NewsA New Dead Sea Scroll in Stone? Talkback Add Your Comment
The text, called “Gabriel’s Vision” by Ada Yardeni, the Israeli scholar who first published it, is written in ink on stone and dates to about the late first century B.C. and early first century A.D. The text first came to wide attention when our print publication, Biblical Archaeology Review published Yardeni’s “A New Dead Sea Scroll in Stone?” in its January/February 2008 issue (Yardeni pointed out that had the text been written on leather, she would have thought of it as another Dead Sea Scroll fragment). “Gabriel’s Vision” consists of 87 lines, divided into two columns. The text is written in the first person, apparently by someone named Gabriel, and contains numerous Biblical phrases. It is an apocalyptic text and seems to have been written by a supporter of the Davidic dynasty. You can read Yardeni’s BAR article by clicking on the link above and you can also see her transcription of the Hebrew text and her English translation. But now the story has taken on a new twist. A major New York Times article (July 6, 2008) described research by Hebrew University textual scholar Israel Knohl, which claims that “Gabriel’s Vision” provides important new insights into the early Jewish and Christian concepts of the messiah. A more complete article tracking Knohl’s research—by the man himself—will be published in the September/October 2008 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review. Knohl looks at the history of Jewish and Christian messianism and explores their similarities and differences. The new stone Dead Sea Scroll opens up a new chapter in the history of this relationship, according to Knohl. In this pre-Christian Jewish text, he finds references to two different concepts of the messiah—one, the Messiah son of David; and the other, the Messiah son of Joseph (Ephraim). The return of the messiah of David would involve a military victory. Indeed, the Davidic messiah will institute the messianic age with a “day of battle.” He will make his enemies “a footstool.” The Messiah son of David is a triumphal messiah. Ephraim, or the Messiah son of Joseph, is a very different kind of messiah and reflects a new kind of messianism. This kind of messianism involves suffering and death. In the new Dead Sea Scroll in stone, Knohl sees a messiah who suffered, died and rose. Quoting the Gospels, Knohl finds that Jesus himself rejects the concept of the militant Messiah son of David. Also in the stone Dead Sea Scroll, an archangel orders someone to arise from the dead in three days. Although the text is difficult, the setting clearly reflects death and bloodshed. Watch for Knohl’s full article, “The Messiah Son of Joseph: ‘Gabriel’s Revelation and the Birth of a New Messianic Model,” in the September/October 2008 BAR, out in mid-August. It will include the full text of the stone Dead Sea Scroll, plus Professor Knohl’s reconstructions. Update: Ada Yardeni has informed us that she agrees with Knohl’s reading in The Messiah Son of Joseph.
Messiah son of JosephThere have been scripts that have been enhanced using infrared or other such devices, to yield much more readable texts. These techniques have been used on paper or parchment, but could they also be applied to the stone? It might shed much more light on this very important find. • • • • • • • New DSI think we may be running too quickly toward the sensational. At line 12, God(?) says he will talk about the greatness of Jerusalem, not a messiah. Further, the document comes from one steeped in Jeremiah. The repeated long name of God (Lord of Hosts, God of Israel) led me to a computer search of scripture and found Jer with many repetitions of that phrase. Other key words, including David and Ephraim can also be found. We need to consider the possibility that he's talking about the revival of Jerusalem after either the Greeks (if early) or the Romans. • • • • • • • Messiah of JosephIt is unclear how Richard Tanzer sees a call for reconciliation between Jews and Islam from writing about the Messiah Yeshua (Jesua) Islam was formed in 603 BC and was never mentioned in the Scriptures or any form of religion before that time. Ishmael is a son of Abraham but not the son of the promise. He was not born in Arabia or Iran or any other Arabian country. Therefore Islam's claim to fame is false and it is time that people begin to see it. All men have the Yahweh Elohim right to claim and to live how they want but after which they face the accountability of the judgement. Therefore please stop hood winking people with your ideas. • • • • • • • messiah of joseph.more evidence that there was more than messiah; messiah of joseph. ( which i believe as jesus of nazareth) and the messiah of david. a call of reconciliation between jew and christian. and with the sons of ishmael. (islam). • • • • • • • The Messiah Son of JosephI wonder if anybody has pointed out that Jesus' father's name is also