“This should shake our basic view of Christianity,” he said as he sat in his office of the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem where he is a senior fellow in addition to being the Yehezkel Kaufman Professor of Biblical Studies at Hebrew University. “Resurrection after three days becomes a motif developed before Jesus, which runs contrary to nearly all scholarship. What happens in the New Testament was adopted by Jesus and his followers based on an earlier messiah story.” ...
Regarding Mr. Knohl’s thesis, Mr. Bar-Asher is also respectful but cautious. “There is one problem,” he said. “In crucial places of the text there is lack of text. I understand Knohl’s tendency to find there keys to the pre-Christian period, but in two to three crucial lines of text there are a lot of missing words.”
Ancient Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection
By ETHAN BRONNER
JERUSALEM — A three-foot-tall tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew that scholars believe dates from the decades just before the birth of Jesus is causing a quiet stir in biblical and archaeological circles, especially because it may speak of a messiah who will rise from the dead after three days.
If such a messianic description really is there, it will contribute to a developing re-evaluation of both popular and scholarly views of Jesus, since it suggests that the story of his death and resurrection was not unique but part of a recognized Jewish tradition at the time.
The tablet, probably found near the Dead Sea in Jordan according to some scholars who have studied it, is a rare example of a stone with ink writings from that era — in essence, a Dead Sea Scroll on stone.
It is written, not engraved, across two neat columns, similar to columns in a Torah. But the stone is broken, and some of the text is faded, meaning that much of what it says is open to debate.
Still, its authenticity has so far faced no challenge, so its role in helping to understand the roots of Christianity in the devastating political crisis faced by the Jews of the time seems likely to increase.
Daniel Boyarin, a professor of Talmudic culture at the University of California at Berkeley, said that the stone was part of a growing body of evidence suggesting that Jesus could be best understood through a close reading of the Jewish history of his day.
“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.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
so they've pretty much
so they've pretty much ignored christianity before christ by john g. jackson. but that shouldn't be a surprise.
Well... scholars *believe*;
Well... scholars *believe*; it *may* speak; *If* such a messianic; since it *suggests*; *probably* found near; says is *open to debate*; ... on and on.... Alot of ambiguity...
I would be dubious of any "87-line ink text on stone" claims
It is highly probable this stone tablet text is yet another sensationalist scam, as is clearly indicated by the facts
(1) that no specific information is available on its provenance and
(2) that no details are provided on carbon dating of the ink.
As such, this "news" falls right in line with the faked Lost-Tomb-of-Jesus "documentary" designed to make a profit off of people's fascination with the "real" Jesus, and with the larger scandal of the biased and misleading way the Dead Sea scrolls are being presented in museum exhibits around the world. See, e.g.,
http://spinozaslens.com/libet/articles/dworkin_ethicsofexhibition.htm
and
http://blog.news-record.com/staff/frontpew/archives/2008/06/dead_sea_scroll.shtml.
Prophecy.
Won't change anything.
The die-hards will just declare it to be prophecy which proves Jesus to be the messiah.
well, resurrection in three
well, resurrection in three days was certainly an idea that existed before 0 BC, e.g. Horus/Osiris myths which had worshipers in the region of Israel and throughout the Roman empire. What seems novel here is that it's possibly "part of a recognized Jewish tradition at the time"
I can understand the Times wanting to avoid the turbulent discussion on the authorship of the Dead Sea Scrolls, but I wish they were more specific about what linked the tablet to the 'Dead Sea.' If it was simply the area and time, then there's nothing necessarily linking the authors of the famous Dead Sea Scrolls to the tablet.