Was Jesus’ Resurrection a Sequel?
[Time]
A 3-ft.-high tablet romantically dubbed “Gabriel’s Revelation” could challenge the uniqueness of the idea of the Christian Resurrection. The tablet appears to date authentically to the years just before the birth of Jesus and yet — at least according to one Israeli scholar — it announces the raising of a messiah after three days in the grave. If true, this could mean that Jesus’ followers had access to a well-established paradigm when they decreed that Christ himself rose on the third day — and it might even hint that they they could have applied it in their grief after their master was crucified. However, such a contentious reading of the 87-line tablet depends on creative interpretation of a smudged passage, making it the latest entry in the woulda/coulda/shoulda category of possible New Testament artifacts; they are useful to prove less-spectacular points and to stir discussion on the big ones, but probably not to settle them nor shake anyone’s faith.
The ink-on-stone document, which is owned by a Swiss-Israeli antiques collector and reportedly came to light about a decade ago, has been dated by manuscript and chemical experts to a period just before Jesus’ birth. Some scholars think it may originally have been part of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a trove of religious texts found in caves on the West Bank that were possibly associated with John the Baptist. The tablet is written in the form of an end-of-the-world prediction in the voice of the angel Gabriel; one line, for instance, predicts that “in three days you will know evil will be defeated by justice.”
Such “apocalypses,” often featuring a triumphant military figure called a messiah (literally, anointed one), were not uncommon in the religious and politically tumultuous Jewish world of 1st century B.C. Palestine. But what may make the Gabriel tablet unique is its 80th line, which begins with the words “In three days” and includes some form of the verb “to live.” Israel Knohl, an expert in Talmudic and biblical language at Jerusalem’s Hebrew University who was not involved in the first research on the artifact, claims that it refers to a historic 1st-century Jewish rebel named Simon who was killed by the Romans in 4 B.C., and should read “In three days, you shall live. I Gabriel command you.” If so, Jesus-era Judaism had begun to explore the idea of a three-day resurrection before Jesus was born.
This, in turn, undermines one of the strongest literary arguments employed by Christians over centuries to support the historicity of the Resurrection (in which they believe on faith): the specificity and novelty of the idea that the Messiah would die on a Friday and rise on a Sunday. Who could make such stuff up? But, as Knohl told TIME, maybe the Christians had a model to work from. The idea of a “dying and rising messiah appears in some Jewish texts, but until now, everyone thought that was the impact of Christianity on Judaism,” he says. “But for the first time, we have proof that it was the other way around. The concept was there before Jesus.” If so, he goes on, “this should shake our basic view of Christianity. … What happens in the New Testament [could have been] adopted by Jesus and his followers based on an earlier messiah story.”
Read more here.
[From me]
How do we know the dating is a few years before Jesus? What is a few years give or take when you are talking 2000 years ago? Wasn’t the claim by this scholar the same claim the Jews made? Some are trying to say that Jesus stole his teaching from Buddha? If someone can prove to me that the Resurrection didn’t happen then you have a bombshell! But that isn’t going to happen.
The disciples were scared to death and hiding after Jesus death. What changed following His Resurrection? They saw Jesus. Then they were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to share Jesus message with power and conviction. No one would go to their death for something they knew was a lie.
The only Sequel will be when Jesus comes back to take believers home.
What do you think?
Even so come quickly, Lord Jesus…
M. Steve Heartsill’s last blog post..The End of the Internet is Near!
I say you are right on! selahV
selahV’s last blog post..SOMETHING DOROTHY PATTERSON SAID THAT RIPPED INTO MY HEART
“…….Jesus’ followers had access to a well-established paradigm when they decreed that Christ himself rose on the third day — and it might even hint that they they could have applied it in their grief after their master was crucified.”
That would run completely counter to the reaction we see, on the disciples’ part, to the crucifixion. Personally I think little “revelations” like this are a sure sign of the approach of the end times. Sort of a separating of the sheep and the goats. A chance for the nonbelievers in the organized church to jump ship if they’re at all so inclined.
Bob Cleveland’s last blog post..Proverbs 3:5-6, Live Version
Chuck Colson speaks about this on his Breakpoint commentary. You can find it here: http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=8134. In case I messed that up the commentary is called “The Stumbling Stone.” Great thoughts!
Bill(cycleguy)’s last blog post..Back to the Future
Kevin,
It’s based on Yuval Goren’s chemical examination (no details yet - he will publish his findings shortly), Ada Yardeni’s writing analysis, and Binyamin Elitzur’s script analysis. The analysis will be subject to peer review and I’m sure there will be more independent testing.
I don’t think you have anything to worry about - regardless of the amount of evidence that exists to support a claim that the notion of a suffering Jewish savior existed before the time of Jesus, no one can prove it to you
This is the sort of thing we were talking about in your earlier post that is changing the landscape of Christian apologetics. You said it was a great thing. I hope you still feel that way. Maybe you’ll even take some time to read the analysis once it’s published. Personally, I’ll want to read it for myself rather than relying on how others interpret the results to justify their a-prioi beliefs.
You mean the story about the Jews in the Bible? I don’t think it is. While the Bible story portrays Jewish polemic against the suffering savior, this recent story in the news could be more evidence that a suffering savior was already part of Jewish thought. If it turns out to be legit, it will show that stories about a fallen savior that rises on the 3rd day were already in circulation.
We’ve had this discussion a few times with the same outcome
Maybe this will jog your memory: do you believe that someone dying for a belief is evidence that what they believe is true? If not, then the disciple’s death is no evidence of the claim of Jesus’ divinity. If it is evidence, then I can cite evidence that the Qur’an (and various other sacred writings) is true.