Joseph. • • • • • • • gabriel stoneThe controversial mention of "living" after "three days" in line 80 looks like a pretty clear allusion to Hosea 6:2 "After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him." It would thus seem prima facie to refer to Israel rather than the Messiah; in any event, with all the lacunae here it is hard to see how much we can make out of this text. • • • • • • • New DSS in Stone?If the stone is authentic, it's just another piece of our history that truly validates just how much Judaism and Christianity have in common...for both were birthed in the richness of the Jewish soil that was then 1st and 2nd century Palestine. As a Jew, I believe we are very indebted to the writers of the scrolls, as this is "Judaism"...before the cannonization of any texts, or beliefs...Though different from our beliefs now, this is OUR starting point. And now that we have a "starting point, maybe it's time we all sat at the table, and workout our differences. Shalom to all! • • • • • • • Gabriel StoneThe Essenes did believe in two Messiahs. One the Messiah of David, and the other the Messiah of Aaron. The Messiah of Aaron was NOT a suffering Messiah. He was a Priestly Messiah. • • • • • • • Knoll's bookIsrael Knoll's book referred to by Mr. McBride (8/4), The Messiah Before Jesus, is not new but was published in 2002. • • • • • • • Sea Scrolls idea of MessiahI wonder why this script is being taken so seriously. It isn't scripture and isn't written by any of the Jewish prophets apparently. The wording reminds me of something from the Quran or the book of Mormon---someone's fantasy of what they would like to think that spiritual talk is. But real spiritual writings, as in the writings of the prophets are clear even when they're symbolic. • • • • • • • making ado about nothingwhy the hoolabaloo? when Jesus Christ was quoting Isaiah 61 in the book of luke,when He went to His home town; Nazareth,He stopped half way beceause the 2nd phase of His ministry on earth which has to do with judgement and vengeance is yet to come. This of course confirms Him as the coming King and warrior • • • • • • • Isreal Knoll's Book, The Messiah Before JesusIsrael Knohl's new book, "The Messiah Before Jesus" is outstanding, I couldn't put it down once I strated reading it. The Messiah Son of David, as I read it, is a kingly but not a military Messiah. I espcially like in the first chapter, he explains the Hebrew phrase used in the Psalms, "Praise the Lord". The Psalmist is rejoicing becuase of the access to G-d given the Psalmist through the Messsiah's work. • • • • • • • Gabriel VisionI will be really really interested to read more about this. I do understand, from various reference books I have read by various scholars, that there was an expectation in that era of possibly two messiahs. So that part is not too surprising to me. I take the expectation of two messiahs to have developed amongst believers of that era because of personal confusion over the apparent differences in the Old Testament's description of the Messiah. But, as a Christian, I believe this is because there will be TWO comings--the first, as the Suffering Servant, already occurred. The second, and future coming will be as conqueror and Lord of all creation--and in judgment. • • • • • • • Messiah is OneWhy not the concept that one is both(priest/Messiah and warrior/Messiah) but at different times? For example: Hebrews 7:11-22 which quotes Psalm 110:4...and...Daniel 7:13-28 which parallels Revelations 19:11-21...which parallels Sura 92:13-14 (et al)!! It is a simple- yet complex- concept that only faith can understand. The pieces easily fit together. • • • • • • • Stone ScrollSince the translation is not complete, it is difficult to make a final or firm conclusion. To me it souds prophetic. Gabriel is telling what will be. • • • • • • • Dual Messiah Concept.I've read of the concept of a Messiah son of David + Messiah son of Joseph in A. Edersheim's "Life and Times of Jesus the messiah", He referenced it as a common rabbinic understanding of Messianic prophecy since early, early times, so I hardly think it took this find to unearth the concept. Plus, It's fairly clear throughout the new testament that Jesus claimed BOTH messianic vocations, and christians of the 1st century fully expected him to fulfill the "Messiah Son of David" side of it all in its fullness at his 2nd coming • • • • • • • A New Dead Sea Scroll in Stone?Allow me to ask the Scholars who know Essene theology this question. Didn't the Essene prophecy say that the Messiah would actually be two? One being a warrior Messiah who would overthrow the Romans, and the other a high priest, as described in this stone? • • • • • • • Gabriel's VisionWhen I read about this disclosre in BAR it reminded me of a saying found in the Gopsel of Luke when Yeshua made his way on the road into Jeruslaem. The people gathered along the way and hailed him as YHWH's messianic King that echoed the words of Isaiah 