Evidence in the Eye of the Beholder

Our interpretation of evidence is influenced by our perspective. We are aware to varying degrees of the conditioning that colors our interpretations. Presuppositions and theological commitments lead us to naturally bend our reading of the evidence to fit our preconceived understanding. Sometimes we're driven by an agenda - an outcome that we'd like to see proven or disproven. We're all prone to gratuitous readings of the evidence whether a biblical text or an ancient inscription. This is how difficult, fragmentary texts like Gabriel's Vision or the Khirbet Qeiyafa ostracon can make such a big splash in the news. The sensational reading is the one that makes news by claiming to answer long-standing questions and settle controversial debates. I found the following quote to be a helpful reminder of how we must be aware of the factors that influence our interpretations.

Am I, a man living long after the authors of Genesis, with ideas and mind-sets made possible by twenty-five hundred additional years in the development of human consciousness, using these as tools to better understand these ancient texts, or am I ascribing meanings that are simply echoes of my own time and my own life? That is always the risk.  Awaiting any attempt at biblical interpretation is the conscious and unconscious imposition of norms prevalent in one's own time and place, these having become so ordinary, so natural, so obvious, that surely they must have been typical of human culture at all times and in all places. "Perspective," writes Harold Bloom, "governs our response to everything we read, but most crucially with the Bible. Learning from scholars, whether Christian or Jewish, one still questions their conditioning, which too frequently overdetermines their presentation. Obviously, that caution applies to me as well . . . " And to me, and to you. Indeed, any one of us attempting to come to grips with the Bible would do well to consider the multiple factors that influence perspective: family, religion, education, where one was born, and even when one was born. (p. 78)

John R. Coats, Original Sinners: A New Interpretation of Genesis, New York: Free Press, 2009.

"Gabriel's Vision" Watch, er, Don't Watch!

It's been a while since I posted on the inscription known as Gabriel's Vision or the Apocalypse of Gabriel. That's because there really isn't anything new to say that hasn't already been said over and over and over about this inscription and Israel Knohl's tendentious reading of it.

However, that hasn't stopped National Geographic from making a documentary about the inscription, resurrecting the misleading claim that earlier Jewish references to a dying and rising messiah would somehow be damaging to Christianity.

Why does every story have to be told nowadays with an over-sensationalized, entertainment-oriented spin irrespective of facts? National Geographic, CNN, Fox News - what ever happened to the superficial attempt to appear factual and objective?

So, don't bother watching the show when it airs. For a more detailed explanation about why their take on the inscription is wrong, visit April DeConick's blog or note this post by Mike Heiser.

HT: Jim West

Refresher on Gabriel's Vision

The Vision of Gabriel inscription was a hot topic a year ago, and I posted regularly on it through July and August 2008. At one point I'd considered writing a critique of Knohl's Journal of Religion article just to highlight it as a case study in logical fallacy. I finally tired of the subject as Knohl continued to endlessly repeat himself despite the minimal circumstantial evidence supporting his conclusions (see especially my posts linking to responses at Forbidden Gospels and Ancient Hebrew Poetry). Then almost a year ago John Hobbins posted a few comments from John Collins on the Vision of Gabriel, promising an upcoming article. Somehow that article slipped my notice last fall, but it has made the rounds today via the Agade mailing list. Here's an excerpt from the end.

At a conference in Jerusalem in early July, Knohl was met by skepticism from both Jewish and Christian scholars. The skepticism had nothing to do with theology. The text simply does not say what Knohl claims. It is too fragmentary. It is not clear that the Ephraim mentioned is a messiah. Even if the word after "three days" is "live," it does not follow that it means "rise from the dead." A chariot does not necessarily imply ascent to heaven. This is not to say that Knohl's interpretation is impossible. But there is not much reason to think it is right.

But even if Knohl's interpretation were right, it would hardly warrant the ensuing fuss. Everyone who has taken an introductory New Testament course knows that the early Christians understood Jesus in light of Jewish prophecies and expectations. The motif of resurrection after three days is based on a passage from the prophet Hosea about restoration of the people: "on the third day he will raise us up that we may live before him." If Knohl's interpretation should prove to be right, it would be an interesting contribution to the history of religion. But its supposed threat to Christian theology is no more than a marketing strategy. In that respect, the Vision of Gabriel is only the latest of many discoveries that have been sensationalized for the sake of publicity.

I'm glad the publicity firestorm over this particular issue seems to have fizzled out. The issue of messianic expectation and identity in ancient Judaism and Historical Jesus research is, however, still a hot topic.

