I did, however, stumble across this piece this morning in IsraelToday.com and thought it worth posting.

Messianic leaders say Hebrew tablet validates Jesus' claims

By Ryan Jones
Friday, July 11, 2008
israeltoday.co.il

Israeli Jewish believers in Jesus say the recently publicized Hebrew tablet describing the death and resurrection of a messianic figure challenges centuries of teachings by rabbinic Judaism that the redemptive process of Jesus was a departure from biblical Jewish understanding.

The unique stone tablet dubbed "Gabriel's Revelation" contains 87 partial lines of archaic Hebrew in which the archangel commands a messianic ruler identified as the "Prince of Princes" to rise after having been dead for three days.

The tablet was found in neighboring Jordan some eight years ago, but just last week gained international attention after featuring as one of the centerpieces at a special Israel Museum event marking 60 years since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The content of the tablet quickly made headlines after a leading Israeli professor of Bible studies, Israel Knohl of the Hebrew University, spoke of his conclusions regarding the script. In an interview with the International Herald Tribune, Knohl called the text "revolutionary" in its confirmation that Messiah suffering and dying was originally a Jewish concept.

Continue reading...

Previous postings on this story are here...

3 ft Stone Tablet from pre-Christian era predicts Messiah who will rise from dead in 3 days! (NY Times)

The Continuing Controversy: the Stone Scroll/Gabriel’s Revelation

“A New Dead Sea Scroll in Stone?” (By Ada Yardeni)

This stone tablet, which contains writings dated to the decades before the birth of Christ, is thought by serious scholars of the subject to be a significant discovery.

The tablet itself is not a new discovery--it was purchased 10 years ago from a Jordanian dealer in antiquities by an Israeli/Swiss collector who, while himself an expert on Hebrew antiquities, was unaware of its importance until recently when it was shown to Ada Yardeni, a specialist in Hebrew writing.

"She (Ms Yardeni) was overwhelmed. ‘You have got a Dead Sea Scroll on stone,’ she told me.”

Read the article in today's NY Times or in the Times Argus (Montpelier/Barre, Vermont).

David Jeselsohn and the tablet.

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.

Ben Witherington III has this to say about the stone's significance:

If you read the article you will discover that one eclectic Jewish scholar is now suggesting that the Christians got the idea from this stone or its source, and then predicated the idea of Jesus. It would be just as simple to argue that Jesus knew of this idea, and predicated of himself. What this stone then would show is that there was in early Judaism some concept of a suffering messiah whom God might vindicate by resurrection before the time of Jesus.

This is not entirely surprising in view of Isaiah 53 in any case. But the real implication of this for Jesus' studies should not be missed. Most radical Jesus scholars have argued that the passion and resurrection predictions by Jesus found in the Gospels were not actually made by Jesus-- they reflect the later notions and theologizing of the Evangelists.

But now, if this stone is genuine there is no reason to argue this way. One can show that Jesus, just as well as the author of this stone, could have spoken about a dying and rising messiah. There is in any case a reference to a messiah who dies in the late first century A.D. document called 4 Ezra.

Long story short-- this stone certainly does not demonstrate that the Gospel passion stories are created on the basis of this stone text, which appears to be a Dead Sea text. For one thing the text is hard to read at crucial junctures, and it is not absolutely clear it is talking about a risen messiah. BUT what it does do is make plausible that Jesus could have said some of the things credited to him in Mk. 8.31, 9,31, and 10.33-34. I will have more to say about the relevance of early Jewish material for the study of the historical Jesus shortly, in a lengthy review of David Flusser's final and interesting Jesus book The Sage from Galilee.

The main shortcoming of Imperialism is that it declares the marginal rabbis irrelevant for the functioning of the system as a whole. This is partly because of the method Schwartz chooses: structural functionalism (in his own words: "a tendency (...) which assumes that there are such things as societies as usually complex, organism-like systems that can be understood by analyzing the relations of their component parts"). He falls into the trap he himself recognizes as one of the main criticisms of the model, namely that it "misleadingly ignore[s] agency, the complex ways in which people constantly negotiate with each other and with normative ideologies (...)".

The 2nd and 3rd Century rabbis didn't have much formal power (if any!). Thus, when describing the relations between the component parts of the organism, Schwartz comes to the conclusion that they were not representative for the Jewish population as a whole. Again cum Schwartz: "most Jews seem to have lived mainly as pagans and looked primarily to the Roman state and the city councils as their legal authorities and cultural ideal." He sketches an uneven scale, of which the rabbis' (and their followers') end was marginal.

It is just possible that Schwartz' model and the nature of the archaeological evidence (read this post for a very basic characterization) conspire to distort the picture. The telescopic, component-based perspective pays hardly any regard to social complexities, and the archaeological evidence (mainly coins, larger buildings, inscriptions) only represents the top layer of society (to make this argument convincing, I probably shouldn't mention all the attention Schwartz gives to the nature of the objects of daily use...). This leads to a ruling culture/class focused analysis of "Jewish" Society.