Since it’s the historicity of the biblical account that’s being called into question, do you know of any extra-biblical evidence that Jesus’ disciples died for their faith?
The infallible, inspired Word of God? Something that challenges that? I choose God’s words.
Debbie Kaufman’s last blog post..Danger Danger Will Robinson
This is the kind of thing that SCREAMS for independent analysis. Certainly before some kind of claim like this is made. It’s not good objective science at all.
I’ve been following biblical archeology for years and the landscape is *littered* with evidence that at one time or another claimed to “undeniably” refute the Bible. That’s one of the bigger reasons to tread carefully, and make sure all the ducks are in a row, before making an announcement that some will quickly regard as inflammatory for its own sake.
And so far as dating goes:researchers have been trying for years to date the Shroud of Turin. Some tests indicate it’s a product of medieval manufacture, while others seem to bear out that it is indeed a cloth from the area of Palestine circa 1 A.D.
Radiocarbon dating is still considered one of the best tools for finding the age of an object… and even that isn’t foolproof.
In the end perhaps science is something that more than we’d like to admit must be accepted, as is spirituality, on faith.
Chris Knight’s last blog post..Coming soon…
I guess I don’t see the big deal. The disciples appealed to OT scripture to demonstrate the suffering Messiah who would conquer death–they looked to Psalm 22 & Isaiah 53 among others. Jesus appealed to Jonah. Is it so far fetched that some Jews were paying enough attention that the could actually understand what the Messiah was going to do? Could not Satan have figured out what was going to happen and try to undermine it–he is the great counterfeiter? Could God have been trying to prepare the people for what was coming (when the time had fully come…Gal. 4:4)
Does the inscription talk about the meaning of it… why the Messiah would die and come back to life? Does it talk about how it saves us?
To me, this serves as more of a confirmation that the Jewish community knew full well what they were rejecting–seeing it played out right before their eyes.
agree?
Kelly Reed’s last blog post..Always Hope–Sunday’s Coming
Chris,
I take it you are not a “young-earther”?
I think you are right that radiocarbon dating is a great tool. It’s not the only reliable tool though. When various independent dating methods (like radiocarbon dating, script analysis, various types of chemical analysis, to name just a few) indicate overlapping date ranges, that should increase our confidence that the date range is correct.
While this might be the ‘faith in science’ that you referred to, it’s quite different than blind faith that is at the heart of religious belief in certain circles - ‘faith in science’ is rather set of belief based on evidence. Scientific beliefs are always subject to change if new evidence demands it. Maybe we could say that we have confidence in the scientific method because of the way that it is self-correcting?
Kelly,
YES!!! Thanks for that! I had a bet with a friend that if the tablet turned out to be legit, Christians would claim that it was a prophesy. Thanks for not making me wait until the research is in!
A3,
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that you don’t believe in predictive prophesy.
I’m stunned.
I don’t know what it says yet, but the implications aren’t necessarily what the article says it’s going to be. And since it seems to be only a small selection of a community’s beliefs, we may not know the whole picture of where it fits into their theological system.
I’d also think you could predict someone’s opinion about it based upon their previous beliefs. If they don’t like Christianity, it undermines it. If they do, it’s either not as important or something else. People tend to fall upon already established lines, myself included.
It’ll be interesting to see how things are talked about.
Kelly Reed’s last blog post..Always Hope–Sunday’s Coming
Just happened to surf around and stumbled across Al Mohler’s blog talking about this subject and archaeology in general. It’s pretty balanced.
Here’s the link. http://www.almohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1184
a couple of good paragraphs
For this reason, Christians are too often overly excited about the latest “discovery” that gains media attention — either in elation or travail. Archaeology is an important scholarly discipline, but it is not immune from ideology and many of the conclusions and arguments announced to the public are actually not at all what they first appear to be. Furthermore, archaeology is largely a matter of historical reconstruction, often with little actual evidence. As a rule, the more distant the time, the more difficult the reconstruction. That makes sense, of course, as time destroys both evidence and the preservation of memory.
later
Archaeological findings are of great interest, of course. But the key issue is what kind of authority we invest in archaeology in terms of authenticating or disproving the text of the Bible. Christians err by accepting or investing too much evidentiary authority in archaeological “findings,” whether considered to support or to question the biblical accounts.
Kelly Reed’s last blog post..Always Hope–Sunday’s Coming
Kelly,
I’m with you on this one.
I agree with that too. I think the implication (again, if the tablet is legit) is that it could clarify details of the martyred or suffering messiah idea which was already known to be in circulation, even before the discovery of the tablet - details like rising on the 3rd day for example. If you are a Bible scholar and you have a basis (textual criticism, extrabiblical writings, etc.) to conclude that the Gospels were a compilation of various oral traditions, then this tablet sheds more light on at least one of those oral traditions. That’s pretty exciting! If you are a Christian fundamentalist (a Christian who believes a-priori that the Gospels are the inerrant Word of God), then you will view the tablet as a prophesy since you believe a-priori that Jesus died and rose on the 3rd day as is written on the tablet. That would be exciting too!
That was my reasoning behind my aforementioned bet (thanks again - my friend read your post, conceded the bet and payed up!). I thought that if the tablet turns out to be legitimate, believers would find creative (though not always satisfying) ways to reinterpret its meaning such that it would not threaten their faith, just as they have done with other potentially damaging evidence.
I think Christians are often a little gun-shy of new archaeological discoveries because they sometimes do undermine the historicity of the Bible (see The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts - by Silberman and Finkelstein for some good examples). But I personally don’t think the discovery of this tablet will turn out to be one of those damaging discoveries.
Add A Comment