The discussion of the Vision of Gabriel tablet continues. Israel Knohl has now made his English translation available and draws attention to another article he's published in Hebrew on the subject. Details and links are available at Paleojudaica.
The media craze over the tablet sounded very familiar as I began reading John J. Collins's The Scepter and the Star this week.
On p. VI, he describes a similar situation from the early '90s:
"A headline in the English newspaper, the Independent, on September 1, 1992, p. 5, announced that a 'Scroll fragment challenges basic tenet of Christianity.' The reference was to the 'Son of God' text, which turns out to be rather less momentous than the headline would lead one to expect. The more sensational claims about these fragments, such as the discovery of a dying messiah in a pre-Christian Jewish text, or the claim that the 'Son of God' text undermines Christianity, turned out to be short-lived."
It's true. History repeats itself. On the other hand, the frenzy reignited my interest in the study of messianism in the Second Temple Period. I plan to read Collins and then Fitzmyer, The One Who Is to Come. Trying to sift through the important works on the subject has been challenging because so much has been written about what type of messiah the Jews were expecting before the first century CE. Much of it is written by New Testament specialists and their work is easy to miss because it tends to look theological or Christological instead of historical. It also raises an interesting question for me. Who's better suited to write about pre-Christian varieties of Judaism and messianism in Jewish literature before the first century CE -- New Testament specialists or Hebrew Bible specialists (who also tend to have expertise in Second Temple Judaism)? I have my own opinion on the subject, but anyone else want to share their thoughts?
"Who's better suited to write about pre-Christian varieties of Judaism and messianism in Jewish literature before the first century CE -- New Testament specialists or Hebrew Bible specialists"
You cannot answer it this way. As the French put it, you have to be "désintéressé", to do it best. Perhaps a Buddhist would be best suited? ;-)
Interesting thought. Being disinterested, i.e., objective, is essential. However, I don't believe that either working in a specific religious tradition or being part of a specific tradition automatically prevents one from being objective. Neither does being part of a different religion automatically make one objective and disinterested. Also it is important to distinguish between scholars who work on religion as an academic pursuit and followers of any religion who work on theology within their traditions. Thanks for your comment, though, because it highlights what I've come to realize after making the original post - there's no simple answer.
Hey big bro, I saw a quick news blurb on this the other day, and they were saying "This pre-Christian text of a dying and resurrected messiah shows that the story of Jesus might just be a copy or rip-off!" and I was thinking..."Doesn't the Old Testament (Pre-Christianity!) hold hundreds of prophecies of a DYING and RESURRECTED messiah? The Messianic prophecies?" I don't know, the whole news things sounds stupid to me, since Christianity came from Judaism, it's like saying that Jesus must be a lie because he fufilled his own prophecies? What?! I'm confused as to what their argument is.
To answer your question: "Doesn't the Old Testament hold hundreds of prophecies of a DYING and RESURRECTED messiah?"
No, not really. Not hundreds. Not any in my opinion. (Though some disagree and count Isa 53 and Dan 9). But that's kind of a trick answer to your question. I'll elaborate when I have more time.
"Who's better suited to write about pre-Christian varieties of Judaism and messianism in Jewish literature before the first century CE -- New Testament specialists or Hebrew Bible specialists"
ReplyDeleteYou cannot answer it this way.
As the French put it, you have to be "désintéressé", to do it best.
Perhaps a Buddhist would be best suited?
;-)
Interesting thought. Being disinterested, i.e., objective, is essential. However, I don't believe that either working in a specific religious tradition or being part of a specific tradition automatically prevents one from being objective. Neither does being part of a different religion automatically make one objective and disinterested. Also it is important to distinguish between scholars who work on religion as an academic pursuit and followers of any religion who work on theology within their traditions. Thanks for your comment, though, because it highlights what I've come to realize after making the original post - there's no simple answer.
ReplyDeleteHey big bro,
ReplyDeleteI saw a quick news blurb on this the other day, and they were saying "This pre-Christian text of a dying and resurrected messiah shows that the story of Jesus might just be a copy or rip-off!" and I was thinking..."Doesn't the Old Testament (Pre-Christianity!) hold hundreds of prophecies of a DYING and RESURRECTED messiah? The Messianic prophecies?" I don't know, the whole news things sounds stupid to me, since Christianity came from Judaism, it's like saying that Jesus must be a lie because he fufilled his own prophecies? What?!
I'm confused as to what their argument is.
To answer your question: "Doesn't the Old Testament hold hundreds of prophecies of a DYING and RESURRECTED messiah?"
ReplyDeleteNo, not really. Not hundreds. Not any in my opinion. (Though some disagree and count Isa 53 and Dan 9). But that's kind of a trick answer to your question. I'll elaborate when I have more time.
I'm posting a more complete answer to Magma's question as a separate entry.
ReplyDelete