Tablet ignites debate on Messiah

[Daniel_Marsh]

I take quite seriously the authenticity of this stone, since Ada Yardeni has weighed in on it, and found it genuine. So let us suppose it is genuine-- let’s ask the question, So what?

If you read the article you will discover that one eclectic Jewish scholar is now suggesting that the Christians got the idea from this stone or its source, and then predicated the idea of Jesus. It would be just as simple to argue that Jesus knew of this idea, and predicated of himself. What this stone then would show is that there was in early Judaism some concept of a suffering messiah whom God might vindicate by resurrection before the time of Jesus.

This is not entirely surprising in view of **Isaiah 53 **in any case. But the real implication of this for Jesus’ studies should not be missed. Most radical Jesus scholars have argued that the passion and resurrection predictions by Jesus found in the Gospels were not actually made by Jesus-- they reflect the later notions and theologizing of the Evangelists.

But now, if this stone is genuine there is no reason to argue this way. One can show that Jesus, just as well as the author of this stone, could have spoken about a dying and rising messiah. There is in any case a reference to a messiah who dies in the late first century A.D. document called 4 Ezra.

Long story short-- this stone certainly does not demonstrate that the Gospel passion stories are created on the basis of this stone text, which appears to be a Dead Sea text. For one thing the text is hard to read at crucial junctures, and it is not absolutely clear it is talking about a risen messiah. BUT what it does do is make plausible that Jesus could have said some of the things credited to him in Mk. 8.31, 9,31, and 10.33-34. I will have more to say about the relevance of early Jewish material for the study of the historical Jesus shortly, in a lengthy review of David Flusser’s final and interesting Jesus book The Sage from Galilee.
posted by Ben Witherington at 1:13 PM

benwitherington.blogspot.com/2008/07/death-and-resurrection-of-messiah.html

 

[Q_Bee]

Ben Witherington wrote:
“Most radical Jesus scholars have argued that the passion and resurrection predictions by Jesus found in the Gospels were not actually made by Jesus-- they reflect the later notions and theologizing of the Evangelists”.

---

On the other hand, we might also want to consider the arguments of Hyam Maccoby in “The Mythmaker”, presenting the Last Supper narrative as a Greco-Roman sacrificial rite. If 1 Corinthians 11 is the basis for the Passover dialog and it is carried forward into the Gospels, we are encountering a serious problem. But, the Gabriel Revelation Stone puts that issue to rest as well. (Maccoby does, however, present valid points, such as Paul’s lack of authentic use of qal va-homer argument.)

Ben wrote:
“BUT what it does do is make plausible that Jesus could have said some of the things credited to him in Mk. 8.31, 9,31, and 10.33-34. I will have more to say about the relevance of early Jewish material for the study of the historical Jesus shortly, in a lengthy review of David Flusser’s final and interesting Jesus book The Sage from Galilee. posted by Ben Witherington at 1:13 PM: benwitherington.blogspot.com/...f-messiah.html”

---

The problem I encountered was that there are too many posted messages on the link-site to scan through all of them on limited time. (It would be much easier to work from information posted to this locale if the material is pertinent to this discussion.

One problem I am considering though, is that the only witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection were people who were believers. If one were to argue the event to be an indisputable historical fact, there would have to be non-believers willing to give testimony as well, wouldn’t there? It would seem that these issues all circle back to matters of faith.

Q<

 

[Uranage]

Ben Witherington wrote:
“Most radical Jesus scholars have argued that the passion and resurrection predictions by Jesus found in the Gospels were not actually made by Jesus-- they reflect the later notions and theologizing of the Evangelists”.

---

On the other hand, we might also want to consider the arguments of Hyam Maccoby in “The Mythmaker”, presenting the Last Supper narrative as a Greco-Roman sacrificial rite. If 1 Corinthians 11 is the basis for the Passover dialog and it is carried forward into the Gospels, we are encountering a serious problem. But, the Gabriel Revelation Stone puts that issue to rest as well. (Maccoby does, however, present valid points, such as Paul’s lack of authentic use of qal va-homer argument.)

