|
< Back to the Current Issue of BAR  Talkback Add Your Comment
The Messiah Son of Joseph
“Gabriel’s Revelation” and the birth of a new messianic model
 A new inscription, recently published in BAR for the first time in English,a may hold the key to unlocking a new understanding of some of the history of Christian and Jewish messianism.
Written on a stone 3 feet tall, the new text has many of the characteristics of a fragmentary Dead Sea Scroll, including being poorly preserved. Based on the stance and form of the letters, the distinguished decipherers of the inscription (Ada Yardeni and Binyamin Elizur) date it to the late first century B.C.E. or early first century C.E.
Gabriel's RevelationI wanted to mention that when I clcked the picture of the stone which enlarged it,...I saw a lion on that stone! The head is at the top of the stone, then faintly the body runs the length of it, with the two paws or feet at the bottom of the stone. • • • • • • • hazon gabriel and the Messianic expectations of 1st century IsraelTo say that Jesus should have quoted Psalm 2:7 instead of Psalm 110:1 is a mistake because I think son of God was applied to any righteous (and thus non-divine) person (for example, see Galatians 3:26). I'm sure the author knows that in Rabbinical times it was important for the response to be short and crisp, thus there was no other way than to quote the most definitive Scripture regarding the divinity of the Messiah, Psalm 110:1. To claim Psalm 2:7 is better is in my opinion unfounded. • • • • • • • Prophetic Fit.This text fits nicely with the widely-held Christian view that Jesus Christ is both the Messiah son of Joseph (suffering servant) in His first coming and the Messiah son of David (conquering king) in His second, yet future coming. It was a very interesting and enjoyable article. Thank you. • • • • • • • The Messiah Son of JosephThe title of this BAR report alone has problems. Where is the Hebrew for "Messiah" used of Joseph or Ephraim in the stone writing? Also the author indicates Jesus (e.g. Matthew 22:41-46) cites Psalms 110 as refuting that the Messiah comes as a son of David. What? Did the author read Isaiah 9:6-7? Jesus cites Psalms 110 showing that the Messiah was not just a human son of David but also Divine-fits well with John 1:1-3. Apparently the religious leaders in Jesus time could not accept that the Messiah through David would also be Divine, i.e. the Son of God-Psalms 2:6-8. • • • • • • • Jesus - of David or of JosephSo, by proving Jesus the suffering savior is of Joseph, and the Messiah triumphant is of David, and Jesus was trying to set the record straight that he was of Joseph, then why does he also try to usurp the Davidic Messiahship by coming as a rescuer of Israel in triumph and glory? I will not ask why there is a worldwide, ageless, determination to denigrate the greatest hope for mankind, if not for the Jewish people...a fate of happiness that even I desire to the chagrin of my less Jew/Israel loving acquaintence. • • • • • • • 1st Century MiracleI think the underlying issue here is who will claim this text? The Jews or the Christians? Obviously both of these texts are useful for either side, but I think it is clear that something happened in the first century (Jesus Christ was killed, buried, and ressurected) that caused all this "Messiah talk" I don't believe that Jesus rejected the title " Son of David" I think that is a bad interpretation taken from the text, perhaps he wasn't saying that at all. Jesus said many things to teach but I'd say it is ridiculous to say he wasn't a descendant of David based on one passage that is understood wrongly. • • • • • • • Son of Joseph inscriptionWhere was the stone found on which the inscription was written? • • • • • • • History says things over and over.It's very interesting how history repeats certain aspects over and over giving it some authenticity. I enjoyed reading this translation and found it informing. • • • • • • • Decieve even the elect if that were possible."I am inclined to regard the passage in which Jesus quotes Psalm 110 as a historically reliable passage in which Jesus rejects the view that the Messiah will be a descendant of David." ------------- When will BAR stop trying to discredit the Word of God that became flesh and dwelt amongst us! This stone is quite funny, it's not even been proved to be older than my grandmother as far as I am aware and yet people are coming up with all these theology changing senarios. David • • • • • • • very interestingVery interesting , as a fundamental christian ill be watching all this info closely -- so it looks like Yeshua was the rejected messiah after all fulfilling the suffering servant prophecies ie isaiah 53 , zechariah 12:10 , daniel 9 "cut off" ---- thanks for the translation on the stone --- ill be keeping up with this important story ======shalom=========augustine e johnson_usa • • • • • • • The Messiah Son of JosephI have to agree with Professor Rivero 100%. And why Messianic