if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803
Roll Away The Stone
Salvation, or tradition?
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.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Jesus’ followers co-opted this belief. Jesus certainly would have been familiar with the prophetic tradition. I can see how the early Christians could have turned it into the story of the Ressurection. There is still much we don’t know about early Christianity, that while this discovery might be greatly upsetting to some people, to others it would provide some answers.
Comments
I wouldn’t be surprised if Jesus’ followers co-opted this belief. Jesus certainly would have been familiar with the prophetic tradition.
Maybe you don’t know this, but Christians teach that Jesus was the fulfillment of Hebrew prophecies. If you go through the Old Testament, you will find dozens of references to a messiah, all of which are fulfilled in Jesus. Many of these he had no power over, such has his birth line, birthplace, homeland, etc., so the idea that he “co-opted” these prophecies for gain is faulty.
Well, zoom, the historical opinion on the New Testament is that parts of it were written to conform to existing prophecy. For example, two different lineages are recording for Christ, one of which conforms to messianic prophecy, one of which doesn’t. There are other messianic legends from that time that include many aspect of the Jesus story, such as curing the sick, raising the dead, etc.
The response of some has been that there were important parts of the Jesus story that were wholly original (no pun intended), such as the three-day resurrection. But this would indicate that they were not.
I don’t think this “proves” anything. You could say that the prophecies were right and Christ was the Messiah. Or you could say that the story, transcribed probably decades after the fact, was massaged to fit the popular prophecy.
For example, two different lineages are recording for Christ, one of which conforms to messianic prophecy, one of which doesn’t.
I’ve always understood the reason for giving two different lineages was to differentiate that he was man as much as he was God.
Other then that, I’m not sure how it’s upsetting some “christians” Though christian is associated with anyone who speaks the name of Jesus nowadays it seems.
Well, zoom, the historical opinion on the New Testament is that parts of it were written to conform to existing prophecy.
Naaaah. That’s not the case at all. The Old Testament has all the prophecies about the Messiah. Jesus fulfilled them, rather than “co-opted” them. In terms of the two lineages, one of of Joseph, the other Mary. Google a bit and the alleged contradiction has been well-researched and resolved many, many years ago.
Still, [this stone’s] 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.
That’s kind of dumb. The roots of Christianity are extremely well-understood; they were well-understood 1,000 years ago; they were well-understood 2,000 years ago. It’s all been written down from the start. You’d think that the book of Isiah would’ve been enough, but nooooo, you’ve got to have a newspaper account, along with photos.
You’d think that the book of Isiah would’ve been enough,
ohhh boy…
You’d think that the book of Isiah would’ve been enough…
No, of course not. Nothing is ever enough for the true post-modern skeptic. Even the re-establishment of Israel after two millenia isn’t enough. No, that’s jsut a “self-fulfilling” prophecy, which, of course, begs the question of why it didn’t “self-fulfill” until now.
Next entry: When It All Falls Down
Previous entry: Ret's Roll
Okay, maybe I’m misunderstanding something here, but it seems the spin of the article is that if this tablet turns out to be legitimate, it puts the veracity of the traditional view of Jesus into question. Can someone explain this to me? Wouldn’t this discovery bolster the traditional claims, since isn’t Jesus precisely the fulfillment of these prophecies?