Bible Paragraphs Mentioning Gabriel

Someone recently landed on this blog searching for "bible paragraphs mentioning Gabriel." I don't have anything specifically highlighting those, so I thought I'd make a quick note on it.

Gabriel is only mentioned in Daniel's vision in Daniel 8-9 and in the announcement of Jesus's birth to Mary in Luke 1. In Daniel, he's the one explaining to Daniel what his vision means. In Luke, he's the messenger giving Mary the news that she will be the mother of the Christ.

The specific verses are Dan 8:16 and 9:21 and Luke 1:19 and 1:26. The Bible only mentions two angels by name, if I'm remembering correctly, Gabriel and Michael.

Jewish literature from the Second Temple Period (between the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament mostly) have a lot more to say about angels, so there might be more specifically about Gabriel there. I don't have time to look at those sources right now.

I'm sure that the inquiry was probably inspired by someone looking for background related to the "Gabriel's Vision" inscription. If you're looking just for biblical passages, there's not much.

What If Israel Knohl is Right?

This will be my last post related to "Gabriel's Vision" for a while.  After this, I'll have said all I think I need to say about the stone and its interpretation.  All the relevant posts can be found with the new "Gabriel's Vision" category link on the sidebar. 

Reading Knohl's response to Collins at Ancient Hebrew Poetry made me want to follow the lead of NT Wrong, close up shop, and head for the hills to await the Apocalypse.  After this, there's nothing more to say and no need to repeat myself.  I have other interesting things to blog about and if my views on the so-called "Messiah Stone" change, I'll let you know.

It occurred to me on Sunday that my persistent opposition to Knohl's interpretation of "Gabriel's Vision" and to the idea of a suffering messiah before Jesus of Nazareth could be misconstrued as stemming from an ideological agenda.  That is, I could be driven to prove him wrong because my beliefs would be threatened if he was right.  For the record, that is not the case.  I feel that I am a neutral observer, objectively weighing the evidence.  I have no vested interest in the suffering messiah idea being there or not, either in "Gabriel's Vision" or in Second Temple Judaism before Jesus.  Knohl simply has not provided solid evidence to support his conclusions.  It saddened me to see today that he attempted to dismiss the objections of John J. Collins by suggesting he was driven by a Christian bias - even though Collins himself said he didn't find the idea threatening to Christianity at all.

I agree with Collins that the idea is not threatening to Christianity, despite the sensationalist headlines.  If anything, Christian theologians should be lining up to help Knohl shore up his hypothesis.  Why is that, you may ask?  Putting my theologian hat on, I considered what the significance would really be if Israel Knohl was right (so far, his argumentation and evidence fall short of making his conclusions anything more than speculation, but I digress).

If Knohl is right, it would provide a strong validation for NT claims that the Messiah would suffer.  A suffering messiah would be a natural part of the message of the Hebrew Bible or to use Walter Kaiser's term - it is endemic.  Rather than being a NT innovation, the idea of a suffering messiah is an inherent concept.  Therefore, the existence of the motif before Jesus of Nazareth would be perfectly understandable.  It gives a context to the words of Jesus in Luke 24:26-27:

"Wasn't it clearly predicted that the Messiah would have to suffer all these things before entering his glory? Then Jesus took them through the writings of Moses and all the prophets, explaining from all the Scriptures the things concerning himself." (NLT)

So, rather than threaten Christianity, the awareness of a suffering messiah before Jesus would strengthen the NT's interpretation of the Hebrew Bible.  Anyone with a Christian bias, therefore, should be motivated to help Knohl prove his case, not oppose him.  Despite the words of Jesus in Luke 24:26, the suffering messiah idea is hard to find in the Hebrew Bible until the Suffering Servant motif (Isa 50, 53) is connected to the Davidic Messiah motif.  I still think the NT is innovating - the writers link Jesus to the OT and make connections with a wide set of images all finding fulfillment in one man Jesus.  Their interpretation pulls the pieces together and provides a remarkably coherent model for reading the OT. Perhaps I should switch sides and work on helping strengthen Knohl's argument . . .