and not Apocalyptic? The conclusions seem incorrect and out of place to me. • • • • • • • The Messiah, the Son of JosephAgain, why project into the text of this archaeological "document" the persistent urge for contemporary religiosity. It is akin to the medieval penchant to present the Josph narrative as a prefiguration of the Christ. One question, I have for Professor Kohl with regard to this text: Why does he classify it as Messianic rather than Apocalyptic? There is just as much "evidence" in the text for the latter as well as the former. Certainly, "Gabriel's Revelation" clearly stands in that tradition. Once again, the evidence emerging does substantiate one conclusion: Intertetamentary experience was far more complex than ever supposed and far beyond the neat boundaries chosen by Josephus. • • • • • • • The Messiah the Son of JosephOf course! But why can't Jesus be both! That's why the Christian Gospels make such a point of documenting how "Jesus, Son of Joseph" is also "Jesus, Son of David," by describing Jesus' father Joseph as belonging to "the house and lineage of David." Prior to Jesus, we have a swamp of messianic expectations. After Jesus, we have his followers sorting out the similarities and differences between the many messiah(s)who were expected and the one Messiah they actually got. There is, however, one weakness to the article's line of argument: Because there was some sort of scandal connected to Jesus' birth, didn't Jesus' detractors seek to demean him by calling "son of Mary" and NOT "son of Joseph"? • • • • • • • Deja VuJudea at the turn of the Christian era was riddled with all sorts of upheavals that found expression as complex religious tendencies, of which different -and often contradictory- messianic sentiments were an integral part. The deep motives were probably less biblical (in terms of interpretation or confirmation of prophecy) than they were political (in representing the contemporary forces at play). Much of this is of course lost and meaningless to a modern reader. In general, it is a mistake to force the Eternal and Inerrant Word of God into the constraints of a poorly understood piece of evidence, especially on issues the Bible undoubtedly asserts and demonstrates. Remember: Scripture interprets Scripture. And the evidence ought to follow. • • • • • • • Three daysKnohl's interpretation of Mark 12:35-37 is not very credible, and his backward projection of a Messiah from Joseph (let alone one called "Ephraim") did not convince me. But I'm mostly puzzled by his interpretation of the text. It's not at all clear to me why the "live!" (vs 80) would be about resurrection rather than rescue from (the brink of) death, nor why the subject would be a messiah? There are three shepherds who get rescued (vs 70, 75-78), and these seem the ones to which vs 80 applies, for the thought is continued in vs 83, one of the three having some specific role. Now the three days after which they are rescued -- the three days are a very common "salvation" theme in the OT (cp. Midrash Bereshit Rabba (Gen. 42,17) and Midrash Esther (Esther 5:1) for only a few examples) -- seem to be the three days after which evil is broken (vs 19-21), and this evil seems to be the gentiles besieging Jerusalem (vs 13-14, 54-57; again 3 days), perhaps from the north (vs. 56; cp. Ezechiel 38:15-16). After these 3 days a harvest of judgement on these gentiles begins (vs 18, cp. Joel 3:9-13), perhaps an infliction of their flesh (vs 41-42; cp. Zachariah 12:1-9, 14:12-15). Gabriel is the messenger of the end time (Daniel 8:16, 9:21), not of ressurection (Michael sooner is, cf. Dan. 12) (in fact, Gabriel's role here seems based on Daniel 9:24-27, about the End time events surrounding Jerusalem). So this all has to do with the national restoration of Israel in the End time, and of course Hosea 6:2, to which vs 80 -- "live after three days" -- clearly refers, is about that too. That does not mean that messiahs couldn't figure into this somewhere, but I do not really see where. The "small one" of the three (vs 83) could be a suffering messiah, but then one of three messiahs... and not at all clearly linked to Ephraim (vs 16-17), let alone superior to the Messiah of Judah (they sooner seem to be prepairing the place for the Davidic Messiah, vs 72; in that they remind one sooner of the two witnesses of Apocalypse 11 -- who get resurrected after 3.5 days...) I do not know where the three men theme comes from (I could only think of the three just men of Ezechiel 14:12-23, as 'precedent' -- anyone any better ideas?). • • • • • • • Pesikta Rabbati's MessiahA minor quibble: pace Kohl, in the Pesikta Rabbati, Ephraim is in fact the son of David, not the son of Joseph. Notice, for example, Piska 36.2: "During the ordeal of the son of David, the Holy One, blessed be He, will say to him, Ephraim, My true Messiah..." • • • • • • • ThanksBAR is to be applauded for publication of this important find. While the implications may not be as earthshaking or