Ben wrote:
“BUT what it does do is make plausible that Jesus could have said some of the things credited to him in Mk. 8.31, 9,31, and 10.33-34. I will have more to say about the relevance of early Jewish material for the study of the historical Jesus shortly, in a lengthy review of David Flusser’s final and interesting Jesus book The Sage from Galilee. posted by Ben Witherington at 1:13 PM: benwitherington.blogspot.com/...f-messiah.html”

---

The problem I encountered was that there are too many posted messages on the link-site to scan through all of them on limited time. (It would be much easier to work from information posted to this locale if the material is pertinent to this discussion.

One problem I am considering though, is that the only witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection were people who were believers. If one were to argue the event to be an indisputable historical fact, there would have to be non-believers willing to give testimony as well, wouldn’t there? It would seem that these issues all circle back to matters of faith.

Q<

There were at least two inbelievers who later came to believe–Saul of tarsus (St. Paul) and James the brother/cousin of Jesus. Paul was not only an unbeliever, but a persecuter of the early Christians before he came to faith from what he believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus.

James, while being a close relative of Jesus, did not believe in him during his earthly ministry. And yet, James soon came to faith after having met the risen Jesus. Josephus records the martyrdom of James at the hands of the Jewish religious leaders in the 60’s. The conversions need to be explained in addition to the conversions of the earliest disciples of Jesus.

 

[Q_Bee]

I can’t tell who this message came from:
*There were at least two non-believers who later came to believe-- Saul of Tarsus (St. Paul) and James the brother/cousin of Jesus. Paul was not only an unbeliever, but a persecuter of the first Christians before he came to faith from what he believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus.

James, while beling a close relative of Jesus, did not believe in him during his earthly life. And yet, James later comes to faith after having met the risen Jesus. Josephus records the martyrdom of James at the hands of the Jewish religious leaders in the 60’s A.D. These conversions need to be explained ans well as the conversions of the earliest disciples of Jsus.*
-----~o0o~-----

1. Paul was not a direct witness of the mission, death, or resurrection, as far as I can tell. Everything Paul writes, he says comes from personal revelation after the fact.
2. I don’t know where the information is coming from concerning James the Just as NOT a disciple of Jesus. He is, as far as I can tell, one and the same with “James the Less”, Bishop of Jerusalem and ‘son of Alphaeus’, to whom the others reported. It is he who sends an envoy to Paul and to whom Peter appears to acquiesce when James’ representatives are present.

Would you please state your source for assuming that James was not one of the disciples?

Q<

 

[CentralFLJames]

Doesn’t it make sense that if God were on the verge of sending his Son to earth, that he might intensify the preparation of the chosen people to receive him? I mean, duhhhh!

I was thinking this too. If the tablet was made by some “new” unrecognized Jewish prophet living near or in Jerusalem it would have been somewhat par for the course for the Jews to murder yet another prophet that was trying to tell them something they didn’t want to listen to. In other words, this tablet might have been new scripture that should have made it into the OT if the person who revealed it had been taken seriously and the tablet not lost.

James

 

[gigs]

i read the article from the Israeli professor and it seems that he is surmising that the text on the tablet refers to someone named
Simon because there apparently is text on the tablet referencing a rocky crevice. Simon is not named on the tablet as far as I can tell from the article. Rather a person named Simon was killed in a Jewish revolt and his death is somehow connected to a rocky crevice. I think the connection to this Simon is tenuous. Also, it seems he is translating the table to fit his theory.

 

[Uranage]

There were at least two unbelievers who later came to believe–Saul of tarsus (St. Paul) and James the brother/cousin of Jesus. Paul was not only an unbeliever, but a persecuter of the early Christians before he came to faith from what he believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus.

