Gabriel's Revelation
In case you haven't heard of "Gabriel's Revelation", a text written on stone from just before Jesus' birth -- that speaks of Israel's messiah dying and three days later rising to life as redemptive for Israel -- then check out the New York Times story about it by clicking here.
What do you think: does the concept that messianic death and resurrection pre-dates Jesus . . .
(a) challenge the claims of Christianity by suggesting that rather than discovering a new and unique revelation about resurrection and redemption, Jesus' followers interpretted his death in light of a commonly held expectation of a Jewish tradition in their time;
-- or --
(b) support the claims of Christianity by providing a context of tradition in which Jesus grew up and studied, thereby playing key roles in Jesus' discernment of his own identity and in his articulation of his mission and message?
5 comments:
Whatever it was...I can't opt for A. Our best thinkers such as Wright would insist that a specific resurrection for Messiah was NOT a commonly held expectation...if an expectation at all. The Biblical accounts are their own testimony. That it could have been in the air and water isn't so hard to believe.
But it wasn't mainstream...and as far as I'm concerned doesn't hinder the witness or expectation.
My two cents! ;-)
I don't see, in option A, how a re-interpretation of Jewish Messianic beliefs by New Testament writers is a challenge to Christianity. When i read the gospels, i see Jesus reaching out to Israel first. I also read Paul, "To the Jew first..."
For me, it's a no-lose situation. If it's real, then that further "proves" Jesus' death and resurrection, as well as gives further validity to all BC prophesy. IF it's a fake, Christianity is not any worse off.
God bless
Here's what a similar article from www.dailymail.co.uk says (in part):
Israel Knohl, Professor of Biblical Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, says one line of the text tells the 'prince of princes' slain by the evil government, 'in three days you shall live'.
He suggests the story refers to the death of a Jewish prince called Simon who led a revolt against King Herod.
Daniel Boyarin, of the University of California at Berkeley, said that there was growing 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,' he said.
But Christian scholars dispute any contention that the tablet, which is in a private collection, could dilute the significance of Jesus's resurrection.
Ben Witherington, of Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky, said: 'This stone certainly does not demonstrate that the Gospel passion stories are created on the basis of this stone text.'
What is unique about the death and resurrection of Jesus is that it was redemptive, as declared by God and foretold by the prophets. There was clearly an understanding of resurrection in the Old Testament prophets (Jesus appropriates Jonah to speak of his own death and resurrection within three days) and there was clearly a notion of redemptive suffering (The suffering servant songs of Isaiah). It should not surprise us if a later author, especially considered to be part of a prophetic/apocalyptic genre, picked up on something that was apparently there as a possible read of the Old Testament texts. It does not discredit Christianity because the same type of thing happens with the text of Isaiah 53.
Also, I can't help but wonder how the text of the stone would have been understood if there was no resurrection narrative of Jesus. Are we reading resurrection back into the language of the Gabriel inscription because of the claims of Christianity's messianic claims? There was also a Jewish belief that the spirit of a person hovered around the body for three days before departing.
Also: Warning...we've been here before with the James Ossuary.
Just some thoughts
It seems to me that if A were true and the early church superimposed the story of a failed Messiah on a previously held expectation of a 3rd-day resurrection, it seems that the particular story of Jesus of Nazareth is an unlikely candidate. He ate with tax collectors (hardly the behavior of a "national hero" par excellence), and he was executed in a way that was designed to humiliate subversives and shame their families.
It seems to me that if such a tablet was the fuel for a fabrication, that the story of a more traditionally nationalistic "Messiah", like one of the many who died in violent revolt against Rome, would be a much easier choice to work with.
Post a Comment