"The Spinning" of the Stone

by Pastor Larry DeBruyn, Franklin Road Baptist Church

Jesus' physical resurrection stands as the unique landmark of the Christian faith. At the core of the New Testament faith lives the Christ who was raised from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:4). Subtract the physical resurrection of Jesus from the faith, and Christianity collapses like "a house of cards." As Paul informed the philosophically inclined Corinthians who were being dissuaded from believing in the resurrection, "But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" (1 Corinthians 15:13-14). This is why a recent archeological discovery, The Gabriel Revelation, is proving unsettling and threatening to "overthrow the faith of some" (See 2 Timothy 2:18.). And if the "spin" a few scholars are putting on this fairly recent archaeological discovery is true, then our faith should be upset. 

But just what is this discovery? It is a three-foot-tall stone tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew words inked on it that it is estimated, date to within the last part of the 1st century before Christ; that is, originating from about the time of 30-20 B.C. The tablet, it is claimed, records a communication from the angel Gabriel, a written revelation which includes, beginning on line 80, the following written phrases: "In three days live" (Hebrew, L'shloshet yamin hayeh ); and, another phrase which is translated, "In three days you shall live, I, Gabriel, command you."[1] Of course the question arises, to whom was Gabriel speaking? The stone reveals that the command was uttered to "Sar hasarin," or a "prince of princes." Supposedly, this prince refers to the same prince Gabriel revealed to Daniel would, "be cut off and have nothing" (i.e., die a violent death, Daniel 9:26). Thus, the following scenario develops: circa 500 B.C. Gabriel tells Daniel that Prince Messiah will die, and then about 500 years later, circa 30-20 B.C., Gabriel revealed that he would personally command Messiah to rise after three days. So you might be asking, What's the big deal? Why is this so threatening to the Christian faith?

The deal is this: The newly discovered and deciphered inscription infers that the belief in an "after-three-days-resurrected Messiah" was not unique to the early church, but was a common tradition circulating amongst the Jews at that time. The early church then borrowed and incorporated this superstition into the narratives they created about the life and times of Jesus. As one professor, Yehezkel Kaufman, Professor of Biblical Studies at Hebrew University, remarks: "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."[2] Again, Daniel Boyarin, professor of Talmudic culture at the University of California at Berkeley, remarks, "Some Christians will find it shocking--a challenge to the uniqueness of their theology . . ."[3]

The reasoning surrounding this controversy might be constructed like this: 1. Historically, Christians have believed Jesus rose from the dead after three days. / 2. The "Gabriel Revelation" indicates that before Jesus lived a tradition existed among Jews that their Messiah would raise after being dead three days. / 3. Therefore, because this Jewish resurrection-tradition existed before Jesus, it proves that the early church borrowed the three-day theory from Judaism (inferring that Christianity's report of Jesus' resurrection is borrowed and inherently false).

Thus, some of you who may have heard about The Gabriel Stone might be interested in what a Christian pastor thinks of this newest challenge to the uniqueness of Jesus' resurrection, this "spinning of the stone," so to speak. The theory, it seems to me, is shot full of holes, and here's why.

First, the prime advocate of "The Gabriel Revelation" as the stone has come to be known, is a professor of Bible studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, by the name of Israel Knohl, who has studied the stone and provided his translation of it. The New York Times reporter Ethan Bronner labels him an "iconoclast." By definition, an iconoclast is a person who views his mission in life to be one of attacking cherished beliefs. So at the outset, Mr. Knohl, even by the reporter, is not considered to be an objective, detached, or unbiased scholar. He possesses an agenda which includes debunking the uniqueness of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Thus, Knohl's findings must be taken with a large grain of salt. In his zeal to prove that the resurrection of Jesus is merely a superstition adopted by early Christians from Judaism, Knohl may in fact be imposing "his spin" into "his translation" of the stone's words. This brings us to the issue of deciphering exactly just what is written on the stone.

Some scholars think the writing of the stone is unclear. The ink is faded, and Hebrew words are missing. Words need to be supplied and their translation inferred in order for Knohl's theory to get off the ground (It may crash after other evidence is considered.). Moshe Bar-Asher, a retired professor of Hebrew and Aramaic at the Hebrew University, has spent a lot of time studying the text. Though he believes the stone is archaeologically legitimate and considers the dating of it to be no later that the first century B.C. (of course, that means there a chance that the stone may have originated after the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, suggesting that Judaism borrowed the three day "revelation" from the early church, and not vice versa), Bar-Asher remarks: "There is one problem. In crucial places of the text there is lack of text." Bar-Asher then goes on to say, "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."[4] In other words, Knohl may be drawing phantom meanings from words not extant in the text. I have a favorite ditty which goes: Wonderful things in the Bible I see, Things that are put there by you and by me. I think, dear reader, you can see what I am getting at.

