Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 07-08-2008, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

That's what I meant. If the interpretation is accurate....

It may be a big If.

I'm a little surprised that so much of the material in this thread has been about the implications if Knohl is right, with relatively little about the problems with Knohl's reconstruction.

Andrew Criddle

I have to admit that this is quite unclear to me, but Knohl seems to find allusions to other Jewish documents that fill in the gaps. And as one of the commentators noted, there is already precedent for the three days in the Jonah story.

English translation by Yardeni

Note that there are numerous reference to "three" and three references to "three days."

Quote:

16. [and] the Hasidin(?). My servant, David, asked from before Ephraim(?)
17. [to?] put the sign(?) I ask from you. Because He said, (namely,)
18. [Y]HWH of Hosts, the Lord of Israel: …
19. sanctity(?)\sanctify(?) Israel! In three days you shall know, that(?)\for(?) He said,
20. (namely,) YHWH the Lord of Hosts, the Lord of Israel: The evil broke (down)
21. before justice. Ask me and I will tell you what [22] this bad [21] plant is,
22. lwbnsd/r/k (=? [To me? in libation?]) you are standing, the messenger\angel. He
23. … (= will ordain you?) to Torah(?). Blessed be the Glory of YHWH the Lord, from

Knohl translates lines 19-21 as:

Quote:

By three days you shall know that, thus said the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, the evil has been broken by righteousness.

That seems fairly uncontroversial.

Other references to 3 days:

Quote:

Column B
(Lines 45-50 are unintelligible)
51. Your people(?)\with you(?) …[…]
52. … the [me]ssengers(?)\[a]ngels(?)[ …]…
53. on\against His/My people. And …[…]…
54. [… ]three days(?). This is (that) which(?) …[… ]He(?)
55. the Lord(?)\these(?)[ …]…[…]
56. see(?) …[…]

77. Who am I(?), I (am?) Gabri’el the …(=angel?)… […]
78. You(?) will save them, …[…]…
79. from before You, the three si[gn]s(?), three …[….]
80. In three days …, I, Gabri’el …[?],
81. the Prince of Princes, …, narrow holes(?) …[…]…
82. to/for … […]… and the …
83. to me(?), out of three - the small one, whom(?) I took, I, Gabri’el.

Knohl finds the resurrection in line 80: [The Hebrew fonts do not copy - check the downloadable pdf from the Journal of Religion.]

Quote:

Line 80 of the text begins with the words (by three days), after which the editors read the letter het followed by three undecipherable letters and then the words (I Gabriel). In my opinion, the word that the editors read only partially is completely legible and can clearly be read as [..].12 The context implies that the angel Gabriel addresses someone and tells him: “by three days, live/be resurrected!” (cf. Ezek. 16:6: “In your blood, Live [ ].”). This spelling is well known to us from the Dead Sea Scrolls such as 1QIsa (30:39), where we find the spelling instead of .13 ...

It may be an argument against forgery that this is so difficult to decipher. Surely a forger could have made things clearer.

Minimalist · 07-08-2008, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Note that there are numerous reference to "three" and three references to "three days."

Christians seem to be enthralled by the number 3.

Toto · 07-08-2008, 06:14 PM

Psst - this is a Jewish document.

andrewcriddle · 07-08-2008, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

It may be a big If.

I'm a little surprised that so much of the material in this thread has been about the implications if Knohl is right, with relatively little about the problems with Knohl's reconstruction.

Andrew Criddle

I have to admit that this is quite unclear to me, but Knohl seems to find allusions to other Jewish documents that fill in the gaps. And as one of the commentators noted, there is already precedent for the three days in the Jonah story.

English translation by Yardeni

Note that there are numerous reference to "three" and three references to "three days."

.................................................. .......................

Knohl finds the resurrection in line 80: [The Hebrew fonts do not copy - check the downloadable pdf from the Journal of Religion.]

Quote:

Line 80 of the text begins with the words (by three days), after which the editors read the letter het followed by three undecipherable letters and then the words (I Gabriel). In my opinion, the word that the editors read only partially is completely legible and can clearly be read as [..].12 The context implies that the angel Gabriel addresses someone and tells him: “by three days, live/be resurrected!” (cf. Ezek. 16:6: “In your blood, Live [ ].”). This spelling is well known to us from the Dead Sea Scrolls such as 1QIsa (30:39), where we find the spelling instead of .13 ...

Hi Toto

IMVHO Knohl is probably right in translating the beginning of line 80 as by three days live if so this would seem to be an important witness to early Jewish beliefs concerning resurrection.

What seems utterly speculative is the idea that this refers to a resurrected Messiah. (One has to a/ accept a number of speculative textual reconstructions b/ take "prince of princes" to mean a messianic figure rather than more likely alternatives such as God or Gabriel or Michael.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It may be an argument against forgery that this is so difficult to decipher. Surely a forger could have made things clearer.