A Response to Knohl's Response to DeConick's Questions About Gabriel's Vision

The plot thickened, so to speak, today with John Hobbins giving us a glimpse at John Collins's upcoming response to Knohl. Jim West also weighed in with the score - "Knohl and Yardeni against, well, everyone else." I'm not sure that it's fair exactly to claim Yardeni agrees with Israel Knohl's interpretation of the stone. She agreed with his reading of line 80. This distinction lies at the center of the issue I have with Knohl's response to DeConick, published on her blog on Sunday August 24th. DeConick raised two important issues concerning the "Messiah Stone" or "Gabriel's Vision" and Knohl's interpretation of it - 1) the authenticity of the stone and 2) his use of late post-Christian sources to support the suffering messiah idea.

Concerning authenticity, Knohl doesn't really tell us anything new except for the information that there are other inscriptions in ink on stone from the same time period. We already knew that Yuval Goren and Ada Yardeni concluded it was authentic. I'm willing to concede the point on the authenticity of the stone and accept that it's genuine and from the 1st century BCE based on what we know up to now and the opinions of the 2 scholars noted above.

In fact, I'm willing to grant Knohl both the authenticity of the stone and the plausibility of his reading of line 80 because of Yardeni's opinion. The reason for my concession is that even if it's real AND his reading is accurate, it still does not make his interpretation of the stone correct or even likely. As Collins points out, Knohl is using "Gabriel's Vision" to promote his earlier suffering messiah idea (see first link above). He's not letting the stone be read on its own terms.

The problem is that he appears to assume in his letter to DeConick that since the stone is probably authentic and Yardeni agrees with his reading, then his interpretation must be correct. There's a big difference between being a good reader of text and a good interpreter of text (If you need an example, I can track down a book review I read once by James Vanderkam that makes that observation). In this case, Knohl claims a link between the title Ephraim in the stone and the Messiah ben Joseph purely based on the assumptions that 1) the text is messianic and 2) the messiah figure is addressed in line 80. It's not clear that the title Ephraim is meant to be used messianically or that references to Ephraim as a suffering "son" of YHWH in Jer. 31 and Hosea 11 are meant to be messianic. Knohl himself points out that Ephraim is used at Qumran for the Pharisees (Journal of Religion, Apr 08, p 148). In the Hebrew Bible, Ephraim often refers to the northern kingdom. Basically, he hasn't proven Ephraim is a messianic title or that line 80 refers to a messiah figure at all.

"Gabriel's Vision" is clearly apocalyptic and has close ties to Daniel and Zechariah, but how can we tell if it is also messianic? What counts as an indicator of messianism? A concern for the last days? A mention of David? The word tsemach "branch"? I don't know that the work has been done to adequately define the categories and lay out what constitutes a messianic text.

Concerning the issue of late sources, Knohl doesn't give a satisfactory response. He simply appeals to his article in the Journal of Religion, implying that he must have given solid reasons for their use there. So, I read the Journal of Religion article from April 2008 (pp. 147-158). I was surprised to discover that his latest BAR piece is simply a condensed version of that article. He has only minor elaborations on the use of the late sources and nothing to strengthen his case against the objection that these texts are post-Christian.

I'm beginning to suspect that Knohl believes in his interpretation of "Gabriel's Vision" and his conclusions about the suffering messiah so strongly that he's unable to tell what really counts as firm evidence for his theories. The main argument of the article is nothing more than a long chain of speculative connections linked with assertion and conjecture. I have so many notes on the faulty logic of his article that I may just write an article-length critique and reappraisal of his evidence. His general method consists of making an assertion, then speculating that some other texts could be connected and if they were they would support his assertion, then he moves on like he'd actually proved something and uses his assertion as the premise for further development of his speculation.

I have much more to say on Knohl and the suffering messiah idea, but I'll save that for a future post. I'm definitely looking forward to seeing Collins's full article. It sounds like his assessment of the whole issue is similar to mine - either great minds think alike, or it really is as Jim says - Knohl against pretty much everyone else.

Knohl's Suffering Messiah

Israel Knohl has an article in BAR about the "Messiah son of Joseph."  It is partly a defense of his interpretation of the "Vision of Gabriel" inscription and partly a defense of his idea that Second Temple Judaism had a suffering messiah concept and he was the "Messiah son of Joseph."

April DeConick has posted her questions about the Apocalypse of Gabriel and she raises an interesting point about most of Knohl's textual evidence:

I am a bit disturbed about Knohl's argument in the BAR piece, since the second temple passages that he quotes as evidence for a Jewish suffering messiah are from texts that have clearly been revised by later Christians.

After reading Knohl's article, I have to agree with her.  He notes that some scholars have linked his evidence to Christian circles, but he rather quickly dismisses them in an endnote.

