Source: http://nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world/middleeast/06stone.html
Quote: 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.
Discussion Starters:
The article says that the idea of the Messiah dying and rising not being new to Jesus is shocking to some Christians. Does it surprise you? Why or why not?
Based on your understanding, what is the image of the Jewish Messiah in the Old Testament?
If the Messiah was supposed to die and rise again all along, how would or could that change your understanding of the Old Testament?
What does the text actually say?
I'm curious what the text actually says. I'd be really curious to see where the text ends and interpretation and attempts at explanation begin.
For example, this could be a prophetic text to tell of the messiah to come. Some people would struggle with this since the don't believe anyone can speak of the future like this so they interpret this in natural terms. Or, it could be something else.
I do hope the text itself is released and honest discussion can happen.
foggy text
Actually, they've laid out some of it in the article and I'm sure we could find more if we hunted around enough. The dating of the stone, at least so far, isn't an issue, the problem is that it's old and somewhat faded in places ... like the word that some think is "live" after the messianic figure has been dead for three days.
to be or not to be a messiah
Rather than commenting on the article, which might be premature, let's just think about this conceptually for a moment.
If for example, it is understood in a given culture that the presupposed messiah would walk on water. If it so happens that someone does walk on water, it does not necessarily mean that he/she is the messiah.
On the flip side, if the real messiah does indeed walk on water, it does not de-legitimize his claim as messiah because he did something that was commonly known in the culture as 'messiah-like.'
does that make sense?
makes sense to me
I think your comments make sense, and actually, the need of proofs like this to determine "messiah-ship" is a very modern way of thinking and, in the end, if the tablet were proven to be authentic, all that it would accomplish would be adding one more item onto the list of prophecies that Jesus fulfills and make Josh McDowell change his, "The odds of this are ..." quote.
The thing in the article that struck me, is that apparently, for some people, including a bunch of really smart and scholarly people, the idea of a dying and rising messiah being around before Jesus is surprising. That boggles me, after all, the whole resurrection motif is existent in a variety of other ancient religions and, based on how I read it, all over the Old Testament. I've always been under the impression that 2nd Temple Judaism missed it not because it wasn't there, but because they misinterpreted their own sacred books.
Foretelling the future
I imagine there are two common problems in our society. First, people have a hard time with people being able to tell about something in the future. This has caused all kinds of issues for people. For example, the dating of some old testament books has come into question because some people believe someone couldn't have written about certain events before they happened.
The second issue is that of 'who said it first'. If someone says or does something after it first comes up it's often seen as just being a copycat.
Two problems arises with the 'who said it first' line of reasoning. First, there is the assumption that the person who said it first or talked about it first is somehow legitimized by being first. And second, the very idea of knowing who said it first and where that came from. Did people pre-flood know something about a resurrection that was passed down? Did the Hebrews have something that wasn't passed down about a resurrection that was learned by other cultures? Who actually said it first and where did it come from? The truth is we don't know enough to really know who said if first. We can only make assumptions based on limited information.
the origins
I think the origins discussion is interesting, simply because it drives to the idea of there being a metanarrative. If resurrection is a common theme among a variety of cultures, is it because they each, on their own, came up with that idea, or is it because there is a common history?
The same goes with the flood narrative ... or, as we discussed a bit before, marriage.
remaining boggled
So, TIME has now done their version on this story (http://time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1820685,00.html) and it includes the line: "This, in turn, undermines one of the strongest literary arguments employed by Christians over centuries to support the historicity of the Resurrection (in which they believe on faith): the specificity and novelty of the idea that the Messiah would die on a Friday and rise on a Sunday. Who could make such stuff up?"
The whole thing continues to boggle me as I read about the discovery and said, "Um, yeah, this totally fits in with everything I've ever believed." but for some it seems to be some anti-Christian smoking gun.
Am I the only one boggled by the controversy this is causing?
Misunderstanding
I think this might play into a misunderstanding many people have. My first thought was, "ah ha. another piece of supporting info." I wonder what causes other people to interpret things so differently?
My guess is that they have either a misunderstanding of what Christianity says, a misunderstanding in the area of prophecy, or a misunderstanding in reason.
misunderstanding indeed
I think so too.
One thing that I can't quite shake about the whole thing is this line:
“In three days you shall live, I, Gabriel, command you.”
I could be wrong, but I don't recall anywhere in the Bible where an angel has the authority to just outright command anything like that. Now if it had said, "In three days you shall live, I, Gabriel, say that God commands you." I might be more apt to believe it.
Angels don't really have any power of their own, but are just God's messengers and personal servants. It's always God's power that they wield and for Gabriel to wield God's power as if it were his own (at any point in history), I think, would put him on the same level as Satan.
The article did say that that piece had words that were illegible, so I'm willing to believe that Knohl is possibly filling in the wrong words.
------------
"I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe that I may understand: for this I also believe, that unless I believe I will not understand." --Anselm of Canterbury
angel issue
I don't have any issue with that, and bet that, if we explored other writings in that time, it would be perfectly normative ... not in the sense of the angel having that kind of power, but that an angel speaks that was on behalf of God.
After all, Christians are given the right to say something far more powerful when they are given the right to forgive sins (if you forgive, I forgive, etc).