
since the Dead Sea Scrolls were uncovered, and they continue to generate
enormous controversy regarding their authors and meaning.
The scrolls, documents found in the Qumran caves of the West Bank,
contain some of the only known surviving copies of biblical writings
from before the first century A.D. In addition to quoting from key books
of the Bible, the scrolls describe a variety of practices and beliefs of
a Jewish sect at the time of Jesus.
How representative the descriptions are and what they tell us about the
era are still strongly debated. For example, a question that arises is
whether the authors of the scrolls were members of a monastic sect or in
fact mainstream. A conference marking 60 years since the discovery of
the scrolls will begin on Sunday at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem,
where the stone, and the debate over whether it speaks of a resurrected
messiah, as one iconoclastic scholar believes, also will be discussed.
Oddly, the stone is not really a new discovery. It was found about a
decade ago and bought from a Jordanian antiquities dealer by an
Israeli-Swiss collector who kept it in his Zurich home. When an Israeli
scholar examined it closely a few years ago and wrote a paper on it last
year, interest began to rise. There is now a spate of scholarly articles
on the stone, with several due to be published in the coming months.
“I couldn’t make much out of it when I got it,” said David Jeselsohn,
the owner, who is himself an expert in antiquities. “I didn’t realize
how significant it was until I showed it to Ada Yardeni, who specializes
in Hebrew writing, a few years ago. She was overwhelmed. ‘You have got a
Dead Sea Scroll on stone,’ she told me.”
Much of the text, a vision of the apocalypse transmitted by the angel
Gabriel, draws on the Old Testament, especially the prophets Daniel,
Zechariah and Haggai.
Ms. Yardeni, who analyzed the stone along with Binyamin Elitzur, is an
expert on Hebrew script, especially of the era of King Herod, who died
in 4 B.C. The two of them published a long analysis of the stone more
than a year ago in Cathedra, a Hebrew-language quarterly devoted to the
history and archaeology of Israel, and said that, based on the shape of
the script and the language, the text dated from the late first century
B.C.
A chemical examination by Yuval Goren, a professor of archaeology at Tel
Aviv University who specializes in the verification of ancient
artifacts, has been submitted to a peer-review journal. He declined to
give details of his analysis until publication, but he said that he knew
of no reason to doubt the stone’s authenticity.
It was in Cathedra that Israel Knohl, an iconoclastic professor of Bible
studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, first heard of the stone,
which Ms. Yardeni and Mr. Elitzur dubbed “Gabriel’s Revelation,” also
the title of their article. Mr. Knohl posited in a book published in
2000 the idea of a suffering messiah before Jesus, using a variety of
rabbinic and early apocalyptic literature as well as the Dead Sea
Scrolls. But his theory did not shake the world of Christology as he had
hoped, partly because he had no textual evidence from before Jesus.
When he read “Gabriel’s Revelation,” he said, he believed he saw what he
needed to solidify his thesis, and he has published his argument in the
latest issue of The Journal of Religion.
Mr. Knohl is part of a larger scholarly movement that focuses on the
political atmosphere in Jesus’ day as an important explanation of that
era’s messianic spirit. As he notes, after the death of Herod, Jewish
rebels sought to throw off the yoke of the Rome-supported monarchy, so
the rise of a major Jewish independence fighter could take on messianic
overtones.
In Mr. Knohl’s interpretation, the specific messianic figure embodied on
the stone could be a man named Simon who was slain by a commander in the
Herodian army, according to the first-century historian Josephus. The
writers of the stone’s passages were probably Simon’s followers, Mr.
Knohl contends.
The slaying of Simon, or any case of the suffering messiah, is seen as a
necessary step toward national salvation, he says, pointing to lines 19
through 21 of the tablet — “In three days you will know that evil will
be defeated by justice” — and other lines that speak of blood and
slaughter as pathways to justice.