I agree that it can't be intended as a forgery about Messianic resurrection, (and IMO is probably genuine). However, I have wondered if it might be a forgery intended to provide evidence that later forms of Jewish mysticism (Merkabah mysticism) go back to an early date.

Andrew Criddle

neilgodfrey · 07-09-2008, 12:43 AM

[QUOTE=Dave31;5431191]

Quote:

Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection

. . . . .

“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,” Mr. Boyarin said.

. . . . .

I read almost the same words in a review of Jon D. Levenson's "The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity" (1993).

The idea of death and resurrection of the Well Beloved (and Only) Son which has atoning and saving power for Israel as a whole and martyrs in particular was, according to Levenson, a midrashic interpretation of the story of the offering of Isaac that gained ground in the Second Temple Period.

Levenson argues that the Beloved Son Jesus' atoning death and resurrection motif was the direct outgrowth of Second Temple Jewish midrash on the other Beloved Son narratives in the Hebrew Bible. The Beloved (Only) Son could be used as almost a technical term for the one to be sacrificed, either literally or symbolically, and that in Maccabean times of persecution, Isaac's "sacrifice" appears to have been reinterpreted as a literal and willing death and resurrection that had atoning and salvific power for the Jews, especially those facing martyrdom. Other Beloved Son narratives involved deaths or apparent deaths at the hands of hateful siblings, such as the Judah's betrayal of Joseph. The midrash from this appears in the Synoptic Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen. When the gospels open with the proclamation of This is My Beloved Son in whom I delight etc, and highlight this again at the transfiguration, early Jewish audiences would have heard the title of the One to Be Sacrificed (and resurrected) like Isaac, for a people's salvation.

I've almost completed a more detailed outline of the argument beginning here, (all related posts completed to date are archived here).

Neil

Toto · 07-09-2008, 12:48 AM

I think I would rather see Jesus as Horus than Jesus as Isaac.

mg01 · 07-09-2008, 05:52 AM

Does anyone know if the repeated phrase translated to English as "YHWH the Lord of Hosts, the Lord of Israel" is actually "YHWH sebaoth Elohim Israel", the phrase common from the OT? It just struck me funny to see "Lord of Israel" where the OT always has "Elohim Israel", commonly rendered "God".

Malachi151 · 07-09-2008, 06:03 AM

neilgodfrey:

I don't think that the Isaac narrative has anything to do with it. Also, I think that Mark 1:11 is based on Isaiah 42:1:

"Here is my servant, whom I uphold,my chosen, in whom my soul delights;I have put my spirit upon him;he will bring forth justice to the nations."

Toto · 07-09-2008, 02:20 PM

Catholic spin

Quote:

While one scholar claims the find could “shake our basic view of Christianity,” a Catholic Professor of Scripture suggests the tablet is actually evidence for the historical probability of Christian belief.

. . .

Dr. Timothy Gray, a professor of Biblical Studies at the Augustine Institute in Denver, told CNA that the news of the tablet was “very fascinating,” saying “everything seems to point to its authenticity.”

He said the text seems to draw heavily upon the Book of Daniel. Scholars know from the work of Josephus that many Jews immediately before and during the time of Jesus focused on the Book of Daniel because of his prophecies related to a messiah coming to usher in a Kingdom of God.

...

According to Gray, a standard view of modern biblical scholarship holds that the sayings of Jesus in the Gospels where He predicts His Passion and His death cannot be authentic because, scholars believe, most Jews had no expectation of a suffering messiah. Such scholars attributed these words of Jesus to later additions made by the early Church.

Knohl’s minority contention that there were Jewish ideas of a suffering messiah before Jesus, Gray said, is echoed in the work of Catholic biblical scholar Brant Pitre.

...

Kosh · 07-09-2008, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Catholic spin

Right, I was waiting for something like that. Why would not just be another of those scriptural prophesies that Mathew liked to imagine?

And as for it's authenticity and convenience of it's preservation, does anyone know if Oded Golan (sp?) is out on bail, or if he gets visitors? :devil1:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-08-2008, 06:14 PM	#33
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Psst - this is a Jewish document.

07-09-2008, 12:48 AM	#36
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I think I would rather see Jesus as Horus than Jesus as Isaac.

07-09-2008, 05:52 AM	#37
mg01 Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: USA Posts: 197	Does anyone know if the repeated phrase translated to English as "YHWH the Lord of Hosts, the Lord of Israel" is actually "YHWH sebaoth Elohim Israel", the phrase common from the OT? It just struck me funny to see "Lord of Israel" where the OT always has "Elohim Israel", commonly rendered "God".

07-09-2008, 06:03 AM	#38
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	neilgodfrey: I don't think that the Isaac narrative has anything to do with it. Also, I think that Mark 1:11 is based on Isaiah 42:1: "Here is my servant, whom I uphold,my chosen, in whom my soul delights;I have put my spirit upon him;he will bring forth justice to the nations."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.