James, while being a close relative of Jesus, did not believe in him during his earthly ministry. And yet, James soon came to faith after having met the risen Jesus. Josephus records the martyrdom of James at the hands of the Jewish religious leaders in the 60’s. The conversions need to be explained in addition to the conversions of the earliest disciples of Jesus.

 

[Nullasalus]

.One problem I am considering though, is that the only witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection were people who were believers. If one were to argue the event to be an indisputable historical fact, there would have to be non-believers willing to give testimony as well, wouldn’t there? It would seem that these issues all circle back to matters of faith.

Really, I’m not sure how it could be any other way. If someone encountered the risen Christ and knew as much, what are the odds they would stay non-believers? So I don’t think that’s one wall that can reasonably be expected to get past. On the other hand, I don’t think even most Christians argue that Christ’s resurrection is an ‘indisputable historical fact’. Knowledge of history rarely works that way.

I think there’s as much faith involved for us as there is for a non-witness living at the time just beyond Christ’s death. Maybe less, since we have the benefit of a lot of ready research and hindsight.

I will say, though, that I find the reporting on this discovery dicey. This really could be seen as a boon for the orthodox beliefs of Christians - it could help establish the jewish nature of the resurrection expectation, it could help reveal the failures of pagan-influence reinterpretation of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. Instead the report comes slanted based on tenuous information at best.

 

[Q_Bee]

Really, I’m not sure how it could be any other way. If someone encountered the risen Christ and knew as much, what are the odds they would stay non-believers? So I don’t think that’s one wall that can reasonably be expected to get past. On the other hand, I don’t think even most Christians argue that Christ’s resurrection is an ‘indisputable historical fact’. Knowledge of history rarely works that way.

I think the criteria for apostleship was to have been with Jesus from the beginning of his mission, but what I was speaking of was one who had witnessed the resurrection. First of all, they would have had to know Jesus - pre-crucifixion, not believed, then having seen him rise - come to faith.

I think there’s as much faith involved for us as there is for a non-witness living at the time just beyond Christ’s death. Maybe less, since we have the benefit of a lot of ready research and hindsight.

I will say, though, that I find the reporting on this discovery dicey. This really could be seen as a boon for the orthodox beliefs of Christians - it could help establish the jewish nature of the resurrection expectation, it could help reveal the failures of pagan-influence reinterpretation of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. Instead the report comes slanted based on tenuous information at best.

The Jewish nature of the resurrection expectation is still not the expectation espoused by Christians since we are not being taught that Jesus came to free the Jews from Roman oppression. I wonder how Augustine fits in to Jewish theology since the Jews did not believe in Original Sin.

 

[Nullasalus]

I think the criteria for apostleship was to have been with Jesus from the beginning of his mission, but what I was speaking of was one who had witnessed the resurrection. First of all, they would have had to know Jesus - pre-crucifixion, not believed, then having seen him rise - come to faith.

Sure, but I just see that as an awful lot of corroboration being requested.

1. Did not believe, and knew Christ during his mission.
2. Witnessed Christ rising.
3. Reported this as a believer/non-believer.

Even if these conditions are satisfied, accusations of pious fraud are still likely. If they’re a non-believer, why wouldn’t they just assert ‘I saw it, but clearly it was a trick, though I don’t know how’? If they were a believer, then they’re a believer - they instantly have some motivation to be suspect in the claim.

The Jewish nature of the resurrection expectation is still not the expectation espoused by Christians since we are not being taught that Jesus came to free the Jews from Roman oppression. I wonder how Augustine fits in to Jewish theology since the Jews did not believe in Original Sin.

Granted, but there’s still enough movement in support of the Christian view (particularly in opposition to pagan questioning) that I see this as a positive development for Christian orthodoxy. Original sin is a whole other ball-game from this one, it’d seem.

 

[NotWorthy]

I can’t tell who this message came from:
*There were at least two non-believers who later came to believe-- Saul of Tarsus (St. Paul) and James the brother/cousin of Jesus. Paul was not only an unbeliever, but a persecuter of the first Christians before he came to faith from what he believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus.