To make his case about the importance of the stone, Mr. Knohl focuses
especially on line 80, which begins clearly with the words “L’shloshet
yamin,” meaning “in three days.” The next word of the line was deemed
partially illegible by Ms. Yardeni and Mr. Elitzur, but Mr. Knohl, who
is an expert on the language of the Bible and Talmud, says the word is “hayeh,”
or “live” in the imperative. It has an unusual spelling, but it is one
in keeping with the era.
Two more hard-to-read words come later, and Mr. Knohl said he believed
that he had deciphered them as well, so that the line reads, “In three
days you shall live, I, Gabriel, command you.”
To whom is the archangel speaking? The next line says “Sar hasarin,” or
prince of princes. Since the Book of Daniel, one of the primary sources
for the Gabriel text, speaks of Gabriel and of “a prince of princes,”
Mr. Knohl contends that the stone’s writings are about the death of a
leader of the Jews who will be resurrected in three days.
He says further that such a suffering messiah is very different from the
traditional Jewish image of the messiah as a triumphal, powerful
descendant of King David.
“This should shake our basic view of Christianity,” he said as he sat in
his office of the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem where he is a
senior fellow in addition to being the Yehezkel Kaufman Professor of
Biblical Studies at Hebrew University. “Resurrection after three days
becomes a motif developed before Jesus, which runs contrary to nearly
all scholarship. What happens in the New Testament was adopted by Jesus
and his followers based on an earlier messiah story.”
Ms. Yardeni said she was impressed with the reading and considered it
indeed likely that the key illegible word was “hayeh,” or “live.”
Whether that means Simon is the messiah under discussion, she is less
sure.
Moshe Bar-Asher, president of the Israeli Academy of Hebrew Language and
emeritus professor of Hebrew and Aramaic at the Hebrew University, said
he spent a long time studying the text and considered it authentic,
dating from no later than the first century B.C. His 25-page paper on
the stone will be published in the coming months.
Regarding Mr. Knohl’s thesis, Mr. Bar-Asher is also respectful but
cautious. “There is one problem,” he said. “In crucial places of the
text there is lack of text. I understand Knohl’s tendency to find there
keys to the pre-Christian period, but in two to three crucial lines of
text there are a lot of missing words.”
Moshe Idel, a professor of Jewish thought at Hebrew University, said
that given the way every tiny fragment from that era yielded scores of
articles and books, “Gabriel’s Revelation” and Mr. Knohl’s analysis
deserved serious attention. “Here we have a real stone with a real
text,” he said. “This is truly significant.”
Mr. Knohl said that it was less important whether Simon was the messiah
of the stone than the fact that it strongly suggested that a savior who
died and rose after three days was an established concept at the time of
Jesus. He notes that in the Gospels, Jesus makes numerous predictions of
his suffering and New Testament scholars say such predictions must have
been written in by later followers because there was no such idea
present in his day.
But there was, he said, and “Gabriel’s Revelation” shows it.
“His mission is that he has to be put to death by the Romans to suffer
so his blood will be the sign for redemption to come,” Mr. Knohl said.
“This is the sign of the son of Joseph. This is the conscious view of
Jesus himself. This gives the Last Supper an absolutely different
meaning. To shed blood is not for the sins of people but to bring
redemption to Israel.” Tablet
Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection By ETHAN BRONNER JERUSALEM —
A three-foot-tall tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew that scholars believe
dates from the decades just before the birth of Jesus is causing a quiet
stir in biblical and archaeological circles, especially because it may
speak of a messiah who will rise from the dead after three days. If such
a messianic description really is there, it will contribute to a
developing re-evaluation of both popular and scholarly views of
Jesus...“This is the sign of the son of Joseph. This is the conscious
view of Jesus himself. This gives the Last Supper an absolutely
different meaning. To shed blood is not for the sins of people but to
bring redemption to Israel.” Morons
immediately reject any idea of supernatural prophecy. Sorry, guys, you
genuises don’t get to define the faith. If there is a pre-Christ mention
of his resurrection, then praise God that He was cluing people in as to
what would happen! Amazing how none of these followers seemed to realize
that motif during his lifetime though.