62:10 and 11. The Pharisees were incensed and demanded he coreect his disciples. In repsone to the Pharisees as recorded in Luke19:40, Yeshua recited the prophecy of Habakkuk who wrote: "For out of [the] wall a stone itself will cry out..." by saying, "I tell you, if these remained silent, the STONES would cry out." With all the skepticism and doubt prevalent in academia of the validity in the Scriptures (or any nonbiblical text so far discovered), I wonder if this isn't actually happening because of it? I am also reminded of the fact that it took almost 300 years of controversy after the death of Yeshua before the four gospel accounts were finally accepted as authentic sayings. I have a good feeling that the "Gabriel Vision" stone is only one of many "stones" Yeshua makes referrence to. We shall have to wait and see what the forensics tell us on the matter. • • • • • • • Two Messiah ConceptsMr. Smith is entirely correct when he points out that there is no reason to believe everyday Jews were any more familiar with the scriptures than the average Christian today. Especially when one considers the polarization of teaching that existed. The devaluing of writings other than the Torah by the Sadducees for one example; and the rivalry between the schools of Hillel and Shamael for another. Given the Roman occupation it would be no surprise at all to discover that the Davidic messiah model was far more popular among the 'am-hares', just as would any oppressed people in any age. • • • • • • • A New Dead Sea Scroll in Stone?OK, how come any other unprovenanced find (Jezebel seal, James Ossuary) is immediately written off as unreliable, but this particular one 'proves' Christianity itself is on shaky foundations?!?!??? Further, why is it hard to believe that first century workers were any more aware of the fine details of their faith (i.e. suffering or militant messiah) any more than typical congregants of our day would be? It is entirely conceivable that scholars of the first century would have theological knowledge of a suffering messiah while the less "educated" disciples did not. • • • • • • • On sensationalism and scholarly integrityI would submit that this "ancient tablet" is probably another sensationalist scam, as is clearly suggested by the facts (1) that no specific information is available on its provenance ("probably found near the Dead Sea" doesn't quite do it for me); and (2) that no details are provided on carbon dating of the ink or analysis of the stone. As such, this "news" brings to mind the faked Lost-Tomb-of-Jesus "documentary" designed to financially profit from people's fascination with the "real" Jesus, as well as the larger scandal of the biased and misleading way the Dead Sea scrolls are being presented in museum exhibits around the world, with an antisemitic nuance emerging on a government-run North Carolina museum's website. See, e.g., http://robertdworkin.wordpress.com/2008/07/12/the-ethics-of-exhibition-romancing-the-scrolls/ (article critical of exhibits) and http://blog.news-record.com/staff/frontpew/archives/2008/06/dead_sea_scroll.shtml (discussion and further links). As for Bart Ehrman, one must surely question (to put it mildly) his take on the Dead Sea Scrolls controversy. He apparently believes that the old Qumran-Essene theory is "probably" true simply because his personal acquaintances believe in it, even though he's not a scrolls expert himself, and even though the theory has been rejected by an entire series of historians and archaeologists over the past decade. This kind of appeal to the "common opinion" doesn't sound like the type of critical thinking I expect from a serious scholar. See his angry exchange with some of his critics at http://biblicalraleigh.wordpress.com/2008/07/17/unc-professor-admits-hes-not-a-scrolls-expert-defends-biased-museum-exhibit/ • • • • • • • How would this illuminate the Gospels and the question of Jesus' understanding of his identity?In Mark 9:31-32, Jesus told his disciples that he would be killed and would rise the third day. The disciples' response is a complete lack of understanding. I would suggest that, with all of the messianic speculation in second-temple Judaism(s), it is inconceivable that the disciples would never have heard about the suffering messiah conception if it existed. To assert that the suffering servant expectation was known at that time impugns the reliability of the Gospel of Mark. This is a bit ironic, because some of those who assert the existence of the suffering servant expectation to prove Jesus' own understanding of himself as a suffering messiah are those who would most defend the reliability of the record in Mark. I doubt you can have it both ways, unless you can argue that Jesus knew of the suffering messiah expectation from this tradition and yet almost nobody else did (including his disciples and virtually everyone he has dialogue with in the Gospels). That seems untenable to me. Of course, many