More recently, see Magnus Zetterholm’s introduction to Magnus Zetterholm, ed., The Messiah in Early Judaism and Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), when he argues that the Jesus movement added a new element to the Jewish concept of messianism: a messiah of Israel who will suffer and die. This is now refuted by “Gabriel’s Revelation,” which had not yet been known when Zetterholm wrote.

I think this qualifies as "begging the question."  He dismisses Zetterholm by appealing to "Gabriel's Revelation," a text whose interpretation is so controversial and uncertain that it can't refute anything. From his comment, I think Zetterholm was exactly right, and yes, I have another book to add to my reading list on this subject.

Knohl appeals to work by Saul Liebermann on the issue but never engages the argument directly.  Knohl's evidence comes from the Babylonian Talmud, Joseph and Aseneth, Pesikta Rabbati, and the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs.  All of these texts had their final redaction after the first century CE.  It's not even clear whether the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs was a Jewish or a Christian composition originally.  The Talmud and the Pesikta Rabbati were redacted much later than the second century CE.

When I read through his examples, my first impression was that all of the texts were reactions to Jesus of Nazareth in some way.  I'm not sure if it matters whether the texts were tweaked by Christians directly or whether the texts reflect a rabbinic response to Christianity in some way.

The point is that there is still no proof that a Messiah son of Joseph or a Messiah of Ephraim was expected as a "messiah of suffering and death" as Knohl claims.  When he gets around to discussing "Gabriel's Revelation," he mixes his terminology in a way that implies the stone mentions a "Messiah son of Joseph" explicitly by using that title interchangeably with the title of "Ephraim."  When I read his translation from the sidebar, the only mention of Ephraim is in line 16.  There are 3 references to David (lines 8, 16, and 72), and the controversial line about a dying, rising messiah comes in line 80. 

Knohl's argument that a Messiah son of Joseph was known in the Second Temple Period and was expected as a suffering messiah still lacks a firm textual basis - a controversial unprovenanced inscription and a handful of late primary sources aren't very convincing.

April DeConick also made an important point about the use of post-Christian sources to explore a question like this:

How can we tell if the expectation of the suffering messiah in these late sources is pre- or post-Christian? One way to solve this dilemma is to notice HOW MUCH of the early Christian literature is devoted to apology for the fact that the Messiah Jesus suffered and died, and how this was a "stumbling block" to the conversion of Jews. Why would the Christians have so much explaining to do if there existed a common Jewish expectation of a suffering messiah prior to Jesus? This is a question that is absolutely necessary for us to face, and it suggests that IF the expectation already existed, it was not well-known or well-liked. Or the expectation grew as a result of Christians explaining the historical experience of their crucified Messiah Jesus.

The fact that the Gospels present the death of Jesus as a completely unexpected turn-of-events for the disciples who believed he was the messiah makes Knohl's search for a suffering messiah before Jesus very difficult because if the idea was known at all, it was a minority view.

[April DeConick has collected an index of links related to the Vision of Gabriel inscription here.  The links include the early publications of the text, Knohl's work on the text, and the mainstream media coverage of it.  Paleojudaica also has several posts related to the stone and a post at NT Gateway collects some of the early blog reactions to the inscription from July.  And my post from yesterday has links to all of my previous posts on the inscription and the issue of messianism.]

What is Kaiser trying to say?

I'm still thinking about Walter Kaiser's post at Koinonia and trying to understand what he means when he ends with:

If the "Dead Sea Scroll in Stone" exhibits any message similar to what the prophet Isaiah laid out in the Third Servant Song, we are in for some very interesting Jewish-Evangelical dialogues! Perhaps the Church can pick up where it broke off from the Synagogue in the second to fourth Christian centuries! This would be one giant step forward for all who take Scripture and history seriously.

What is he trying to say? He never really talks about the "Dead Sea Scroll in Stone", despite the title of the blog post, aside from using it to bring up the suffering messiah idea. It seems like he's implying that if it talks about a suffering messiah (like he believes Isa. 50 does), then Judaism needs to rethink its rejection of Jesus as the messiah. If that's what he's saying, it seems like a bold non sequitur to me. It might not be what he means. After re-reading this paragraph several times, it just keeps getting more unintelligible.

First, the suffering messiah idea in the "Vision of Gabriel" itself is a weak interpretation. Second, reading it into Isa. 50 just perpetuates the type of category-mixing that is all too common in Old Testament interpretation, especially in dealing with the issue of messianic expectation.

