The Secular Media Calls for a New “Jesus Story”
Hierothee passed along the latest in archeologism that the popular press expects will force a revision of the “Jesus story.” A short summary for those who are not familiar with it and don’t want to follow the link: about a decade ago, a three foot high tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew text was found, probably in the region of the Dead Sea in Jordan. The authenticity has not yet been questioned, and the dating is believed to be no later than the first century BC.
The text is somewhat illegible in parts, and so there is necessarily some interpolation required. Such is the case in a specific area of the text which some have read to suggest that the Messiah will die and rise in three days. This is being promoted by at least one “scholar” and, of course, the media, to suggest that Jesus simply heard about this tradition and applied it to himself. In other words, they suppose that if the prediction of a suffering Messiah existed in the Jewish tradition prior to Jesus’ arrival then one must suppose that this prediction brings into question any subsequent claims of fulfillment.
Let us assume that the tablet is authentic, the dating is correct, and these interpolations are accurate. The point is that even though Christianity is an historical religion no single archaeological find will ever require a revision of historical Christianity. Those who think that it might do not understand the limitations of empirical science and/or are ignorant of methodological limitations of historical research. Historical data themselves demonstrate the confluence of a stream of supporting evidence that one piece (or a few pieces) of archaeological evidence by itself will never be able to overcome.
Furthermore, the specific claims here are based upon much conjecture, not simply about the tablet itself, but about what this one text means for first century Palestine. This tablet, if it is all the above article says that it is, still does not indicate how widespread this idea might have been. One would suspect that Jesus’ words to the two disciples on the way to Emmaus in Luke 24, showing them that the Christ was to suffer, suggest that if the prophecy about the suffering and death of the Messiah did exist at Jesus’ time it was not widely known. The claims also seem to imply a Marcion-like dichotomy between Old Testament Messianic prophecy and New Testament fulfillment. In other words, the uniqueness of Jesus Christ implies for some Christians almost a complete rupture with the predicted Jewish Messiah. Of course, a prediction of a suffering, dying Messiah should not be surprising, especially in light of Isaiah 53.
Claims have been around since antiquity that the Christians pilfered various texts from the Hebrew scriptures and cobbled them together in constructing their narrative of the suffering and dying Messiah. There’s nothing new under the sun with this new, media-driven story. One can reasonably claim that Old Testament texts prophesy the coming of the Suffering Servant and the Son of Man. Or, alternatively, one can claim that early Christians stole these texts and, on the basis of the theology of these texts, constructed the story of the Christian Messiah. A third option is that the texts are neither prophetic nor source materials for a fabricated story. Similarly, interpretations of this newly-found Hebrew tablet may be taken in any of these directions: it may be prophetic, or it may be source material for a fabricated story, or it may be completely irrelevant to the story of Jesus. In other words, it does not have to be assumed that the tablet can only be interpreted as source material for a fabricated story.
Regarding Old Testament texts, it is our considered opinion, based on various strands of evidence or “converging probabilities,” that they point to the coming of Christ, the Suffering Servant and the Son of Man. That is, the Old Testament texts foretell the coming of Christ and his redemptive mission. They are not simply fodder for invented stories. The newly-found tablet under discussion might very well have been engraved by people inspired by the very same Spirit who enabled the Hebrew prophets to catch a glimpse of the coming of the Savior of the world.
It is not surprising that academics and a popular media with an animus for Christianity and a motivation for sensationalism are going to try to maximize the significance of the meager datum of conjecture they proffer. However, while this tablet may or may not be of any value for Judeo-Christian studies, at its worst, it provides nothing in the way of concern for historical Christianity.
Note: I posted this quickly last night just before our drive back from TX early this morning (made it safe and sound!) and forgot to mention that Hierothee significantly contributed to this post.
.jpg)
I posted on this yesterday. What follows is part of that post, and I think the final paragraph is very important; especially the last two lines (please keep in mind I posted this rather quickly):
The antagonist in this “debate” seems to be one man, described by the news story as “iconoclastic” (i.e., he likes to shock people by destroying things). His name is Israel Knohl, and he wrote a book in 2000 in which he carpentered together various texts from early rabbinic and apocalyptic sources, along with the Dead Sea Scrolls, to construct a thesis that the idea of a suffering Messiah predated Jesus. If it does, then the burning question becomes “so what?” That can hardly be taken as invalidating Christian belief, since that belief states that Jesus came to fulfill at least some Jewish messianic expectations. The work was not well-received in scholarly circles, and the eminent biblical scholar, Father Joseph Fitzmyer had little trouble dismantling it in his book THE ONE WHO IS TO COME. It appears that Knohl is now trying to resurrect his thesis by postulating another thesis concerning the stone tablets inscription. According to the article: “When he read the Gabriel Revelation,” (his term for the tablet), “he believed he saw what he needed to solidify his thesis.”