would argue that Jesus understood himself in a way that was largely unprecedented at the time--that the "messianic secret" in Mark does not indicate Jesus' ignorance but rather his unique understanding of his identity. I acquiesce, but I would challenge the role of this tradition in that knowledge. We must consider if it is not more likely that whatever special understanding Jesus had of himself as a suffering messiah is more logically connected to his study of the Nevi'im and well known traditions than than on some special insider access to an established separatist tradition most others were ignorant of. Other DSS much better illuminate the issue of Jesus' own understanding of himself as messiah. When we correlate the signs of the messiah in 4Q521 with the messianic signs in Is. 29:18-19, 35:5-6, 42:6-7, 61:1-2 and Ps 146:7-8, we note that 4Q521 adds the expectation of raising the dead and healing the badly wounded. In Jesus' response to John's disciples in Luke 7:22 and Matt 11:4-5, his list of the signs he has performed includes raising the dead and many kinds of healing. Thus, we could argue that Jesus not only knew about the signs of the messiah in 4Q521, but that he clearly conceived of himself as fulfilling them. This kind of argument would be more tenable, because it affirms not only Jesus' knowledge of the messianic expectation but also his confidence of the recognition of this tradition by his hearers. • • • • • • • spellingSorry about the misspellings. That's what comes from posting during lunch. • • • • • • • proper archaeological methodsi doubt finding this stone 'in situ' would have helped much as proper arch. methods cannot tell us 'the why' something was found where it was. Such methods can be more misleading than finding an artifact in a private collection. at least with the discovery outside of professional hands we get to focus on the text and not the assumptions or arrogance that arise with professional opinions. • • • • • • • Militant Messiah"Quoting the Gospels, Knohl finds that Jesus himself rejects the concept of the militant Messiah son of David." -------------------- ¶ Really? What about the pericope relating the arrest of Jesus where he tells his disciples to put away their swords? Why are they armed? And why would the Romans have crucified Jesus unless he posed some sort of political and revolutionary threat to their authority? This fellow sounds woefully uninformed about the bulk of research in the field. • • • • • • • Suffering ServantRe Mr. Sheffield's comments: The "Suffering Servant", and "Messiah", connection is a ball of confusion. SIGMUND MOWINCKEL in his classic study "He That Cometh" points out that the Suffering Servant in Isaiah is not a Messianic figure, and probably not a prophecy at all. If I remember what he said correctly, as it's been a while since I've read the book, the Suffering Servant (which may be a reference to the nation of Israel) passages are in various tenses and refer to someone who was so scarred that his face was frightening to look at, which clearly does not apply to Jesus. In addition, the Servant dies of some disease, and although he is supposedly resurrected, he returns to earth, marries, and produces offspring. None of this applies to Jesus, as far as we know. Bart Ehrman in his book "Jesus Apocalyptic Prophet..." points out that "we have no indication that any Jew, prior to Christianity, ever took the passage as a reference to the Jewish Messiah." I think a debate between Knohl and Ehrman would prove interesting. ken • • • • • • • Dead Sea Scroll in StoneThe evidence presented I find underwhelming for the suffering Joseph Messiah that dies and rises in 3 days. Where is the Covenant made with the Joseph Messiah (e.g. II Samuel 7:1-17 and Psalms 89:3-4)? Matthew 22:41-46 indicates we are dealing with the Davidic Messiah and Matthew 1:1-2:8 demonstrates the same. We learn from Matthew 16:21 and Luke 24:25-27, that the 3 day suffering and resurrection was in the Tanach or Old Testament - Leviticus 23:4-11. We are looking at the 14th, 15th, and 16th of Nisan during the Feast of Unleavened Bread in the Gospels. Those are the 3 days taught in all 4 Gospels, see I Corinthians 5:7 and I Corinthians 15:20. Leviticus 23:15-21 explains Acts 2:1 too. The 3 days in the Gospels and Acts 2:1 take place in relation to Feasts of the Lord in the Law because Jesus Christ came to fulfill the Law, Matthew 5:17. • • • • • • • Stone ScrollThis discovery, along with some of the intertestamental literature, brings to mind a hypothesis that I began to entertain some years ago. That hypothesis is that a messianic sect/group preceded the appearance of Jesus, which we might refer to as the Proto-Nazarenes. It would seem to have been centered in Galilee rather than in Judea and provided a ready-made milieu for his proclamation of himself as both the herald and embodiment of the Kingdom of God. It does seem to have had branches in Judea, particularly