Third, there is an Old Testament text which the apostles understood referred to Messiah's resurrection, a text much older than "The Gabriel Revelation." Approximately a millennium before Jesus lived, the psalmist wrote, "For Thou wilt not abandon my soul to Sheol; / Neither wilt Thou allow Thy Holy One to undergo decay" (Psalm 16:10, NASB). The word "decay" refers to the decomposition of the human body after death. Yahweh, the psalmist affirms, will not abandon him in death. Furthermore, the Lord would not allow the body of His "Holy" or "Godly One" to decompose (i.e., thus implying resurrection). For the body of the "Holy One," it would not be "dust to dust." As one fine Old Testament scholar comments on Psalm 16:10, "The phrase 'see decay' (v.10) is a metaphor for total isolation and abandonment from God's presence. It is not clear whether the psalmist had in mind the experience of God's presence in the life hereafter or specifically in the resurrection of the body. However, in the apostolic preaching this verse did have a particular apologetic significance, as both Peter (Acts 2:27, 31) and Paul (Acts 13:35) quoted v. 10 as proof of the resurrection of the Lord."[5]

My point is this: Belief in Messiah's resurrection was not hatched in Judaism a few decades before Jesus lived and died. The belief in a physical resurrection was long-standing in the Old Testament (Daniel 12:2; Isaiah 26:19; Ezekiel 37:12-14). Resurrection is also mentioned in the inter-testamental books (400 B.C. to 30 A.D.).[6] As Messiah, Jesus fulfilled, and was "the first fruits" of, that prophetic anticipation (1 Corinthians 15:20-23).[7] Thus, based upon Psalm 16:10, and as their preaching shows, the apostles anticipated Messiah's resurrection. Peter preached that Messiah's body would not decompose (Acts 2:31-32), and so did Paul (Acts 13:32-37).

My final observation is this: It doesn't matter whether or not some esoteric Jewish-Gabriel tradition about Messiah's resurrection was circulating around Palestine sometime before Jesus lived and died. Such a tradition, even if evidenced by the Gabriel stone, does not disprove Jesus' resurrection. Rather, beginning in the Old Testament, it only confirms the heightening anticipation of it among the Jewish people around the time of Christ.

The only issue is this--Did Jesus really rise from the dead after three days as He predicted He would (Matthew 12:40; 27:63)? If He did not, then Christianity is, as Paul reasoned, false. But since He did, Christianity is true.[8]

Pastor Larry DeBruyn

________________

FOOTNOTES

[1] Ethan Bronner, "Ancient Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection," The New York Times, July 6, 2008. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world/middleeast/06stone.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&oref=slogin).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Willem A. VanGemeren, "Psalms," The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Frank E. Gaebelein, General Editor, Volume 5 (Grand Rapids: ZondervanPublishingHouse, 1991) 158.

[6] See "resurrection," Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period, 450 B.C.E. to 600 C.E., Jacob Neusner, Editor in Chief (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996) 526-527. Before his death, one victim of Roman torture remarked, "It is good, being put to death by men, to look for hope from God to be raised up again by him . . ." (2 Maccabees 7:14).

[7] In Time magazine, David Van Beima and Tim McGirk write of the theory: "Not so fast, say some Christian academics. 'It is certainly not perfectly clear that the tablet is talking about a crucified and risen savior figure called Simon,' says Ben Witherington, an early-Christianity expert at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Ky. The verb that Knohl translates as 'rise!,' Witherington says, could also mean 'there arose,' and so one can ask 'does it mean "he comes to life," i.e., a resurrection, or that he just "shows up?" ' Witherington also points out that gospel texts are far less reliant on the observed fact of the Resurrection (there is no angelic command in them like the line in the Gabriel stone) than on the testimony of eyewitnesses to Jesus' post-Resurrection self. Finally, Witherington notes that if he is wrong and Knohl's reading is right, it at least sets to rest the notion that the various gospel quotes attributed to Christ foreshadowing his death and Resurrection were textual retrojections put in his mouth by later believers -- Jesus the Messianic Jew, as Knohl sees him, would have been familiar with the vocabulary for his own fate." See David Van Beima and Tim McGirk, "Was Jesus' Resurrection a Sequel?" Time, July 07, 08 (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1820685,00.html).