"If such a messianic description really is there, it will contribute to
a developing re-evaluation of both popular and scholarly views of
Jesus."
Haven't they ever read the bible? Every year or so these anti- Christ
try come up with something to skew the word of God. And they always
fail.
Subsequent study has revealed that
the writing is actually Gao'uld...
I don’t see anybody grinding any axes. You guys shouldn’t be so kneejerk.
That being said, this seems out of place and completely unexplained.
“This is the sign of the son of Joseph. This is the conscious view of
Jesus himself. This gives the Last Supper an absolutely different
meaning. To shed blood is not for the sins of people but to bring
redemption to Israel.”
How does eating the bread and the wine bring redemption to Israel?
There were a whole lot of traditions that the messiah would suffer and
even die. Christianity did not arise out of
a vacuum. It arose out of Jewish tradition. There were even traditions
that the messiah should be at least the expression of an attribute of
God. (Philo, among others)
So there is nothing new in the idea that a messiah would suffer and die
and then return after three days. (Think of the afikoman.) Christianity
began as a Jewish sect, and the reason it was not stillborn is because
it was in line with Jewish thinking at the time.
I take quite seriously the
authenticity of this stone, since Ada Yardeni has weighed in on it, and
found it genuine. So let us suppose it is genuine-- let's ask the
question, So what?
If you read the article you will discover that one eclectic Jewish
scholar is now suggesting that the Christians got the idea from this
stone or its source, and then predicated the idea of Jesus. It would be
just as simple to argue that Jesus knew of this idea, and predicated of
himself. What this stone then would show is that there was in early
Judaism some concept of a suffering messiah whom God might vindicate by
resurrection before the time of Jesus.
This is not entirely surprising in view of Isaiah 53 in any case. But
the real implication of this for Jesus' studies should not be missed.
Most radical Jesus scholars have argued that the passion and
resurrection predictions by Jesus found in the Gospels were not actually
made by Jesus-- they reflect the later notions and theologizing of the
Evangelists.
But now, if this stone is genuine there is no reason to argue this way.
One can show that Jesus, just as well as the author of this stone, could
have spoken about a dying and rising messiah. There is in any case a
reference to a messiah who dies in the late first century A.D. document
called 4 Ezra.
Long story short-- this stone certainly does not demonstrate that the
Gospel passion stories are created on the basis of this stone text,
which appears to be a Dead Sea text. For one thing the text is hard to
read at crucial junctures, and it is not absolutely clear it is talking
about a risen messiah. BUT what it does do is make plausible that Jesus
could have said some of the things credited to him in Mk. 8.31, 9,31,
and 10.33-34. I will have more to say about the relevance of early
Jewish material for the study of the historical Jesus shortly, in a
lengthy review of David Flusser's final and interesting Jesus book The
Sage from Galilee. Christianity
began as a Jewish sect, and the reason it was not stillborn is because
it was in line with Jewish thinking at the time.
True - and the leader that took the reigns after the Crucification was
also from the lineal House of David, James the Just - blood brother of
Jesus. He was also a High Priest - and killed by the priesthood in 62
AD.
It was Paul, who never met Jesus nor was taught by Him, that anointed
himself an apostle and preached for many years before ever deigning to
go the Jerusalem to meet with James the Just and Peter and John.
It was Paul that, basically, preached to the non-Jews - and changed many
things that the early Christians held to.
Jesus didn't come to start a new religion, but the set aright the things
that had been corrupted...
Matthew 5:17
"17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am
not come to destroy, but to fulfil."
OK, I think I understand this
guy's theory.
1) There was a legend about a Jewish leader that was raised from the
dead after three days.
2) The followers of a Jewish revolutionary named Simon were responsible
for the legend, and wrote it on the tablet in order to convince their
fellow revolutionists that Simon was the Messiah.
3) The legend of a Jewish leader rising after three days became
prominent around the time of Jesus.
4) The fact that the legend was really supposed to be about Simon became
lost around the time of Jesus.