the Lazarus family in Bethany and the owners of the donkey used by Jesus to enter Jerusalem and of the Upper Room used for the Passover Seder aka the Last Supper. It should be remembered that the Jewish inhabitants of Galilee were very likely religious enthusiasts pioneering in what had been a pagan land for centuries. This would explain why Jesus was so disappointed when the residents of Nazareth his hometown (barely on the Roman map)rejected his claim to be the one promised by Isaiah. Anyway, I place this idea before the BAR community in the hope that others will know of or discover further facts or references which would jibe with it. • • • • • • • gabriel stoneAs always--lots of interesting comments. Lozano is right. The idea of a "suffering Messiah" who rises from the dead could be traced back to several Old TEstament texts, incl Hosea and Jonah (three days in the belly of the great fish) and the several of the psalms and Isaiah 53, etc. There are other Dead Sea Scrolls (actual scrolls) such as the Messiah Scroll that may have been referred to by Jesus. But the Gabriel Scroll is still interesting, as a find and for what it tells us about the social milieu of that era. As for Mr. Burton who says "everybody knows" the gospel texts have been corrupted by the Council of Nicaea--the letter of Pliny the Younger in 110 A.D. refered to people worshipping Christ "as to a god" plus the attestation of First Corinthians, which is written within 20 years of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, plus the 3rd-century church with the preserved tiles dedicating the place to "our God Jesus Christ" (see an earlier BAR for this story)--plus the testimony of the canonical Gospels go way back--are closer to the source than these extracanonical books. Much of the "corrupting" of the gospel texts comes from modern teachers who prey on our ignorance. • • • • • • • Gabriel's visionSo just what's new here ? It is a well-known fact that the Jews around the time of Jesus, envisaged Two separate Messiahs - the Ruling Messiah and the Suffering Messiah. In fact Hal Lindsey writes ("The Late Great Planet Earth") that is one of the reasons why they failed to recognize Jesus as the Messiah. • • • • • • • Messaih son of JosephWhat "new" concept? THe Massiah Son of Joseph is an old rabbinical concept, mentioned in the Talmud. This is a confirmation of the antiquity of the Oarl Law, not of Christinanity. • • • • • • • New??This is so far from being "NEW" that I feel old. Does anybody read anything anymore?? Wow! • • • • • • • Dead Sea StoneI've also just read both the English and the Hebrew and must add my curiosity to what Jim Randolf points out: I now can't wait to read how the messianic references are squeezed out of this text. Oh, and why do you refer to the stone as a scroll; it is very obviously impossible to be so. • • • • • • • I agree with Caleb UptonI was going to post my own thoughts, but Mr. Upton has already said what I have been thinking, and worded so well that I need say nothing more. • • • • • • • Stone ScrollFrom reading the English translation I think I agree with what Mr. Randolph wrote. However, I am only an armchair archaeologist. I am very muck looking forward to looking forward to the next issue of BAR to read more about it. • • • • • • • Stone ScrollI read both the Hebrew and English texts. There is no discernible mention of a resurrection to be found. Straining at gnats to gain instant recognition in the press appears to be a great temptation. • • • • • • • for the Jews first....I'm looking forward to the review. If the authenticity of this find is confirmed then it brings the gospel closer to the Jews not to make them christians, since we all know christianity has been absolutely corrupted/adulterated since the Council of Nicea, since it has been adopted by Emperor Constantine. The acceptance of the Jews of the Messiah, Who died to atone for our sins, according to the scriptures, will pave the second coming. • • • • • • • "A New Messianic Model?"A great discovery. A basis for forming a new messianic model - no. The Jesus Christ of the Bible has always been described as a Davidic King and a High Priest [not after the order of the Jewish High Priests but after the order of the eternal High Priest, Melchizedek]. This would make Him a warrior King as well as a Messiah or annointed High Priest. Every book of the Old and New Testaments, in one way or another, points to this duality of Christ, as do extra-biblical texts. rcjavid • • • • • • • Nothing new under the sunThe idea by the sensationalist media that this is the first mention (Before Christ) of a suffering messiah and resurrection after three days, is not supported. Paul himself states that Jesus rose after three days "according to the scriptures". It has never been clear to what scripture he is referring, probably Hosea 6:2 ("and after three days he will raise us"), so he is not claiming originality of concepts. Nothing new under