Isaiah 50 and the Messiah

Walter Kaiser has a recent post at Koinonia related to the "Vision of Gabriel" interpretation. He doesn't add much to the discussion of the stone itself, but he does offer some important food for thought related to the issue of a suffering messiah in the Hebrew Bible.

I've posted before on the "Vision of Gabriel" and the issue of messianism in the Hebrew Bible, here, here, here, and here. In the most recent post, I commented that the Suffering Servant and the Davidic Messiah are separate categories in the Hebrew Bible, and we should not be too quick to link them. The link is made when we read the Hebrew Bible through the connections that the New Testament makes to show Jesus as the fulfillment of all these categories. The assertion that the Jews were expecting a suffering messiah seems to rest on very little evidence and seems to be contradicted by the reactions to Jesus's death that are recorded in the Gospels.

The issue is not IF the idea of a suffering messiah existed. The issue is WHEN do we first see evidence of it and does that evidence pre-date Jesus and provide background for the New Testament.

I find no solid basis for even asserting that the motifs were connected in the Hebrew Bible. On the other hand, Kaiser has "argued that both Messiah's suffering and his resurrection are an endemic part of the earlier writings of the TENAK." I have added his book The Messiah in the Old Testament to my reading list for this subject. If the suffering and rising messiah idea really is "endemic" to the Tanak, then I must be missing something. (Actually, I think it's endemic only when you read the OT through the framework of the NT.) I assume he offers more evidence in the book, but his blog post centers on the interpretation of the Third Servant Song in Isa. 50:4-11.

First, we have a problem with just pulling the Servant Songs out of their larger context in Isaiah. There's really little justification for doing so, especially since the "servant" theme runs throughout Second Isaiah. I'm giving Kaiser the benefit of the doubt that he is just adopting the division out of convenience.

Second, I agree that Isaiah 50:4-11 reflects the motif of the Suffering Servant and likely refers to an individual servant, not collective Israel as the servant. However, the only evidence that Kaiser offers to connect the ideas of the Davidic messiah and the Servant from Isaiah 50 comes from the use of the divine name "Adonai Yahweh." Kaiser claims this is "a title mostly reserved for the Abrahamic Covenant in Gen 15 and the Davidic Covenant in 2 Sam 7." Hmm...the use of the title Adonai Yahweh automatically implies a connection to the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants. That seems like too strong of a claim to me.

"Adonai Yahweh" occurs 293 times in the Hebrew Bible (Bibleworks search). Two of those times refer to the deity speaking to Abraham in Genesis 15. Seven times the name is used during David's prayer in 2 Samuel 7. Yes, the name doesn't otherwise occur in Samuel, but it does occur several times in the Deuteronomistic History (DtrH). And there's a specific pattern to it's use in DtrH. It usually occurs in the context of prayer. The other examples are Deut. 3:24, Deut. 9:26, Josh. 7:7, Jdg 6:22, and Jdg 16:28. The only exceptions to this pattern in DtrH occur in 1 Kgs 2:26 and 8:53. It also occurs 3 times in the Psalms. That covers 17 occurrences.

The other 276 occurrences come in the Prophets with the vast majority being in Ezekiel (almost 220). So for Kaiser's connection to work, all these uses in the Prophets should be implying the Davidic and Abrahamic covenants by using this name. "Adonai Yahweh" is a common title in the Prophets - 23 times in Isaiah, 11 in Jeremiah, 20 in Amos, and a few left over in the Minor Prophets. It seems like a huge theological leap to claim that the prophets are intentionally alluding to the covenants by using this form of the name.

Furthermore, the connection to a Davidic messiah only comes from a link to the Davidic covenant through 2 Sam. 7. However, the frequency of use of the title in prayers in DtrH makes the usage in 2 Sam. 7 unremarkable.

Kaiser also discusses the suffering and attitude of the servant and connects those to the sufferings of Jesus of Nazareth. I agree that Jesus of Nazareth fits the template of a Suffering Servant, but that itself doesn't help us understand what messianic expectation was like BEFORE Jesus.

The Suffering Servant is a much richer motif that existed separate from messianism, doesn't imply messianism, and can be seen at work in the Hebrew Bible apart from just in the Servant Songs in Second Isaiah.

Isaiah 50:4-11 is itself a fascinating example. In a future post, I will look at the passage more closely and discuss some of the possible parallels for the Suffering Servant motif in other parts of the Hebrew Bible.