5) Somehow, by piecing together a faded script of an incomplete document
that may refer to someone rising from the dead in three days, or may
not, the fact that this was about Simon rising from the dead et al
become apparent to this particular scholar--apparently being infinitely
smarter then those who were alive around the time who were oblivious to
this fact!
6) The fact that ten people who spent three years with Jesus testified
that they were eye witnesses miracles he performed and his resurrection,
and the fact they were willing to be persecuted and suffer death rather
then deny what they claimed to have witnessed, is not very good
evidence.
7) The supposition of 1-5 is good evidence that will shake the testimony
of 6.
Nice try guy...not really...actually pretty pathetic.
The prophesies of a Messiah are
pretty abundant in the OT. This stone, if proven valid, makes a lot of
sense, and just adds to the many already accepted references to the
Lord.
Gen. 49: 10 sceptre . . . until Shiloh come.
Gen. 49: 24 from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel.
Num. 24: 17 there shall come a Star out of Jacob.
Deut. 18: 15 raise up unto thee a Prophet.
Ps. 2: 7 (Ps. 2: 12) Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten thee.
Ps. 22: 1 my God, why hast thou forsaken me.
Ps. 22: 16 they pierced my hands and my feet.
Ps. 24: 10 Who is this King of glory.
Ps. 34: 20 He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.
Ps. 68: 18 thou hast led captivity captive.
Ps. 69: 9 zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.
Ps. 69: 21 in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.
Ps. 110: 4 priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
Ps. 118: 22 stone which the builders refused is become the head.
Ps. 132: 17 make the horn of David to bud.
Isa. 7: 14 a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son . . . Immanuel.
Isa. 9: 6 unto us a child is born.
Isa. 11: 1 there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse.
Isa. 25: 9 this is our God: we have waited for him.
Isa. 28: 16 I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone.
Isa. 40: 3 Prepare ye the way of the Lord.
Isa. 42: 7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners.
Isa. 50: 6 I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks.
Isa. 53: 5 he was wounded for our transgressions.
Isa. 59: 20 Redeemer shall come to Zion.
Isa. 61: 1 anointed me to preach good tidings.
Jer. 23: 5 raise unto David a righteous Branch.
Ezek. 37: 12 I will open your graves.
Dan. 9: 24 to make reconciliation for iniquity.
Dan. 9: 26 shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself.
Hosea 11: 1 I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.
Hosea 13: 14 I will redeem them from death.
Jonah 2: 6 Thou brought up my life from corruption.
Micah 5: 2 Bethlehem . . . out of thee shall he come forth unto me.
Hab. 3: 13 thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people.
Zech. 3: 8 (Zech. 6: 12) I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH.
Zech. 9: 9 thy King cometh unto thee . . . riding upon an ass.
Zech. 11: 13 I was prised at . . . thirty pieces of silver.
Zech. 13: 6 I was wounded in the house of my friends.
Mal. 3: 1 Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple.
Well, what I said still fits. If
this is their ‘view’ of the situation, then it means Jesus was their
Messiah, and they blew it.
They certainly did. The fatal error of the Jews was refusing to look
beyond this life into Eternity, and looking only to their immediate
surroundings and circumstances. They wanted a Messiah that would drive
out the Romans from their land, restore the Kingdom of David and Solomon
and all of Israel's past glory, and everyone would live happily ever
after.
Until they died.
Fortunately for all of humanity, the Almighty was not quite so narrow
minded. When the Jews rejected the Messiah, it opened the door for
Gentiles and every race, creed and color to come to Salvation, so that
NObody "should perish, but have everlasting Life".
That original error on the part of Israel is what will cause them to
accept an imposter, a fake, a phony claiming to be God Incarnate, and
Jesus spoke of this when he said "I come in my Father's Name, and you
receiveth Me not, but another shall come in his own name, and him you
shall receive."
I believe that Christ was referring specifically to the yet to come
latter day counterfeit of Christ, commonly referred to as the
Antichrist, aka 'The Beast' of Revelation 13.
I believe that many of us will live long enough to see the literal
Second Coming of Christ, and I am expecting to see it myself.
Dude...None of the apostles
contradicted this belief and none of them challenged Paul as an apostle.
[ They certainly did.]
(Not often this ole granny gets called 'Dude')
WE have only Paul's word for it regarding his conversion - (Didn't Jesus
establish the rule of "Two witnesses" to establish veracity?)
Paul is a self-appointed Apostle - after the Crucifiction, the manner of
choosing Apostles was by choosing and annointing by the Twelve.
But Paul appoints himself on the road to Damascus and brushes off, with
disdain, the need to confer with the leadership in Jerusalem.
He looked down on them - evident in his writings - and after suddenly
turning from the murderer of any and all Christians he could find to an
"Apostle" = he takes off, not for Jerusalem, but to Arabia and Damascus.
:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and
called [me] by his grace,
1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen;
immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: [The Apostles, the
leaders appointed by Jesus]
1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before
me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and
abode with him fifteen days.
1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's
brother.
He was condescending to the leaders of the Church and there was a mutual
dislike = "in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles..." 2
Corinthians 12:11
and in 2 Cor. 11:5-6
11:5 For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.
11:6 But though [I be] rude in speech, yet not in knowledge;
Paul was an arrogant, angry little man...and we have only his word for
what Jesus supposedly taught him in visions - totally at valiance with
the way Jesus conducted His 'business'...
Paul saw no need to 'confer' with the very people that Jesus hand picked
and taught, the people that lived, ate, slept and took instruction from
Him for 3 years.
There are books and books about the subject of Paul - and "Paulinism" -
I notice you rely on the words of Paul - Myself, I rely on the 'red
letters' - even have a book that has ONLY the words of Jesus from the
Bible.
I believe Jesus was capable of explaining His Gospel - and that He did
it very well.
I agree with Thomas Jefferson - have his 'Bible' where he took out only
the words of Jesus to print by themselves.
I don't think Jesus and His words need reams and reams of others
interpretations of what he said.
What He said, he said. Simply. Beautifully.
Hebrew tablet tells of resurrection before Jesus
'Christians will find it shocking - a challenge to their theology'
Posted: July 06, 2008
5:06 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
A stone tablet written in Hebrew is generating debate as some scholars
are saying its words point to a suffering messiah who was killed and
rose again three days later decades before Jesus of Nazareth.
Daniel Boyarin, a professor of Talmudic culture at the University of
California at Berkeley told The International Herald Tribune, "Some
Christians will find it shocking – a challenge to the uniqueness of
their theology – while others will be comforted by the idea of it being
a traditional part of Judaism."
The tablet itself, about three feet tall and containing 87 lines of
Hebrew in two neat columns, is a rare find because its words are written
in ink, rather than engraved. Experts who have analyzed the writing date
the stone from the late first century B.C., and a chemical examination
conducted by a professor at Tel Aviv University showed no reason to
doubt the date.
The content of the writing, however, remains much in doubt, as evidenced
by a handful of articles on the stone and several due to be published in
coming months.
The stone tablet and its owner, David Jeselsohn
The tablet was discovered roughly ten years ago, purchased from a
Jordanian antiquities dealer and stored until recently in a private
collection in Zurich. According to the Tribune, news of the tablet
excited scholars last year when Ada Yardeni, an Israeli scholar of
Hebrew scripts, published a long analysis of the stone in Cathedra, a
Hebrew-language history and archaeology quarterly.
David Jeselsohn, the tablet's owner, told the Tribune, "I didn't realize
how significant it was until I showed it to Ada Yardeni, who specializes
in Hebrew writing, a few years ago. She was overwhelmed. 'You have got a
Dead Sea Scroll on stone,' she told me."
(Story continues below)
The tablet, called "Gabriel's Revelation," is broken and faded, making
much of its content debatable. The words tell of a vision, supposedly
given by the angel Gabriel, of the apocalypse.
Lines 19 through 21 of the tablet contain words, which translated read:
"In three days you will know that evil will be defeated by justice."
Line 80 of the tablet begins with the words "L'shloshet yamin," meaning
"in three days," but then fades. Some scholars see the next word as
illegible, but Israel Knohl, a professor of Bible studies at Hebrew
University in Jerusalem, says the word is Hebrew for "live," followed by
even more difficult-to-read words that he claims complete a command
meaning, "I three days you shall live, I, Gabriel, command you."
Knohl told the Tribune that he interprets the tablet to tell of a
messianic figure named Simon, whose death was recorded by the Jewish
historian Josephus. The tablet, Knohl contends, was likely written by
Simon's followers and demonstrates that messianic followers even before
Jesus looked to their leaders rising again, thus nullifying the frequent
claim that Jesus' resurrection was a uniquely developed story.
Israel Knohl
If Knohl's interpretation of "Gabriel's Revelation" is correct, it would
lend evidence to his previous theories, published in his 2002 book, "The
Messiah before Jesus." Knohl is one of several scholars who suggest
Jesus may not have been unique in his claim to face suffering, death and
resurrection, but that sources, like this tablet, suggest a common
messianic story that New Testament writers may have merely been copying.
"This should shake our basic view of Christianity," Knohl told the
Tribune. "Resurrection after three days becomes a motif developed before
Jesus, which runs contrary to nearly all scholarship. What happens in
the New Testament was adopted by Jesus and his followers based on an
earlier messiah story."
Moshe Bar-Asher, president of the Israeli Academy of Hebrew Language and
emeritus professor of Hebrew and Aramaic at the Hebrew University,
however, remains skeptical of Knohl's interpretation of the tablet.
"There is one problem," he told the Tribune. "In crucial places of the
text there is a lack of text. I understand Knohl's tendency to find
there keys to the pre-Christian period, but in two to three crucial
lines of the text there are a lot of missing words." Bar-Asher plans to
publish his own paper on the tablet in coming months.
If the stone tablet does represent a "Dead Sea Scroll on stone," the
debate over its meaning will likely continue for many years. The Dead
Sea Scrolls, originally discovered in 1947 in caves near the Dead Sea,
contain pre Christian-era copies of the Hebrew Scriptures, the oldest
known copies at the time.
The Scrolls continue to be studied and debated, and the Israel Museum in
Jerusalem, to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the Scrolls'
discovery, begins a three-day "The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary
Culture" conference today. Israel Knohl is scheduled to speak at the
conference about the "Gabriel's Revelation" stone.
Do you think the Messiah Tablet will shake up the World of Jews and
Christians?
The slaying of Simon, or any case of the suffering messiah, is seen as a
necessary step toward national salvation, he says, pointing to lines 19
through 21 of the tablet - "In three days you will know that evil will
be defeated by justice" - and other lines that speak of blood and
slaughter as pathways to justice.
To make his case about the importance of the stone, Knohl focuses
especially on line 80, which begins clearly with the words "L'shloshet
yamin," meaning "in three days." The next word of the line was deemed
partially illegible by Yardeni and Elitzur, but Knohl, who is an expert
on the language of the Bible and Talmud, says the word is "hayeh," or
"live" in the imperative. It has an unusual spelling, but it is one in
keeping with the era.
Two more hard-to-read words come later, and Knohl said he believed that
he had deciphered them as well, so that the line reads, "In three days
you shall live, I, Gabriel, command you."
To whom is the archangel speaking?
* 8 hours ago
Additional Details
8 hours ago
The next line says "Sar hasarin," or prince of princes. Because the Book
of Daniel, one of the primary sources for the Gabriel text, speaks of
Gabriel and of "a prince of princes," Knohl contends that the stone's
writings are about the death of a leader of the Jews who will be
resurrected in three days.
He says further that such a suffering messiah is very different from the
traditional Jewish image of the messiah as a triumphal, powerful
descendant of King David, a messianic figure, whom the stone also
mentions along with David.
8 hours ago
Moshe Bar-Asher, president of the Israeli Academy of Hebrew Language and
emeritus professor of Hebrew and Aramaic at the Hebrew University, said
he spent a long time studying the text and considered it authentic,
dating from no later than the first century B.C. His 25-page paper on
the stone will be published in the coming months.
8 hours ago
Knohl said that it was less important whether Simon was the messiah of
the stone than the fact that it strongly suggested that a savior who
died and rose after three days was an established concept at the time of
Jesus
But there was, he said, and "Gabriel's Revelation" shows it.
I pray this finding will cause all Jews to realize that the scriptures
in Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 in particular, are a prophecy of the
"Suffering Servant" or the Messiah that was to come and suffer and die
for the sins of mankind. I'm going to share my thoughts on something in
the book of Daniel, and how it could possibly relate to this stone
tablet.
Daniel 12:4 - "But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book,
even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge
shall be increased." Is it possible that the "Messiah Tablet" is this
book that Daniel was commanded to shut up the words therefore and seal?
Is it possible that Daniel wrote down on stone the prophecy contained in
the "Messiah Tablet" and hid it in a cave? And, is it possible, since
many Christians, myself included, believe that since we are living in
"the time of the end" as it says in Daniel 12, that this is being made
known to this generation? All I know is what I read in the Bible, and it
states Daniel was commanded to shut up the words and seal the book until
the time of the end, it doesn't say what he did with the book. There are
probably many Christians who have studied Daniel who would disagree with
me on this, all I'm saying is that this scripture in Daniel 12:4 in
reference to a "book" is something I've been praying about and seeking
understanding from the Holy Spirit on. God bless you!!!
The NYTimes has a piece about a stone tablet that was discovered a
decade ago in the Transjordan and which happened to be rediscovered a
few years ago in the basement of a Swill collectors attic.
This stone of course is no insignificant find as it contains text from
the first century BCE, text that may elucidate the minds of modern
scholars on the nature 1st century Jewish belief and custom, and has
significance to scholars of Christianity as well because of the
implications of the above quote.
From chemical testing and other scholarly works which are pending and
those which have been available since last year there suggest at least
one thing, that there is little doubt about the authenticity of the
tablet and its "aging." The only questions looming for academics is if
they can determine that the information on the tablet is sect specific,
such as many of the Dead Sea Scrolls are presumed to be or if they offer
insights into transsectarian beliefs and practice of 1st century
Judaism.
For some scholars though it is already answering at least one question
which is whether or not the idea of a catastrophic messianism was a
peculiar ideology to the early Christians or a part of the wider Jewish
theology. The dating of the tablet and it's text lend credence to the
latter says Israel Knohl,
...it is connected to the Jewish revolt in the Land of Israel following
the death of King Herod in 4 B.C.E. This Jewish insurrection was
brutally suppressed by the armies of Herod and the Roman emperor
Augustus, and the messianic leaders of the revolt were killed. These
events set the slain Messiah Son of Joseph tradition into motion and
paved the way for the emergence of the concept of "catastrophic
messianism." Interpretations of biblical text helped to shape the belief
that the death of the messiah was a necessary and indivisible component
of salvation. My conclusion, based on apocalyptic writings dating to
this period, was that certain groups believed the messiah would die, be
resurrected in three days, and ascend to heaven...
Mr. Knohl and other scholars disagree on who the messianic figure in the
text referenced to is, Mr Knohl asserting that this stone being found in
the Transjordan is very much in line with the rebellion of messianic
figure named Simon in 4BCE, others being more cautious in because of the
lack of text and missing text and illegible text.
The Times though concludes their article with a powerful statement
Mr. Knohl said that it was less important whether Simon was the messiah
of the stone than the fact that it strongly suggested that a savior who
died and rose after three days was an established concept at the time of
Jesus. He notes that in the Gospels, Jesus makes numerous predictions of
his suffering and New Testament scholars say such predictions must have
been written in by later followers because there was no such idea
present in his day.
But there was, he said, and “Gabriel’s Revelation” shows it.
“His mission is that he has to be put to death by the Romans to suffer
so his blood will be the sign for redemption to come,” Mr. Knohl said.
“This is the sign of the son of Joseph. This is the conscious view of
Jesus himself. This gives the Last Supper an absolutely different
meaning. To shed blood is not for the sins of people but to bring
redemption to Israel.”
His concept of course has always been a concept shared by the church,
that Jesus' salvific act was meant for the redemption of Israel, and
that it was later divinely revealed and handed down to be an open act of
love for all mankind, or at least that's what the rest of the New
Testament outside of the Gospels suggest.
This is interesting for sure, but I'll want to read a lot more, and not
just something that any secular MSM outlet produces.
"This is the sign of the son of Joseph. This is the conscious view of
Jesus himself. This gives the Last Supper an absolutely different
meaning. To shed blood is not for the sins of people but to bring
redemption to Israel." Someone needs to go back and read the Catechism a
bit more. The fulfillment of the law, as well as the redemption of
Israel was very much at the heart of Jesus' mission.
As to historicity, a little time spent with Tom Wright's Magisterial
Three Volume, "The New Testament and the Kingdom of God" puts the whole
thing in a new light. Forgiveness of sins and the redemption of Israel
are intimately related concepts.
Finally --- if this is correct, then it absolutely undercuts the
revisionist view that because there was no precedent for a suffering
Messiah who would die and rise in Judaism, then these ideas must have
been interpolated by the later Gospel writers. Well, guess what, this
was a part of Jewish Messianism in the Second Temple period.
Of course, this betrays a huge philosophical fallacy, that goes well
beyond the limits of history, when it suggests that there really can be
no genuinely new ideas.
Which is a load of hogwash. Maybe
I'm missing something. If there was a precedent in Jewish thinking for a
Messiah who would suffer and rise three days after death, then would
that not be yet another way that God would have worked to prepare those
in His chosen people who would listen for the salvation available from
Jesus after His resurrection? It would fit in with the other suffering
servant prophecies from Isaiah and the Psalms.
3000 people, mostly Jews, many of them "tourists", believed Pdeter's
report on the day of Pentecost and acceptsd yhis risen Messiah. If this
stone helps demonstrate the existence of yet another prophetic
preparation given to those people, how does this create a problem?
(Cynic moment) Unless some scholar somewhere is saying that the
resurrection story was made up and now we know whose belief system it
was invented to fit St. Liz, good
call it does fit in! what scholars are coming to realize is that the
notion in the new testament is of course not a novelty, but, somewhat of
an historical schema of the Israelites of the 1st centuries of both the
common era and previous era, or at the very least that such ideas, if
not shared by all Jewish people, were held by various groups and were
recognizable concepts.
It's funny because the Times article also says “Some Christians will
find it shocking — a challenge to the uniqueness of their theology —
while others will be comforted by the idea of it being a traditional
part of Judaism,” I tend to fill that most people will relate to the
latter, although I'm sure there are anti-semitic Christian groups who
may feel the former.
I'm agreeing with you Gashwin, this definitely undercuts the entire
precept of the modern historical Jesus movement outside of folks like
LTJ and NT Wright - I guess it really throws a monkey wrench at folks
like John D Crossan and the likes. Oh and the italicised part about the
last supper, I'm quoting the Jewish Historian Israel Knohl who has no
concept of Catholic teaching or at the very least, very little.
To Mark: Yes! We see the archetypal model already established in the
Jewish mindset, again if it's not something fervently held to by all the
Jews of the time, most if not all would have been aware of such beliefs
of certain sects - a crude comparison but think of modern Christianity,
just because I'm not a presbyterian doesn't mean I'm not peripherally
aware of the theology of Calvinism. I wouldn't go so far to say though
that just because the archetype existed somehow that takes value away
from the Jesus movement and make the assertions of the gospel any less
true. |