Here I would like to bring in another social theory, namely James C. Scott's theory of Hidden Transcripts (Domination and the Arts of Resistance, Hidden Transcripts). Scott says that (I paraphrase) the public transcript, i.e. the open interaction between subordinates (in our case the population of Syria Palaestina) and those who dominant (the Roman Empire and its magistrates), is unlikely to tell the whole story about power relations - can even be positively misleading! And it is exactly this public transcript which Schwartz sees when he looks at city coins, bathhouses, inscriptions! Such images represent what the powerful want to believe - or what the weak think they want to believe. Like the IUDEA CAPTA coins, which were distributed somewhat prematurely as it took seventy more years, lots of troubles and the smashing of a violent revolt to really subdue Judaea, the 2nd and 3rd century public transcript probably show a much too rosy picture. Rosy from the Roman point of view, of course.

Following Scott, if we wish to get an impression of the impact of domination (or imperialism?), we should assess the discrepancy between the public transcript and the hidden transcript - the "discourse that takes place 'offstage,' beyond direct observation by powerholders." Schwartz doesn't do this, and thus misses the opportunity to fathom the subordinate side of society. Namely, as Daniel Boyarin recognized (Dying for God), "the talmudic discourse (...) gives us direct access to the 'hidden transcript' " (he doesn't develop this beyond its consequences for the discourse of martyrdom - still, I am highly indebted to him for the observation).

The hypothesis that rabbinic literature reflects the hidden transcript of at least part of Jewish Society, and therefore can tell us something not only about power relations in the Roman Province of Judae Palestina, but also about the role that the 'vestigial identity' of Judaism still played in those, will be the guiding force of my thesis research.

You don't agree? Great! Please comment! I am going to need a lot of feedback, positive and negative, to get this argument anywhere!

Thus Aravis begins, 'in the grand Calormene manner,' the story of how she tries to escape from an arranged marriage with a sixty year old humpbacked, ape-faced lord, first by an abortive attempt at killing herself, then by a cunning flight. This episode in The Horse and his Boy, my favorite C.S. Lewis book, deeply impressed me when I first read it as an eight or nine year-old.

I can still recall vividly the climactic scene where Aravis decides to leave this life, but is saved by her horse Hwin:

'... I dismounted from Hwin my mare and took out [my brother's] dagger. Then I parted my clothes where I thought the readiest way lay to my heart and I prayed to all the gods that as soon as I was dead I might find myself with my brother. After that I shut my eyes and my teeth and prepared to drive the dagger into my heart. But before I had done so, this mare spoke with the voice of one of the daughters of men and said, "O my mistress, do not by any means destroy yourself, for if you live you may yet have good fortune but all the dead are dead alike." (...) When I heard the language of men uttered by my mare, I said to myself, the fear of death has disordered my reason and subjected me to delusions. And I became full of shame for non of my lineage ought to fear death more than the biting of a gnat. Therefore I addressed myself a second time to the stabbing, but Hwin came near to me and put her head in between me and the dagger and discoursed to me most excellent reasons and rebuked me as a mother rebukes her daughter.'

I was strangely disappointed by Hwin's intervention. Aravis' heroism and determination struck a cord in me, and I felt the dagger was a brave and honourable choice, especially as she would be reunited with her deceased brother. C.S. Lewis probably wouldn't agree with me, not in this case anyway. The Calormene (Muslim? Oriental?) tradition is presented by him as colourful, but Wrong in Essence. Although the Chronicles of Narnia abound in instances of self-sacrifice, a virgin suicide to preserve honour and autonomy isn't considered an option in Lewis' Anglican moral scheme. When I was eight, in my moral scheme it was.

I was reminded of Aravis' plight while pondering on Daniel Boyarin's Dying for God, which I chose to read for my oral exam next week. A lot of the issues that Aravis' narrative touches upon obliquely, are in this book on 'martyrdom and the making of Christianity and Judaism.' For example, where Aravis struggles with patriarchal oppression, in the chapter 'Quo Vadis' Boyarin treats the discourse in Rabbinical and Christian martyrology on the possible reactions to imperialistic (Roman) dominance. Where Christianity answers the 'Quo vadis' question with a uni-vocal: 'to the cross!' (i.e. to confession and the martyr's death), rabbinical Judaism keeps the option open of bypassing death by a trickster-escape. Full collaboration with the oppressor isn't an option in either system, however.

The issue isn't fully analogous, as Aravis' choice isn't between escape and martyrdom, but between escape and the (related) noble death (as explained in Jan Willem van Henten and Friedrich Avemarie's sourcebook Van Henten and Avemarie). Still, it is striking that Lewis stereotypes noble death as an un-Christian, oriental option, for a girl at least! In the chapter 'Thinking with virgins' Boyarin shows how in early Christianity, virgin martyrdom (or 'white martyrdom' - becoming a nun) was a valorized option for female christians like the virgin of Antioch and (in a way) Perpetua, as an alternative for marriage. Christianity was norm-breaking in that respect, as opposed to Rabbinical Judaism, where virginity could never be a goal an sich - the only legitimate goal of chastity was to become a virgin bride.

