Bob Calco wrote: > http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/05/africa/06stone.php?page=1 > > - - - > 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. > > ... > > It was in Cathedra that Israel Knohl, an iconoclastic professor of Bible > studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, first heard of the stone, which > Yardeni and Elitzur dubbed "Gabriel's Revelation," also the title of their > article. 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. > > 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 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, 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, 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. > > "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." > > ... > > 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." > > ... > > 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," 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." > > - - - > > So a text comes along that shakes up established "scholarship" about Jesus > -- and the scholars think that Christians are the ones who got it wrong. > That's typical. > > Having read this three times, trying to find where the tablet in any way > contradicts what Jesus did, or why he did it, I am unable to find what has > these "scholars" so excited that they found something that should "rock" > Christianity. > > That last line about the shedding of blood being for Israel's redemption and > not the sins of people is about the most illogical conclusion one can > possibly draw from the stone, at least if you look at it in the context of > other Scripture, and the actual words of Jesus, as recorded in the gospels. > > Traditionally the Jewish people expected a kick-ass, take-no-prisoners > warrior messiah. They got a carpenter who was the son of God and healed > people and confronted established "theology" (not to mention "scholarship") > of the day, so much so that it got him killed. But that was God's plan, not > Israel's, and through the resurrection God did reconcile himself to man and > provide free atonement of sin, and Israel was not redeemed (of its own > choice, actually), but rather salvation was opened to all mankind. > > To say it another way: Jesus never claimed that his promise of his imminent > death and resurrection after three days was anything but the exact and > complete fulfillment of Scripture. He never said "Look this is my unique > theology" (modern scholars say that) but rather said, "search the Scripture, > for they speak of me." > > So some more Scripture comes along (for the sake of argument, let's assume > it's canonical, which it isn't), saying the same thing he said, in much the > same terms as other canonical text did, only with more explicit reference to > resurrection after three days being dead. And? OK, Christians did not > "insert" those words into Jesus' mouth later, as "scholars" apparently > thought, but rather he really said them, and there was cultural context for > the Jews to understand what he was claiming. > > This changes what, precisely? There are so many promises of scripture that > Jesus' life, death and resurrection fulfill, and the specific point about > being dead three days has other Scriptural references that Jesus himself > alluded to ("and no sign will be given them except the sign of Jonah"). > > I don't know maybe I'm missing something (and will gladly receive > enlightenment on what that is) but this strikes me as a pre-emptive > misinterpretation to make something that actually gives greater and more > specific Scriptural credence to Jesus as the Christ appear to do the > opposite, or somehow dilute the claim. > > - Bob > > >
It is commonly believed in today's Christianity, that before the coming of Jesus, the Jewish people expected the messiah would come as a warrior to deliver Israel form the tyrannical rule of the Roman Empire. The discovered tablet, if authentic and interpreted correctly, indicates that the Jewish people had already formed a traditional view of a messiah who would suffer, die and live again in three days a full decade before Jesus ever arrived on the scene, (eg BC concept of a suffering messiah, rather than a warrior-deliverer messiah). - - - 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. - - - 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. - - - Regards, LelandJ > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