faith-shattering as some commentators would like us to believe, Knohl's reading brings a new focus to our knowledge of Second Temple messianic expectations. That early Christianity drew upon perhaps more widely held interpretations of a dying and rising messiah than many had previously believed does not dilute the Christian faith, but underscores its origins as from within the multi-layered maelstrom of Second Temple theological perspectives that ultimately gave birth to the fratricidal twins of rabbinic Judaism and nascent Christianity. • • • • • • • David is JesusVery interesting perspective up until the end. I was nodding all the way through. But I can't help but feel that you're missing a very important point. Jesus does not reject the fact that the messiah will be born of David's line because he feels that David is secondary to the true Messiah. Nor does he do it because he is rejecting his messiahship. Jesus rebukes the scribes because Jesus *is* David--at least, this is who his character represents. This is why he, like David, has a triumphal entry into Jerusalem on a donkey(also an allusion to Zech. 9), why he goes to the Mount of Olives to pray like David had done, why he must constantly flee from his enemies like David, why he must suffer and be hung from a tree (or be crucified) like David's son Absalom - Israel's false messiah. He is the true messiah-per the Gospel authors--and like David, he must save the Israelites from their Philistines (sin). Hence his name (Matt. 1:21). Jesus represents the suffering servant from Isaiah who must be oppressed and judged wrongfully, who will have a rich man in his death, and be killed with the wicked. He must make himself a sin offering, as in Leviticus Pilate's palace is the place of meeting where two lots are cast and Jesus must be put to death. It is truly an inspiring edification of Hebrew tradition. If this model you have worked out is accurate, what this does is make a better case for the allusions the authors of the Gospels were making to the Hebrew Bible. It does not solidify a perspective which entertains what a historical Jesus actually thought or did. To clutter up this discussion with the false presuppositions of a historical Jesus does not help anything. What this tablet does is prove once more how intelligent, creative, and mindful Jewish scholars were in antiquity; how they mastered (in the way the Greeks and Romans had) the ability to interpret literature and recreate it in a new, edifying manner. • • • • • • • Dead Sea Scroll on StoneThis new "scroll" in various ways points to an orthodox view of Christology and the revelation of God's Messiah through out Scripture. What if we were to find writings from Simeon and Anna the two historical elderly people in Luke chapter two, I would find it consitant that they would have written of both a suffering and victorius Messiah. According to Luke they anticiapated the Messiah and Simeon's words to Mary suggests that suffering would occur in her life so why not the Messiah's. I come to Scripture and history from a perspective of the tomb of Christ empty on Easter, that he rose from the dead. By the fact that there is a risen Messiah suggest both a suffering and a triumphant Messiah. Could not God though the ages starting from, "he will crush your head, and you will strike his heal." (Gen 3:15) had planned for a Messiah who would suffer and victoriously rule. As a good Lutheran I hold to sola Scriptura for my faith and doctrine; ultimatly Scripture will have the final word on all of this. Thank you. • • • • • • • Gabriel’s Revelation not anti-ChristianI don't think a person should read the BAR article as an anti-Christian article. It even concludes with the paragraph that Jesus would have seen himself as the fulfillment of prophesy made on the stone (if indeed it turns out that the stone was written first). [Thus it is quite possible that Jesus identified himself as the Messiah “Ephraim,” the son of Joseph who is mentioned in “Gabriel’s Revelation.”] A Christian should assign the prophesy of the stone along with the prophetic writings in Isaiah and Daniel, Christians read them as prophesy of Jesus Christ, non-Christians read them as prophesy of someone else. It is as it has always been, Jesus himself felt the need to tell those that could hear his voice that they were witnessing the fulfillment of prophesy, in many places of the gospels there are examples of that. This stone, if it turns out to be pre-Christ, is prophesy that doesn't dispute Jesus' divinity, and if it turns out to be post-Jesus, it most likely is about Jesus the person via knowledge of him. • • • • • • • Dead Sea Scroll on StoneDavek, it is not the job of biblical skeptics to prove anything. The burden of proof lies with the believers. If you stop worrying about others and produce solid evidence that what you believe is 100 percent truth, then there would be no argument. You can't prove what you believe so you are defensive of an opposing view. • • • • • • • Scholarship