the sun. In the book of the Maccab. we also find the idea of resurrection for the just who suffered and died for God's sake under domination of a foreign army. Historically speaking, the Christians were the first not to predict, but to affirm that someone, an historical person, had raised from the dead, and certainly not after three days, but only after being dead during one Saturday. The three here has obviously a symbolic meaning rooted in the scriptures. This "Gabriel vision" stone would be somewhat more sensational if it actually claimed that someone had resurrected after 3 days, but it does not. It stays in prophecy, and there is still a long way to go to see if this fragmentary text actually says what they claim. • • • • • • • DDS in StoneReality isn't based on words written in stone, on leather, or across scrolls of papyrus. Reality is what exists in the complete absence of language, not because of it, so it makes no difference when, where, how, or why these words were composed since they are by necessity abstract and artificial. Life has nothing to do with language and words, but with the immediacy of breath and bone and blood. • • • • • • • Stone text in inkThe usual conflict regarding two messiahs reflects continued misunderstanding of the biblical text. Isaiah 53 refers to a suffering messiah while 2 Sam 7 (et al) refers to a righteous king who will rule over his enemies. Actually both of these concepts are realized in the person of Jesus, son of David, the messiah who suffered but who also rules in a spiritual kingdom. Jesus' kingdom was "not of this world" but many seek to demote him to an earthly throne. Why not accept the Bible teaching which unites Jesus Christ as messiah who suffered, died and rose from the dead but also rules in his spiritual kingdom as well? • • • • • • • Dead Sea Scroll in StoneOnce again, it's thought that Christians will be torn and confused over some new historical discovery. As a Christian woman, I rely on the Bible and its context as provided by God Himself. God states that His Book is complete and that nothing should be added. That sums it up for me. If it doesn't mesh with what God has already stated in His Book, it's not valid. • • • • • • • Stones to NY TimesWriters write for many reasons, some for selfish reasons to make a name for themselves, some to use their power to discredit and some for their own ideas. How will we really know what the writers intent was in writing this stone? 5,000 years from now pick up Michael Moore book and try to prove anything. A stone like this doesn't disprove God and what He did for man. • • • • • • • Historically IntriguingPerhaps better understanding of second Temple era beliefs about a Son-of-Ephraim style messianic figure will help illuminate perceptions of Jesus not only as a spiritual leader, but also help further position him as a figure of Jewish national history. • • • • • • • Messiah traditions and a modern exampleI agree with Ms. Connell and Mr. Upton and look forward to the article. The keys to Biblical history and the Messiah tradition from a Christian perspective, would be unlocked by a deeper study of the origination of the Israelite story, hinted at in the Merneptah stele, the confluence of Egyptian/Israelite priestly practice (e.g. circumcision, shatnez--prohibition of mixing wool and linen--and fringed garments) and the Ankhetaten destruction-exodus story correlations. In our time now, the messiah epistimology can be studied in a modern milieu by a thorough look into the phenomenon of the orthodox jews who claim that the late Lubovitch Rabbi Schneerson was "the messhiakh". • • • • • • • malfileft out of the article were the facts that a numbers of key words were unreadable or missing. not to mention Isreals comments that "when he first published a few years ago he'd expected to rock 'CHRISTOLOGY' but now with new 'evidence' he'll be viewed more seriously." no agenda there. (as per BBC reportage). • • • • • • • David/EphraimI am puzzled as to how these are somehow new faces to the Messiah? Do archeologists ever study the literature? From Genesis 49 flows these duel aspects of a messianic king and a messianic son of promise. From Isaac through to Joseph the Tanak weaves a very careful thread of birthright through promise (Israel Northern Kingdom). A parallel exists in David, the Tanak weaves the Jewish thread (Judah) as well. It is Joshua (Ephraim) and Caleb (Judah) who enter the promise land and lead the Hebrews to their promised land. The Messiah in Ezekiel 37, among many others, rules on a Davidic throne and holds the stick of Joseph in his hand and of Judah makes them one again. Jesus is seen in the New Testament as the Messiah of Promise is resurrected and promises to return again to place his foot on the Mount of Olives and establishes a Davidic reign in Judea. Thus Jesus fulfills and encompasses both threads of Messianic prophecy. This isn't new at all. • • • • • • • Gabrial StoneThree things. I