James, while beling a close relative of Jesus, did not believe in him during his earthly life. And yet, James later comes to faith after having met the risen Jesus. Josephus records the martyrdom of James at the hands of the Jewish religious leaders in the 60’s A.D. These conversions need to be explained ans well as the conversions of the earliest disciples of Jsus.*
-----~o0o~-----

1. Paul was not a direct witness of the mission, death, or resurrection, as far as I can tell. Everything Paul writes, he says comes from personal revelation after the fact.
2. I don’t know where the information is coming from concerning James the Just as NOT a disciple of Jesus. He is, as far as I can tell, one and the same with “James the Less”, Bishop of Jerusalem and ‘son of Alphaeus’, to whom the others reported. It is he who sends an envoy to Paul and to whom Peter appears to acquiesce when James’ representatives are present.

Would you please state your source for assuming that James was not one of the disciples?

Q<

I think the historian Hegesippus stated this. James, the first bishop of Jerusalem is not the Apostle James (either of them). There is no Church consensus on this. As a matter of fact, I believe the Church leans toward James the Lesser as being James the Just.

Personally, I think James the Just was a Pharisee that converted.

 

[Q_Bee]

Sure, but I just see that as an awful lot of corroboration being requested.

1. Did not believe, and knew Christ during his mission.
2. Witnessed Christ rising.
3. Reported this as a believer/non-believer.

Even if these conditions are satisfied, accusations of pious fraud are still likely. If they’re a non-believer, why wouldn’t they just assert ‘I saw it, but clearly it was a trick, though I don’t know how’? If they were a believer, then they’re a believer - they instantly have some motivation to be suspect in the claim.

Well, if we can believe that someone who never knew Jesus, but persecuted his followers, became one of the most authoritative sources based upon his exclusive ‘vision’, which only he could personally vouch for, then anything is possible.

Granted, but there’s still enough movement in support of the Christian view (particularly in opposition to pagan questioning) that I see this as a positive development for Christian orthodoxy. Original sin is a whole other ball-game from this one, it’d seem.

I suppose the question still begs to be answered: Does Jesus fit the criteria of a Jewish messiah or a Greco-Roman one? If the two differ, can they be reconciled?

 

[NotWorthy]

I suppose the question still begs to be answered: Does Jesus fit the criteria of a Jewish messiah or a Greco-Roman one? If the two differ, can they be reconciled?

That depends.

Does Jesus fit the criteria of the Jewish Scriptures for the Messiah? Yes. Just read Matthew to verify that fact.

Does Jesus fit the criteria of the common Jewish man in Ancient Judea for the Messiah? I think not. His Crucifixion is proof of that.

 

[Q_Bee]

That depends.

Does Jesus fit the criteria of the Jewish Scriptures for the Messiah? Yes. Just read Matthew to verify that fact.

Isn’t this the same as saying, “The Bible is true because it says it is”?

 

[NotWorthy]

Isn’t this the same as saying, “The Bible is true because it says it is”?

No, it’s not. The testimony of all the martyrs is proof that it wasn’t.

What’s the use of Peter being crucified if it’s just to make people believe in the bible for 2000 years. What’s in it for Peter (or any of the other martyred Apostles)? I mean, all they had to do was renounce Christianity and they would have been able to live comfortably for the rest of their lives as a puppet for the Roman emperor who wanted to destroy this fledgling sect.

 

[NotWorthy]

Isn’t this the same as saying, “The Bible is true because it says it is”?

Also, if the Messiah was what the Jews were expecting, then this argument would make sense. But the Messiah was everything the Jews didn’t expect Him to be! Remember, they simply wanted to be a free country who could withstand any other world power, allowing them to worship God in their Temple at their own leisure.