So cultural options keep shifting, some norms 'we' take for granted (even the norm that death, especially self-inflicted death, is something to be avoided at any cost) are turned upside-down in other (sub-)cultures and times. Even in ancient Christianity, which has been formative in creating our own norms and mind-set. I'll let early Christianity speak for itself, in the guise of another young girl, the martyr Agnes (as presented by Ambrosius in his Concerning Virginity, Book I). Both Aravis and Agnes are prepared to die rather than to be married against their will - in Agnes' case to a Roman prefect's son. Of course in Agnes' case faith is at stake, she has chosen to become the bride of Christ. But maybe you will agree that ideologically she still has more in common with Aravis than with C.S. Lewis - or the motherly Hwin.

7. She is said to have suffered martyrdom when twelve years old. (...) She was fearless under the cruel hands of the executioners, she was unmoved by the heavy weight of the creaking chains, offering her whole body to the sword of the raging soldier, as yet ignorant of death, but ready for it. (...)

8. A new kind of martyrdom! Not yet of fit age for punishment but already ripe for victory, difficult to contend with but easy to be crowned, she filled the office of teaching valour while having the disadvantage of youth. She would not as a bride so hasten to the couch, as being a virgin she joyfully went to the place of punishment with hurrying step, her head not adorned with plaited hair, but with Christ. (...)

9. What threats the executioner used to make her fear him, what allurements to persuade her, how many desired that she would come to them in marriage! But she answered: "It would be an injury to my spouse to look on any one as likely to please me. He who chose me first for Himself shall receive me. Why are you delaying, executioner? Let this body perish which can be loved by eyes which I would not." She stood, she prayed, she bent down her neck. You could see the executioner tremble, as though he himself had been condemned, and his right hand shake, his face grow pale, as he feared the peril of another, while the maiden feared not for her own. You have then in one victim a twofold martyrdom, of modesty and of religion. She both remained a virgin and she obtained martyrdom.

Terloops identificeert Leon de Winter deze nieuwe Israelische helden met de helden van het oude Israel, het Israel van koning David en Simson. Maar ook het beeld van het joodse slachtoffer gaat verder terug dan de Holocaust. Verder dan de pogroms en de ghetto's zelfs, het gaat terug tot de eerste eeuwen van onze jaartelling, toen Palestina bestuurd werd door de Romeinen. Het bouwt voort op de Rabbi's uit de Talmud. Ze vochten niet tegen de bestuurders, en waren in die zin passief, lieten zich soms zelfs meevoeren. Maar ze waren niet zulke willoze slachtoffers als Leon de Winter denkt! Tegen de stroom in bleven ze de wetten van de Torah naleven en onderwijzen, hoe marginaal ze ook waren. In de Rabbijnse literatuur worden ze niet als slachtoffer gepresenteerd, maar vaker als 'trickster', als antihelden die zich in een vijandige omgeving reddem door slimheid en truukjes. De hoogleraar Talmudische Cultuur Daniel Boyarin (zelf orthodox jood) is een pleitbezorger voor deze andere vorm van joodse identiteit. In zijn boek unheroic conduct betoogt hij dat de (amerikaanse) Israel-lobby zich aan westerse (christelijke!) modellen van de 'warrior/patriarch' spiegelt en een deel van de eigenheid van de joodse cultuur opgeeft.

Gelukkig maar dat er meerdere modellen zijn. Des te meer ruimte om je eigen identiteit vorm te geven. Leon de Winter kiest voor het voorbeeld van de warrior/patriarch. Ik denk dat dat voor hem persoonlijk de juiste keuze is, strijdvaardigheid als wapen tegen zijn diepgewortelde angst voor een nieuwe Holocaust. Ik kan me ook goed voorstellen dat voor veel Israeli helden als David of Gideon meer tot de verbeelding spreken dan Boyarins antiheld Rabbi Eli'ezer (uitgebreid besproken in Dying for God), die door woordspelletjes weet te voorkomen dat hij ter dood veroordeeld wordt door de Romeinse Gouverneur. Met woordspelletjes heeft niemand de Holocaust overleefd, met truukjes kan je je niet ontsnappen aan Katusha raketten en zelfmoordterroristen.

Maar mij persoonlijk spreekt de sluwe 'trickster' meer tot de verbeelding dan die saaie, een-dimensionale 'warrior'. De 'warrior' kan alleen overleven als hij de sterkste blijft, de 'trickster' kan veel tegenspoed doorstaan, en is daarmee op de lange termijn misschien zekerder van zijn zaak. Israel heeft in Libanon voor het eerst een oorlog niet (overtuigend) gewonnen. Bush heeft in Irak bewezen dat de 'warrior' niet altijd triomfeert. Misschien is de tijd aangebroken voor een herwaardering van die andere 'trickster' - de internationale diplomatie?