thought that the suggestion of multispectral scanning was excellent (I had been thinking the same thing). Please ask this question. Second, the ink is probably organic...can it be dated? Or, what about the rocks patina? Third, Jesus quotes prophetic readings in the Old Testament (like his triumphant return on the back of an ass in Jeruselem). He does this throughout the New Testament. There were many items in the milieu. So why would this "mainstream" thought discredit the resurrection? Looking forward to the article! • • • • • • • How Does this Affect Christianity?This is definitely an interesting ancient document, but I don't see how it affects Christianity one way or another. In case no one noticed, The New Testament is filled with references to older, Jewish documents, having to do with the Messiah and his resurrection. (Ever read Luke 24:25-27? Jesus apparently thought the OT talked about it.)Christianity wasn't the first to talk about resurrection, the Messiah, or feature the number 3 so prominently. The difference is, Christians believe Jesus actually pulled it off, instead of just writing about it. If I know that much, then surely most other Christians do, too. But I am just an uneducated religious fanatic who will continue to believe in Jesus, enjoy reading these articles, and learning from them. • • • • • • • English translationI wish translators would go from Hebrew all the way into English. "Angel" is but a transliteration of the Greek translation from the Hebrew and has acquired all sorts of connotations and impressions which hinder a clear understanding of the text. Similarly, holy, sacred, sanctified, and sacrifice seem to express current English concepts rather than convey the content and etymology of the Hebrew. "Bless" is an English word which has many meanings, most of which do not convey the Greek "eulogos" or even the Latin "benedictus", so I am never sure what was the Hebrew meaning when "bless" is used in English. • • • • • • • IS IT RELIABLE?AT FIRST GLANCE IT APPEARS SOMEONE AGAIN IS TRYING TO DISCREDIT THE NEW TESTAMENT ACCOUNTS.OH WELL. AS FAR AS THE RESSURECTION GOES EGYPTIANS BELEIVED IN IT IN 5000BC AND LATER DID THE JEWS.JESUS OPENED THE DOOR TO HEAVEN.LOTS OF STRANGE GOSPELS WERE WRITTEN AND IM SURE MOST OF THEM DONT OFFER MEN ANY HOPE.ST PAULS GOSPELS ARE MOST RELIABLE.ALL THESE ODD FINDS MEERLY OBSCURE THE PATH TO JESUS THAT PAUL TRIED TO REVEAL TO US • • • • • • • Garbriel's VisionIf the speculation is that the Gospel writers were aware of the message of Gabriel's vision, and believing Jesus to be that Messiah who suffers, dies and is raised on the third day, it leaves the question: Did the stone mean the suffering Messiah was a necessary step toward national salvation of the Jewish people? If so, this is different from the Christian view of him as a redeemer of sinful souls who believed in him. What impact if any is this likely to have on Christian believers? • • • • • • • Unprovenanced MaterialIsn't it fascinating that an artifact that may be used to somehow discredit or diminish Christianity is not subjected to the same sorts of attacks that other objects have been subjected to? (Think James ossuary or temple pomegranate) Is there an agenda here? Or is there always an agenda, on both sides of all arguments? I look forward to reading more, but I would wish that the hand wringing about objects that would seem to support the biblical record would diminish and that all items of history that come to light would be treated to the same degree of both scrutiny and respect as they take their places in the chain of history. • • • • • • • Gabriel StoneOK Yardeni says that the paleography is the same as the dead sea scrolls. So are the lines for the text. (How long were lines like that used and in how many different places? Are they still used on Torah scrolls today? We have no mention of the composition of the ink, although that could be faked if someone knew the composition of the dead sea scroll's ink, although I suspect that there were a variety of inks used. What about the composition of the stone? Could that give us some idea of where the stone itself originally came from? And what about patina? If the stone was outside the ink probably would have faded. It had to be inside somewhere, probably underground. Is the owner willing to say who he bought it from? Is the seller willing to say who he bought it from? And if we can find that person can we get a better location than Jordan? Aside from the ink question BAR raised many of these questions in relation to the James ossuary. Will the coming article talk about more than translation and give some kind of indication, beyond paleography, as to the authenticity of the stone? • • • • • • • Lack of Archaeological ContextOnce again a supposedly earth-shattering (or just Christianity-shattering) text is "discovered" in a private collection rather than in situ in a site excavated by proper archaeological techniques. Even