 

[Nullasalus]

Well, if we can believe that someone who never knew Jesus, but persecuted his followers, became one of the most authoritative sources based upon his exclusive ‘vision’, which only he could personally vouch for, then anything is possible.

Only he could vouch for his vision, but others could vouch for his prior temperament and disposition, his change of view, etc. I don’t think anyone makes the argument that Paul’s authority derived exclusively from his vision - he apparently went through and did quite a lot of work throughout his life, and after that vision.

And really, that seems a bit curt for my only pointing out the obvious problem of expecting an ‘unbiased corroboration’ of a report of resurrection. As I said in another thread, if a document was discovered indicating that there was independent roman verification of Christ rising, it would be taken by some as proof that Christianity was promoted as part of a roman conspiracy. The sort of independent verification you’re asking for does not exist even in ideal circumstances.

I suppose the question still begs to be answered: Does Jesus fit the criteria of a Jewish messiah or a Greco-Roman one? If the two differ, can they be reconciled?

Apparently he fit the criteria of a jewish messiah enough to attract a large jewish following during his time and after his death. I don’t see why a ‘Greco-Roman messiah’ is even an issue, much less one that calls for reconciliation. That some, even many jews rejected him or had a different expectation of a messiah doesn’t seem itself problematic either - the OT itself is filled with examples of jews and gentiles alike making some considerable mistakes.

 

[Q_Bee]

Only he could vouch for his vision, but others could vouch for his prior temperament and disposition, his change of view, etc. I don’t think anyone makes the argument that Paul’s authority derived exclusively from his vision - he apparently went through and did quite a lot of work throughout his life, and after that vision.

Nonetheless, we have his sole word concerning his vision. That is all I meant to say.

And really, that seems a bit curt for my only pointing out the obvious problem of expecting an ‘unbiased corroboration’ of a report of resurrection. As I said in another thread, if a document was discovered indicating that there was independent roman verification of Christ rising, it would be taken by some as proof that Christianity was promoted as part of a roman conspiracy. The sort of independent verification you’re asking for does not exist even in ideal circumstances.

I did not intend for my remark to be curt. However, I am not arguing theology, but the known facts on the matter. So, I’m not allowing myself to be influenced by the posts that draw upon an elevated view of the material to change my focus.

Apparently he fit the criteria of a jewish messiah enough to attract a large jewish following during his time and after his death. I don’t see why a ‘Greco-Roman messiah’ is even an issue, much less one that calls for reconciliation. That some, even many jews rejected him or had a different expectation of a messiah doesn’t seem itself problematic either - the OT itself is filled with examples of jews and gentiles alike making some considerable mistakes.

The difference would be in whether Jesus’ mission was to mitigate the circumstances of Roman occupation or to save ‘the world from its sin’. The Jews believed that the ‘sins of the father’ were in effect to the forth generation, but RC theology presents sin as being inherited from the first humans.

 

[NotWorthy]

The Jews believed that the ‘sins of the father’ were in effect to the forth generation, but RC theology presents sin as being inherited from the first humans.

Wrong. The teaching of Original Sin is that in sinning, Adam and Eve lost Sanctifying Grace, or that which can get you to heaven. Since humans cannot earn their Salvation, it has to be gifted from God. Jesus Christ promises us this through his Baptism.

Original Sin is simply being born without this Sanctifying Grace. It’s not a sin we inherited.

 

[Q_Bee]

Also, if the Messiah was what the Jews were expecting, then this argument would make sense. But the Messiah was everything the Jews didn’t expect Him to be! Remember, they simply wanted to be a free country who could withstand any other world power, allowing them to worship God in their Temple at their own leisure.

It would seem that one would have to consider which Jews, since some didn’t believe in an afterlife, some didn’t believe in a personal God, and most likely, some didn’t believe that a messiah was going to save the country either. They were used to a succession of messiahs, some were prophets and some were kings. In fact, the Jews had astrologers and such in their courts. It’s really hard to say what the Jews believed as a whole. What were the Jews expecting?