Knohl thinks that the stone “could be” referring to some guy named Simon who, according to the first century Jewish historian, Josephus, was killed by a commander in the Herodian army. But is there any evidence from the stone itself that such a reference “could be” more than just Knohl’s wishful thinking? Apparently not. “The writers of the stone’s passages were probably Simon’s followers, Knohl contends.” I have difficulty seeing how a series of possibles can solidify as thesis.
Also problematic is Knolh’s translation of line 80, which he says reads: “In three days you shall live, I Gabriel, command you.” The words “in three days” are clear enough, but the word “live” is somewhat problematic. “The word of the line was deemed partially illegible by Yardeni and Elitzur, but Knohl, who is an expert on the language of the Bible and Talmud, says the word is “hayeh,” or “live” in the imperative….Two more hard to read words come later, and Knohl said he believed that he had deciphered them as well.” Given Knohl’s apparent penchant for wishful thinking, which he employs in service to his iconoclasm and thesis building-I don’t take any of this very seriously.
The idea that the stone is predicting that the individual who will rise in three days will rise from the dead is itself tenuous at best, if not altogether non-existent. Further, the idea of being raised up after three days is not unknown in the Old Testament, for Hosea 6:2 Reads: “He will revive us after two days; on the third day He will raise us up, to live in His presence.” Here the text is not speaking (at least at the literal level) about a bodily resurrection, rather “it simply stands as a poetic device that conveys the rejuvenation and rescue of the nation at a time of crisis. Whether by bringing rain or by delivering the people from enemies, YHWH (God) gives life to the nation of Israel so that the people “live before” YHWH.” (Marvin Sweeney, THE TWELVE PROPHETS, Vol. 1, Berit Olam Series, pg 70). Likewise, Ezekiel 37:1-14 speaks of Israel being freed from the Babylonian exile under the image of a bodily resurrection. Given the militaristic and political themes on the tablet, not to mention the absence of any reference to the actual death of the individual being spoken of, is it not likely that the rising being spoken of here is salvation from, or victory over, enemies? This is why Knohl has to speculate rather insistently that the tablet is referring to Simon, who was murdered by a commander in the Herodian Army. He needs some dead Jewish rebel to bolster his thesis.
Comment by dim bulb — July 7, 2008 @ 1:25 PM
Great post, Dim. But it must be admitted that this is a whole lot of kerfluffle about nothing. The history of religions shows that every religion, and most of all Judaism itself, is full of themes that can be taken to foreshadow the narrative of Christ. Enemies of the Church have been claiming for centuries that Christians stole the idea of a dying and rising God from somewhere else.
But the more historically convincing and interesting explanation of the analogy of religion is that the whole world, and most of all the People of God of the Old Covenant, awaited the Crucified and Risen One — whether they consciously knew it or not. Mythical themes that have a superficial parallel to the Christian narrative are better interpreted as “dim” foreshadowings of Christ’s redemptive mission than as source material for a stolen story.
The sacrificial theme of ancient religion is taken up and transfigured by Christ. Ritual sacrifice, found in all religions, captures the instinct of fallen man that there must be some connection between love and death. We must lose ourselves in order to find ourselves. Christ offered a true, perfect, and effective sacrifice on Golgotha. But it was analogously prefigured in shadows, figures, and types: in both the Old Covenant and even, to some degree, in religions outside of the Covenant of Abraham.
There are certain Protestant presuppositions in our culture about the nature of religion in relation to Christianity that make it so that things like this present archaeological discussion are taken way out of proportion.
Comment by hierothee — July 7, 2008 @ 6:55 PM
Yes. As I noted in my post, the first thing I did when I read the story was to yawn. That’s a word that seems to be appearing often in relation to this story. I guess it never occurred to the the media that it wasn’t up to them or an “iconoclastic” Jewish scholar to decide what would and wouldn’t be shocking to Christians.
Comment by dim bulb — July 7, 2008 @ 9:13 PM
Sad it is ;-( that the multitudes believe a heretical
tradition regarding The One many, who say they are
believers, seek to follow. He Who is “The Messiah,
The Son of The Living GOD”.
Seems there is undeniable proof that the traditional name
of ‘jesus’ was not The Messiah’s GOD given birth Name
in any language! And proof exists in not just one, but all
New Testament Greek manuscripts from which catholic
and christian translators created their version of the
“bibles”!
Yes, undeniable proof!
First, the Greek word “Iesous” was used by those who
translated the Greek Septuagint, which was the Hebrew
to Greek translation of the Old Testimonies.