if the inscription is real, there is no way to verify its date or its location of origin. There is no information that could help identify an author or his religious/theological group. • • • • • • • Stone Dead Sea ScrollI look forward to Prof. Knohl's article. But I would very much like to see a much larger photo of the stone itself than what appeared in the January/February 2008 BAR so I can check his readings. Would it be possible to post a good photo on the BAR web site? Also, has anyone thought of doing multi-spectral scans on the stone itself, to determine if more can be read (at least on the smooth portion)? • • • • • • • New Dead Sea Scroll in StoneThe whole idea of a dying and rising messiah is not a new thing, even to the Jews. It has its roots in Egypt and possibly before that. Don't forget, the Jewish people lived in Egypt a long time and even Jesus and his parents lived there for at least three + years. Many stories in the Jewish texts and the 'New Testament' are also in ancient Egyptian and Phoenician texts. One has a difficult time, therefore, separating one from another. I have found the differences to be fairly minor. The idea that Jesus, Mary and Joseph to be a unique family is not, in fact, unique. Check out the stories of Osiris, Isis and their son Horus. They are nearly identical. Not in time and context, but in type and character. People should really read history more closely. I shall have a good time reading this translation and look forward to it. • • • • • • • Gabriel's tabletThough not Scripture by any historical definition, still, if authentic, it does validate the apostle Paul's take on the gospel (I Cor. 15). The writer is taken with the messianic promise of a resurrection after death in three days (Hosea 6:1, 2 comes the closest to actual scripture reference). So then, yes, this would help confirm the entire gospel scenario to be from the Jews (John 4:22). • • • • • • • UnderestimatedThis reconstruction of the Gabriel's Revelation tablet is very interesting and I look forward to seeing the BAR article. This reconstruction has of course received attention because it would radically change our understanding of early Christianity. On the one hand it would show that the predictions Jesus makes in the gospel texts would be perfectly reasonable for a first-century Jew to believe about himself in a messianic context and therefore these predictions would not be retrojects of the early disciples back into the text. On the other hand however this reconstruction could show that the gospel writers had a Jewish tradition to work from in order to talk about Jesus' resurrection. Another sidenote about this reconstruction is it makes the disciples confusion about Jesus' predictions about his own death and resurrection very odd because would they not have known about this type of idea from whichever community produced this tablet? However it is fair to say that not too much about this tablet can be reconstructed because of it's condition. Very interesting this reconstruction is and I look very much forward to the BAR article • • • • • • • Gabriel RevelationIf there is a problem with this text for the Christian community, it is a problem of their own making. The idea that a theology of a dying and rising messiah should not originate in the milieu of Second Temple Judaism is wrong headed. That was the milieu of Jesus. And why should anyone expect new theology in the New Testament? Even a trinitarian theology is not original to Christianity. Even the Book of Revelation has the origins of much of its contents in the Hebrew Prophets. • • • • • • • Angel NamesActually I am of the belief that all Angels and other non-human creations all had names. In fact the higher ranked ones probably have many names. Just because the names are not written in the Bible does not mean they are nonexistent. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. To your question, Was "Gabriel" used as a man's name in those days?, I reply that logic leads me to believe the answer to be No, as all angels in the Bible are men so wouldn't they all have been referred to as Gabriel? • • • • • • • ScrollAngels did have names before daniel, before the creation of the earth even, in judges the angel explains that his name cant be understood by man, but that does'nt mean they had no names. • • • • • • • A New Dead Sea Scroll in Stone?"Gabriel" is the name of an angel who first appears in the Book of Daniel. (Before that, angels didn't have names. See Judges 13:17-18.) Was "Gabriel" used as a man's name in those days? • • • • • • • |
Inside NewsDaily NewsExhibition WatchMilestonesThe Dead Sea Scrolls—
|
INFORMATION |
PUBLICATIONS |
FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTER |
Does a “Dead Sea Scroll in stone” cast new light on early Jewish and Christian views of the messiah? That is the question raised by an intriguing ancient text, a question now being debated in newspapers, web sites and blogs.