Welcome to Concordia Theology.org

"Gabriel's Vision" - by Jeff Kloha

This week, Jeff Kloha was a guest on "Issues, etc." where he discussed the New York Times' coverage of a story concerning a tablet recently discovered near the Dead Sea with a few broken lines of Hebrew written on it. In this article and accompanying link to "Issues, etc.", Dr. Kloha discusses the weak scholarship used to jump to conclusions challenging the true messiahship of Jesus Christ.

The “Gabriel’s Vision” reporting is another example of the media grasping on to an extremely tenuous, minority (in this case one person’s) line of argumentation and presenting it as a genuine scholarly debate. The “Family Tomb of Jesus” is a similar example from last year. We are in the midst of the summer intensive term on campus, a lot is going on right now, and this (frankly) doesn’t merit much attention, but in addition to my comments on “Issues, Etc.” I wanted to offer a few more observations in order to help those who have heard about this. This is by no means an exhaustive critique, only some initial observations.

Three observations should resolve this issue rather easily. First, the word “Messiah” appears nowhere in this text. The positing of a belief in a certain view of “Messiah” on the basis of this text is doubtful from the outset. Second, no death is actually described in the text. The death (and subsequent resurrection) is assumed in this theory from the reconstructed word “rise.” Third, this text is not a narrative. There is no description of a Messiah or his work or death. Rather it is about Gabriel and his role as God’s means of delivering his people.

Let me try to summarize the line of argumentation from Israel Knohl, the scholar who has brought his theory to media attention.

Knoll published a book in 2000 in which he conjectures that there was a tradition of a dying, sacrificial Messiah in Judaism prior to Jesus. There he asserts that a Talmud reference to “Messiah Son of Joseph” is a pre-Christian reference to Simon son of Joseph, who was one of a group of leaders who rebelled against Roman rule following the death of Herod in 4 B.C. (Note: the Talmud was compiled long after Jesus (after 400 ad), it is virtually impossible to determine when a given saying should be dated. Most scholars think that this Talmud reference is to Jesus of Nazareth.) In this text, Knohl claims to have found the evidence for his previously unsupported theory. Here is how Knohl connects the dots:

1. The Gabriel Vision (lines 16-17) says that David is commanded to “ask Ephraim.” The logic: Since David is a messianic figure (even though the text does not call him “Messiah”) and Ephraim is the “son of Joseph” (even though the text does not call him that), according to Knohl “this sets up the equivalence between David and Ephraim and the Talmudic Messiah son of David and Messiah son of Joseph”

2. The crucial lines of text were reconstructed and translated by the original editors as follows:
80. In three days …, I, Gabri’el …[?],
81. the Prince of Princes, …, narrow holes(?) …[…]…
Knohl fills in the blanks in this way:
80. After three days, rise, I, Gabri’el command you,
81. the Prince of Princes, …, rocky gorge …[…]…

A few observations are necessary. First, no death is actually mentioned in the text, so it is not at all clear that someone would need to “rise” from the dead. Furthermore, even if the word “rise” can be reconstructed there, because there is no death in the context, “rise” might simply mean “get up” or “stand up” (note line 85 “Then you will stand”). Second, it is not clear at all who would rise. It is most likely that it is Gabriel, who should be identified as the “Prince of Princes.” In other words, Gabriel is the subject of lines 80-81, not someone else (let alone specifically, as Knohl posits, a Messiah figure). Third, I have not been able to sort out Knohl’s exact reconstruction of line 81, either in his media discussion or his article in the Journal of Religion. He connects “rocky gorge” to the death of a Simon son of Joseph (see below), but I don’t see any textual argument for why line 81 would refer to a place of death. Fourth, the person commanded to rise is “Prince of Princes” (according to Knohl), though it is not clear if “Prince of Princes” is grammatically connected to what precedes or what follows.

3. Moving on from the textual reconstruction, the author then links this to Daniel 8, where the “king of fierce countenance” slays the “Prince of princes” – remember, the text never mentions a death nor alludes specifically to Daniel 8.

4. Knohl then connects this “Prince of princes” to Simon son of Joseph, who was slain in a ravine. Knohl reconstructs the text here, which the initial publication translated as “narrow hole” (probably a cave) with “rocky crevice.” This is how Knohl connects to the rocky crevice mentioned in Josephus’ account of Simon. Knohl claims that “king of fierce countenance” refers to Caesar Augustus, but note that Simon in 4 BC was not slain by Romans, but by Gratus, a commander in Herod’s army (albeit friendly to Rome).

5. But wait, there’s more: line 67 of the Gabriel Vision mentions “blood of this chariot”. Even though there is no mention of Son of Joseph or connection to whatever is discussed in line 80, Knohl argues that this is the basis for the ascension of Jesus. So we move from line 17 to line 80 to line 67 in order to connect the dots. Obviously we are not dealing with flowing, logical narrative if this is what the text is supposed to be describing.
From this line of argumentation we are asked to conclude that 1) This text is referencing a Messianic figure 2) who died for his people 3) and is connected to a hope of bodily resurrection after three days. 4) Furthermore, Jesus and/or the early Christians knew this tradition 5) and used it as a basis for both the resurrection account in the canonical gospels and the ascension story.

I used to do “connect the dot” books when I was a kid, too. Only in those books there were real dots to connect, and when you were done everyone could tell what you had drawn.

Written By: host
Date Posted: 7/10/2008
Number of Views: 1334

Comments

You must be logged in to submit a comment.

Return