In the Greek Septuagint, which was translated prior to
the birth of The Messiah, the Greek word “Iesous” was
used to represent “Jeshua, son of Nun, so named by
Moses”. (Numbers 13:16)
And so it was established that the Greek name “Iesous”
represented the Hebrew name YeHoWsHuwa’(which
should have been translated as Jeshua, rather than
‘joshua’ in the English language Old Testaments).
Then in most all the New Testament translations, from
the various Greek manuscripts, the word “Iesous” was
translated correctly as Je(o)shua(YeHoWsHuwa’) in both
Acts 7:45 and Heb 4:8 and then the same Greek word
“Iesous” was traditionally(for the past 500, or so, years)
translated as their “imag”ined ‘jesus’ in all other places
of the English language New Testaments ;-(
However, in the original kjv(aptly named as king james’
version for it was of the church OF england) those who
did the translating of the New Testament decided to
rename Je(o)shua and declared the Je(o)shua of the
Old Testament to be of the same name as their
“imag”ined ‘jesus’ in both Acts 7:45 and Heb 4:8 ;-(
At least the translators of the kjv were consistent, yet
the result of their consistency is confusion ;-(
And so it was that a heretical tradition was established
less than 500 years past ;-(
Now if one wishes to take liberty and change the name
of the Old Testament “Je(o)shua” to ‘jesus’, well that is
their choice, yet a sad choice indeed and Truth ;-(
And worse yet you could accept the traditional lie that
the Greek word “Iesous” represents both “Jeshua” and
the catholic and christian ‘jesus’. For those who seek
The Light of Truth that is confusing at best! Another
sad choice ;-(
I have been, and know that i will yet be accused of
having my portion with the “sacred name folk” or some
other similar religious group. And yet that is as far
from Truth as one could be, for i believe that, “that
which decayed and waxed old” did indeed and Truth
“vanish away” with the destruction of the earthly,
natural kingdom that was centered in old jerusalem.
The Kingdom of GOD is now Spiritual and the body of a
believer is the Temple for the indwelling Spirit, The Spirit
that leads believers on The Way to The Truth of The Life.
Sadly, many believe that a name is not important ;-( Now
when a man makes such a statement to me i simply reply,
“ok, if that’s what you believe Martha”, or if it be a woman,
“ok, if that’s what you believe Matthew”…….
Truth is important, for apart from Truth their is nothing
but “confusion and every evil work” and Truth IS that the
“imag”ined name of ‘jesus’ was not spoken for more than
1500 years after The Only True GOD raised The Messiah
from among the dead! Truth IS that The Messiah’s GOD
given birth Name was YeHoWsHuwa’(Jeshua in modern
day English)!
Prior to that time there was no ‘j’ sound in the English
language, which is verifiable in most any encyclopedia.
And there never has been a ‘j’ sound in either Hebrew
or Greek.
Seems the vain “imag”inations of the “catholic” and
“christian” systems of religion have caused “The Way
of Truth to be evil spoken of”, so why continue to use
their “imag”ined name for “The Son of Living GOD”?
Those who yet cling to the “imag”ined name of ‘jesus’,
after The Truth was presented unto them, have chosen
to follow the evil ways of catholicism and her firstborn
“chrisitan” daughter, “the church OF england” ;-(
I am sad for all yet held captive by the “strong delusion”
that is their “imag”ined ‘jesus’ ;-(
Yet there is hope!
For Miracles do happen!
Hope is there would be those who would experience
The Miracle that is receiving “a love of The Truth”!
Truth IS, Yeshua(Jeshua in modern day english) is
The Messiah, Immanuel, The Son of The Living GOD!
Peace, in spite of the dis-ease(no-peace) that is of
this wicked world and it’s systems of religion, for
“the WHOLE world is under the control of the evil
one”(1Jn5:19) indeed and Truth……. francisco
Comment by francisco — July 8, 2008 @ 1:23 PM
Francisco,
By what authority do you say these things or who appointed you as authentic interpreter of Scripture. You appear to wish to impose your own novel tradition while you rely on the Tradition of the Catholic Church to know of Jesus’ (or Yeshua, there is no substantive difference is this English transliteration through the Greek Iesous) existence, His nature as both God and Man, His identity as the Son of God, because you rely on Scripture which comes from and is maintained in purity by the Catholic Church.
Your explanation seems to confuse translation with transliteration. I do not follow your concerns that the English transliteration of the New Testament Greek transliteration, Iesous for the Hebrew Yeshua some how invalidates His identity. If that were the case, then the NT itself would be the problem. The earliest Greek manuscripts use the Greek transliteration as so all the early Greek Fathers. The two passages you point to (Acts 7:45 and Heb 4:8) were referring to the Old Testament personage which probably explains why they would not have transliterated his name into Greek.
Francisco, I will pray that you find your way to the fullness of the Church which Jesus established and will no longer be confused and scandalized by innocent etymology.
Comment by David — July 8, 2008 @ 3:30 PM