Musings on Messianic Motifs

My last post on Gabriel's vision rightly prompted a question about what all the fuss was about anyway. Is it threatening to Christianity like many of the media headlines seem to think? I don't think so. If it turns out that Knohl is correct in his reading (an unlikely event in my opinion), then it does nothing except add one more item to the list of the many ways that early Christianity built on its foundation in ancient Judaism.

I don't think it has the "Christianity is a rip-off" effect when we admit that Christianity is rooted in Jewish traditions. The New Testament account combines a number of different, distinct, separate, Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) motifs and applies them to the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. Many of these are not overtly messianic but are often read as messianic by Christian interpreters viewing the text through the lens of the New Testament. The motifs of the Suffering Servant from Isa 53, the expected prophet like Moses of Deut 18, the priest like Melchizedek of Ps 110, and the Davidic messiah converged in NT interpretations of Jesus.

The issue of messianic expectation in the Hebrew Bible is complicated. The Hebrew word "messiah" is not consistently used in passages often considered to be messianic. One passage appears to speak of a dying messiah, Dan 9:26. However, the interpretation of the larger passage is difficult and I have a hard time leaping from 1 verse to stating that a dying messiah was expected in Second Temple Judaism. I'm still working through the evidence and the secondary literature on this subject, however.

Before the New Testament, I would argue that they are separate categories, not necessarily all linked to the Davidic messiah idea. In the Rule of the Congregation from Qumran, we have both a priestly and a kingly messiah. I think scholars aren't careful enough in keeping these categories separate. For example, the suffering servant motif is likely employed by Teacher of Righteousness in the Dead Sea Scrolls and applied to himself. I don't think this necessarily means he was attempting to tap into the current of messianic expectation connected to the Davidic or priestly messiahs. Therefore, works like Knohl's The Messiah Before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls are starting off on the wrong foot if they don't show that the expectation of a messiah and the separate motif of the Suffering Servant should be connected.

If a dying, rising, suffering messiah was expected, why does the NT present Jesus's death as a completely unexpected event that "freaked out" the disciples? The reason is that the NT interpretation is an innovation that combines numerous disparate motifs into an interpretive framework that fits the ministry of one and only one person as the messiah, Jesus of Nazareth.

Gabriel's Vision Deja Vu

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?

"Vision of Gabriel" Discussion Continues

Finally, the voice of reason found in an editorial by Hillel Halkin in the New York Sun. He sums up the issues and insightfully concludes that all the hoopla over this inscription shaking the foundations of Christianity is unfounded since no one was disputing that early Christianity built on traditions from Judaism anyway.

To track the discussion and the various media versions of the story, the Paleojudaica blog has a list of links and headlines. I especially found the comments here to be helpful also.

Of course, the possibility that the tablet is a forgery is being raised, too. I guess I don't understand the forger's mind if it is a forgery -- wouldn't you want your most controversial statements to be clear?

Another Hebrew Inscription

The study of ancient Hebrew had been getting a bit boring and predictable lately, so it's great that we now have another controversial Hebrew inscription to study. The NY Times has a story about a 3 foot tall stone tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew written in ink in two columns. It's being called "The Vision of Gabriel." Study of the tablet so far supports dating it to the late first century BCE. The tablet was published in BAR at the beginning of the year by Ada Yardeni who had previously published it with Binyamin Elitzur in Cathedra in 2007 in Hebrew.

The controversy stems largely from Israel Knohl's interpretation of the text. Knohl believes it describes a messiah-figure who dies and is resurrected three days later. Does anyone else think it's awfully convenient that his reconstructed reading supports his earlier controversial theory about the suffering servant image and messianism? Can we even trust Knohl to be truly objective with the evidence? I am constantly amazed at how very detailed, complicated theories can be built on very little evidence. For example, I have no doubt that the inscription involves messianic and angelic characters. The idea of resurrection, however, comes from the reconstruction of one word that must be spelled unusually to make that word fit the space. I'm skeptical. However, I'm hoping that the photograph in BAR is readable or that a high quality photo is made available soon so that the rest of us can get a closer look at this inscription.

I don't see an issue with admitting that the NT draws on numerous ideas current in first century Judaism about the Davidic messiah, the suffering servant, and the redemption of Israel. I don't believe that all the pieces were pulled together and applied to a single figure before Jesus. Even if Knohl's reading is correct, it doesn't seem to undermine Christian teachings just to admit that they built on traditions, motifs, and images already found in Judaism.