should be objectiveA previous comment has complained that the present article seems to be written in such a way that the divinity of Jesus and the existence of God are not necessarily explicit and required assumptions of the argument presented. This seems to be motive of grievance for the commentator, who accuses BAS of being out to prove the Bible wrong. I think this kind of argumentation deserves little attention, as it denotes total ignorance of what scholarship is all about. The gradual accumulation of knowledge, through scientific disciplines (such as archeology) requires objectivity and reliance only on proven facts. The existence of God and the divinity of Jesus are matters of faith, not of scientific fact, so their inclusion as required part of a scientific argument would invalidate it. • • • • • • • No one is said to be dead, no one to resurrectThis is much ado about nothing, just like the Gospel of Judas frenzy a few years back. Even according to Knohl's reconstructed readings there is no statement anywhere in the text about any one person dying. You need a single person to _die_ first, before you can resurrect him. And nothing is said about one particular person rising from the dead. The "partially illegible" Hebrew "hayah" in line 80 has been interpreted to mean "live" as if commanded to "rise up" from the dead. Yet in context it appears to mean instead to "rise up" against the 3 days of evil, as in a rebellion, a common thought in first century Palestine under the thumb of the Romans. The 3-day period is already mentioned in lines 19-21, as a period of evil requiring vengeance and slaughter to defeat the evil, not resurrection to life from the dead. The 3 days seems to have no more than numerological significance since the number "3" recurs again and again in this fragmentary text: "Jerusalem…. three" (line 33), "three days" (line 54), "three saints" (line 65), three prophets sent (line 70), "three shepherds" (line 75), "three signs" (line 79), three things or persons (lines 79 and 83). • • • • • • • Gabriel's RevelationIt seems a bit disingenuous to say without qualification that the Synoptic passages intend to refute the idea that the messiah was David's Son. This seems unnecessarily tendentious. A more natural reading is that the intent was to offer a conundrum in which the puzzling question is left unanswered as to how the messiah could be David's lord while at the same time being his son. To be sure, in 2nd temple Judaism there seems to have been multiple ideas about the messiah, evidenced both from the DSS as well as from texts such as this stone inscription. However, it seems doubtful that the case can be sustained that there is some internal contradiction in the documents of the New Testament about the lineage of Jesus. • • • • • • • confirmationI find the BAR article timely, and when looked at in the proper context, it confirms the NT testimony, and WHY Judaizers could join NT Jews designated Christians from the late 30s to the mid-50s A.D...just as the NT says. The Gabriel apocalypse isn't used by Jesus, who stayed on Scripture...but now it leaves the Sanhedrin oppositions of all parties, in a historical veracity, WITHOUT excuse. Readers can also post comments, insights, opinions at the BAS Forum. My name posts as Brianroy. Hope to see you there as welll. Peace. • • • • • • • Dead Sea Scroll on StoneIt's just a shame that BAS looks at material like this from a atheistic point of view. BAS should change their name to represent the fact that they seem to try to disprove the bible, not prove it. At least try to be unbiased, all your so called experts or scholars appear to not even beleive in the divinity of Jesus. • • • • • • • The Messiah Son of JosephYour “Gabriel’s Revelation” seems very similar to that made to Muhammed six centuries later. This looks quite forgered despite most of the scholars Advices known today. Apart from stronger evidences this theory is for the time being quite inappropriate for a scientific review. Marcel ALONSO • • • • • • • |
 BAR VoicesDorothy D. ResigLetter from the BAR Managing Editor Hershel ShanksTemple Mount Repairs Leave Eyesores Julia M. O’BrienThe Economics of Family: Changing Biblical Norms Elizabeth Shanks AlexanderThe Mystery Remains: Who Leaked the Scroll Pictures to BAS? Leonard J. GreenspoonThe Bible in the News: Turn, Turn, Turn FREE Downloadable E-BooksThe Holy Bible: A Buyer’s Guide
Easter: Exploring the Resurrection of Jesus
I Volunteered for This?! Life on an Archaeological Dig
The First Christmas: The Story of Jesus’ Birth in History and Legend
Israel: An Archaeological Journey
From Babylon to Baghdad: Ancient Iraq and the Modern West
Exploring Jordan: The Other Biblical Land
Island Jewels: Understanding Ancient Cyprus and Crete
The Olympic Games: How They All Began
The Dead Sea Scrolls—What They Really Say
Real or Fake? Forgery Conference Report |
||||||||||
INFORMATION |
PUBLICATIONS |
FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTER |
