So, this is supposed to “challenge the uniqueness of my theology?” A broken tablet with faded Hebrew writing on it which is purported to speak of a messiah who was to be raised after three days:
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? 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,” 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.
[...]
Regarding Knohl’s thesis, 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.”
I think these scholars need to ask themselves if they did not know the story of Jesus, would they be making the same assumptions about the missing text that they are making. It seems that they are being too quick to fill in the missing blanks with what they think it should say based on Christ’s resurrection.
That Knohl had a bias might be seen from his previous publication:
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.”
Kind of makes a leap there from the text (an excerpt of Knohl’s article can be found here) to suffering, death and resurrection which isn’t evident in the text he quotes which is “by three days live, I Gabriel, command you, prince of princes.” And that quote is based on his assessment of partial words. Not enough there to suggest that the disciples of Jesus based their account on messianic stories that may have circulated at the time. Too many leaps to be believable. So much for shaking our view of Christianity.
And then there’s this:
“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,” 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.”
Um…the two are not mutually exclusive:
ESV Matthew 1:21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”
ESV Luke 1:68 “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people 69 and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David, 70 as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old, 71 that we should be saved from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us; 72 to show the mercy promised to our fathers and to remember his holy covenant, 73 the oath that he swore to our father Abraham, to grant us 74 that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve him without fear, 75 in holiness and righteousness before him all our days.
Jesus did come to bring redemption to the nation of Israel by saving them from their sin, the Bible’s pretty clear about that.
posted July 7, 2008 at 8:49 am
There are a lot of myths of messiahs that were before Jesus — Gilgamesh for instance. I agree the missing text is important, we can’t really draw their conclusion with out the full text. Kind of reminds me of the da vinci code stuff where the missing text was assigned words that fit the storyteller’s view.
posted July 7, 2008 at 9:18 am
The slaying of Simon, or any case of the suffering messiah, is seen as a necessary step toward national salvation,
Who is the Simon, Simon Maccabeus? John 11:50. If you date at least the second half of Daniel (“Gabriel”) late, as I do, it ties in with that Maccabean period. There are chronology inconsistencies with the Evangelists’ Passion narratives and, even as a kid, I struggled to work out “three days” from Friday afternoon to Sunday morning.
I’m missing what the big scandal of this finding is for Christianity. Anyway, we needed look outside the Faith for our undoing, there’s sufficient potential from within.
Gilgamesh for instance.
Oh, please, of messiahs? Flood story.
posted July 7, 2008 at 9:35 am
At most, this might fill in a few gaps. But I do not see any way this completely alters – or dare I say, reforms – anyone’s Christology or basic theology.
posted July 7, 2008 at 9:50 am
My takeaway is that Jewish people have one less reason to doubt the claims of Jesus.
posted July 7, 2008 at 11:57 am
It would, on its face, which means that the whole thing could prove be another one of those fakes (remember the James Ossuary?) seem to be another link in the argument that the gospel accounts were written to make Jesus fulfill the various prophecies.
posted July 7, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Hi I think my wife and I will enjoy reading your blog we found today.
We live in the Park Slope neighborhood of Brooklyn, NY and we are wondering if you know how we might contact like minded reformed christians on the East Side of Brooklyn to start a new Reformed Presbyterian Church here.
We are aware of the PCA church near New York Methodist Hospital in Park Slope.
posted July 7, 2008 at 12:34 pm
My takeaway is that Jewish people have one less reason to doubt the claims of Jesus.
I was afraid someone would say that … go off and start a pogrom, ZZ.
“Early in 1926 the hardest boiled of all the atheists I ever knew sat in my room on the other side of the fire and remarked that the evidence for the historicity of the Gospels was really surprisingly good. ‘Rum thing,’ he went on. ‘All that stuff of Frazer’s about the Dying God. Rum thing. It almost looks as if it had really happened once.’” – Lewis, Surprised by Joy.
posted July 7, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Short Answer- No.
posted July 7, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Moonshadoe. Accumulating illustrations for possible use in verbal argument = pogrom? Please explain.
posted July 7, 2008 at 5:56 pm
“Hi I think my wife and I will enjoy reading your blog we found today.
We live in the Park Slope neighborhood of Brooklyn, NY and we are wondering if you know how we might contact like minded reformed christians on the East Side of Brooklyn to start a new Reformed Presbyterian Church here.”
I’m not familiar with that area, did you try the church directory on the pca webite?
https://processor.pcanet.org/ac/directory/directory.cfm
posted July 7, 2008 at 11:20 pm
But Christians don’t believe in the “uniqueness” of our theology, especially not reformed. Everything in the NT was foreshadowed in the old; there’s no need to look outside the received Scriptures of that day and age to find the concept of the suffering savior. Jesus was able to show all these things on the road to Emmaus, if the Essene scribe who created this tablet was able to do the same – then praise be to God for that.
Although, it seems all a little unclear whether the tablet in question actually does refer to a Messiah who would be killed and raised again on the third day for the atonement of Israel. In the end it may just be people seeing what they want to believe.
posted July 8, 2008 at 9:38 am
The tablet isn’t supposed to shake your faith if you don’t want it to. That’s the uniqueness of faith: you can believe in anything regardless of all evidence to the contrary if you so desire. All this shows is that the religion in question is like any other in its creation- a well-intentioned paradigm that was introduced to the world to spread peace, love, and understanding. These basic concepts of Christianity, and any religion for that matter, are worthwhile even if the historic underpinnings on which the religion were created were fictional. In other words, whether there is a god or not is truly unimportant- it’s whether we show compassion for one another that is critical. That you would entertain thoughts on this tablet and its potential, if any, is commendable. In contrast, outright rejection of it would be nothing less than a “faith-based” knee-jerk reaction. After all, “Doubt is the offspring of knowledge: the savage never doubts at all.” (William Winwood Reade, 1872)
posted July 8, 2008 at 12:19 pm
I usually am critical when these archaeological finds arise; at least, I am cautious about the people who are excavating them.
However, the lack of harmony in the four Gospels is enough to show that Christianity is at best a deeply tainted religion. At worst, a fraudulent one? I’ll go with the former- I believe in the spiritually human non-theistic Jesus.
posted July 8, 2008 at 2:36 pm
RT,
Regardless of your belief, I strongly disagree with you about the basic concepts of Christianity. The purpose of Christianity is not at all about a well intentioned paradigm to spread peace, love, and understanding. Fundamentally Christianity is about redemption of mankind through the propitiation of Christ. The true paradigm of Christianity is that of a fallen world, where mankind has turned his back upon God. The consequence of this is complete separation from God with man having inability to reconcile himself. Therefore, God sent His son, Jesus Christ, as a mediator between Himself and man. The sacrifice that Christ made enables us to have redemption. Christianity by no means is fluffy feel good “religion” conceived as a metanarrative to give peace to foolish men when they sleep at night and who lack the appropriate explicit scientific knowledge to fill in the gaps of the great unknown. After all, “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34)
posted July 9, 2008 at 10:55 am
“In other words, whether there is a god or not is truly unimportant- it’s whether we show compassion for one another that is critical.”
That’s not what Paul thought:
1 Cor. 15:12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.
If Christianity was not true, then I’ve lived a lie and spread lies about God. If Christianity was not true, then I’ve put my trust in a false hope.
posted July 9, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Wrong about the harmony point. The lack of harmony in the gospels is a characteristic of authenticity. If one guy made up a story and then told his friends to spread the story, you would expect exact copies of details. Image a gang of thieves who want to get their alibi straight. Indeed, sometimes it is such precision that gives away a lie. However, if the gospels are (rightly) viewed as eye-witness accounts, you would expect the stories to be basically the same because they are based on true events, but some details would differ. Again, imagine what happens in a court room. The defence would try to nitpick minor differences in eye-witness accounts, but that is not enough to invalid their stories.
posted July 9, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Benjamin,
Lack of consistency in the Gospels????? What are you talking about? All of the books of the bible are cannonized and therefore are harmonious. You simply need to understand the Word to see this.
posted July 11, 2008 at 1:08 pm
The apostles were writing letters to churches & people and telling about their experiences with Jesus, their experiences as a believer and how tell discern truth from error, but most of all the full Truth of God.
If a group of people were “purposely” making a book, they would all come together and discuss the events to make them exactly the same, but that isn’t what happened here. When they wrote, they were not putting together a book. They wrote God inspired personal letters with little blurbs about their experiences peppered in. They are telling their own story and telling what they personally experienced. No one see any event the exact same way and if they were all exact replicas I believe that would show they were false and premeditated.
When I read the Bible, I see that they all fit together very nicely and harmoniously.
One day we all will be in THE Court Room of all Court Rooms and Jesus will provide all the “evidence” the nay sayers need, but unfortunately the proof He will provide will convict them for their chosen unbelief. God is real, Jesus is THE Messiah and it doesn’t take mountains of proof to know that. It takes faith and belief in that which is true.
posted July 12, 2008 at 3:52 pm
It had been my understanding the the authenticity of the New Testament (and that is the REAL issue here) was that it explain the Old Testament. Christians believe that the NT is the fullfillment of the OT, and that Jesus is the Messiah that came so that mankind would have a way to eternal life.
Some years ago the church I was affiliated with made major doctrinal changes. My foundation was shaken because it was based on what I had been taught, and the understanding I had from reading the bible, predisposed by what I had been taught. I dare say it is this way with most christians.
Nature convinces me that this earth and all that is in it had to have been created by an intelligent something. So I believe that there is a creator. I also elect to accept the Old Testament as my source for instructions from the creator, because I believe that when someone in the NT referred to the “scriptures” or “it is written”, they were referring to the law and prophets. The NT wasn’t cannonized at that time.
This is what I’m having to consider:
Jesus didn’t do what the savior to come in the OT was supposed to do.
The christian teaching is that there is only one God. Is Jesus the God of the OT? Jesus and God equals two.
A study of ancient Egypt indicates that simularites of the”Jesus story” existed before the birth of Jesus. So “Gabriel’s Revelation” concept has been around to a long time.
Like it or not, the OT is about God’s relationship with Israel, and anyone else only if they choose to live by the instructions given to Israel. (Ex: Ruth)
Well . . . christians need to read the bible like they would any other instruction manual. Warning! You may come to have a difficult time in church on Sunday mornings.
posted July 18, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Nothing to “consider” to Barbara:
The OT states clearly the the Messiah will come from Bethlehem and thru a “maiden” from the lineage of King David…that would Jesus.
There is only 1 God, however within God are 2 other “heads”…God made man: Jesus and the Holy Spirit of God…but they are all from the 1 True God.
The Jesus Story as some would call it, is not a “story”, it is the life accounts of Jesus by witnesses to his ministry and death and most of all, His Resurrection as foretold in the prophesies of the OT.
God HAD to reveal himself to man because man, whom God created, were and still are sinful beings. God said that none should perish into darkness! God made himself into a man to reach the people…if God could create all that is around us, is it not possible that He Himself could not create Himself into human form? He did, His Holy Name is Jesus Christ whom He calls “Son of Man. Son of God”! When we have sons and daughters, they are of us…just like Jesus is of His Father God!
Jesus did exactly what was foretold in the ancient prophesies…The temple will fall and be rebuilt in 3 Days. Jesus was and is the Temple of the Lord God, he was crucified and rose from death in 3 Days!
In His death and resurection, Jesus, God made man, paved the way to God thru the shedding of blood…also foretold in the OT.
Our belief is thru Faith as we cannot see or touch Him in these times BUT He was physical in His time and the accounts of Jesus are written clearly.
Pls be mindful that Jesus talked and warned us of “Religous Zealots”…he was not only speaking of the Jewish leaders still today…he was speaking of all “religions” as they are made by man, not made by God! Jesus is not a “religion” and Christians are not “religious” as we do not follow “traditions” for any sake thereof!
Christians are diciples of Jesus, we follow what He says to do and be as God says thru Him…really simple to understand! The biblical teachings have been picked apart and “religions” have been made…BUT they are NOT from God…they are made from man to justify the means of living the way someone “wants” to live…not the way God tells us we should!
Church on Sundays is a meeting of believers and a teaching method to the believers of our Lord…not to be picked apart, disected and only take what is easy to do…it is a matter of the faith that Jesus says to have and to walk that faith daily…he said it would not be easy but to do it in faith and the rewards are waiting for us in Heaven with our Father who made us. Do not pick apart the Word, just live it on faith, that is what a true Christian is commanded to do!
posted July 18, 2008 at 7:32 pm
I am not making any assumptions here, but the posts speak for themselves. It seems as if someone is amazed by the fact that a story of a suffering messiah was around before Jesus did what he did. Anyone having read the bible knows that this is in fact true.
God himself said he would send a messiah to be the perfect sacrifice, before Jesus came.
God said that the messiah would suffer and die and in what manner this would happen, before Jesus came.
Read Isaiah 53.
Jesus did not fullfill a messiah story created by man that had been circulating for years before he came. Jesus fullfilled God’s promise of a messiah that God himself had be telling us about throughout the Old Testament.
Listen, God loves you more than you can imagine, and he doesn’t want you to perish. He showed us all the way back to him through his word. All you have to do is turn away from disobeying him and believe in Jesus. We can never be perfect enough to be rightous, but now, after the Cross, we don’t have to be. Jesus was rightous for us. Jesus was perfect for us. He is the one. Believe in him and listen to him.
posted January 29, 2009 at 9:47 am
Just a little over 200 years ago, a document was penned that would be the basis and foundation of a new nation. It was written by the greatest minds of the time. Today it is the center of debate and angered disagreement. If we can’t decide what a 200 year old document written in “English” means, how can anyone come to a definitive conclusion as to what anything written 2000 years ago means?
posted June 3, 2009 at 6:57 pm
To David, Re: “If we can’t decide what a 200 year old document written in “English” means, how can anyone come to a definitive conclusion as to what anything written 2000 years ago means?”
The notion that “we can’t decide” what the Constitution means is entirely false. We know what the document means, and the fact that some may want to dispute it doesn’t render it unknowable. If someone disputed your name, it wouldn’t logically follow that we can’t know what your name is.
The same holds true for the Bible. Though there may be some passages that require intense study to understand properly, it is, by and large, clear about it’s basic message, which is the story of redemption and how God saves man from sin.
It’s interesting that those who oppose Christianity seem to think non-Christian messianic stories are the basis for the NT narrative and not the reverse. But the scriptures themselves warn of anti-Christs, i.e., false messiahs and posers, so why be surprised when others produce stories of messianic claims from antiquity?
posted June 14, 2009 at 4:08 pm
A retired professor and university dean, Stan Seidner argues that the Gabriel tablet reflects the Apocalyptic beliefs of the day, many which are found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, as antecedent and predictive writings of Christianity. He also suggested the use of infra-red technological applications, similar to what had been utilized on Dead Sea Scroll Material in the recent past. Challenging Knohl’s “Two Messiahs” theory, Seidner noted that, “Knohl’s reliance upon what he calls, the ‘Glorification Hymn,’ in support of a first Messiah’s relationship with King Herod, failed in its Carbon 14 testing. It predates Herod’s ascendency to the throne by at least twelve years and as much as one hundred and fifty six.” However, he does agree with Knohl’s interpretation of the inscription,”to rise from the dead within three days.”
Stanley S. Seidner, “The Knohl Hypothesis and ‘Hazon Gabriel,’” June 3, 2009.
posted June 14, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Retired professor and university dean, Stan Seidner argues that the Gabriel stone reflects the Apocalyptic beliefs of the day, many which are found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, as antecedent and predictive writings of Christianity. He also suggested the use of infra-red technological applications, similar to what had been utilized on Dead Sea Scroll Material in the recent past. Challenging Knohl’s “Two Messiahs” theory, Seidner noted that, “Knohl’s reliance upon what he calls, the ‘Glorification Hymn,’ in support of a first Messiah’s relationship with King Herod, failed in its Carbon 14 testing. It predates Herod’s ascendency to the throne by at least twelve years and as much as one hundred and fifty six.” However, he does agree with Knohl’s interpretation of the inscription,”to rise from the dead within three days.”
from Seidner, Stanley S. “The Knohl Hypothesis and ‘Hazon Gabriel,’” June 3, 2009.
posted July 22, 2009 at 12:33 am
For Jewish scholars such as myself, it is a source of frustration that Dr Seidner’s critique is unavailable on the WWW. If someone could forward a copy to me — stephanpickering@redshift.com — it will be most appreciated.
Reb Knohl has released his analyses: Messiahs & resurrection in ‘The
Gabriel Revelation’ (Continuum), 122pp
Shalom welitra’ot.