Line 70: prophets. I sent to my people my three shepherds. I will say (?)
Simcha goes on to say one of the shepherds was either Judas, Simon, or Athrongeus, leaders of rebellions after Herod the Great died.
Athrongeus was from Emmaus (possibly northwest of Jerusalem).
Although Athrongeus was the shepherd, not Judas, not Simon, the documentary calls all three of the rebel messiahs shepherds.
(Athrongeus had brothers who were shepherds who helped with his rebellion.)
The video goes on to say, let’s eliminate Athrongeus because the Gabriel Revelation (memoralizing) stone was not found here. Judas was eliminated for the same reason.
We are left with tall, handsome Simon (as per Josephus). The Gabriel Stone likely came from Perea, Simon’s area.
= = =
Line 81 Prince of the Prince, the dung of the rocky crevices
The video says the Romans did not allow Simon’s followers to bury Simon, so, he became the dung of the rocky crevices – because he was killed after being chased through a valley [presumably a rocky, desert valley].
= = =
The video claims that Simon’s followers honored him as a rebel messiah after he died.
= = =
No source is given for this. So the video falls apart. The video would probably take the position that Simon was the dead shepherd who was resurrected after three days.
“Joseph and Aseneth” nor “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs” can definitively be dated prior to 33 C.E. Only the Gabriel Inscription can be dated prior to 33 C.E.
Line 77: Who am I? I am Gabriel …
The whole claim rests on whether or not the Gabriel Revelation stone is talking about Simon when it says prince of the princes, the dung of the rocky crevices. This would be a suffering messiah.
Line 81 is more important, for me, than Line 80.
= = =
I do not see Simon as being from Ephraim. (Simon does not have to be from Ephraim? Simon just has to be killed trying to be a messiah figure?)
Again, I cannot use the line of reasoning of Simcha.
= = =
Wikipedia
Other scholars, however, reconstructed the faint writing on the stone as a different word entirely, rejecting Knohl’s reading.[44][45] Instead, Ronald Hendel’s (2009) reading of “In three days, the sign…” has gained widespread support.[46]
In 2011, Knohl accepted that “sign” is a more probable reading than “live”,
although he maintains that “live” is a possible reading.
Steefen
Lines 79-80
from before of you the three signs three … In 3 days, live, I Gabriel command you, Prince of Princes, the dung of crevices.
versus
from before of you the three signs three … In 3 days, the sign, I Gabriel command you, Prince of Princes, the dung of crevices.
No, more’s the pity, and especially after the creative editing license he took with Tabor’s parts that Robert mentions. I was right to leave off from him and not watch anything else. Just too much kitsch. As for sign vs live, I’d need to know the language to judge whether sign fits grammatically or semantically–it’d be a stretch in English–but even semantically there’d be the need to live just in order to sign, provided they’re still referencing this particular messiah and not appealing rather to god.
Well I just woke up to this and complained to my wife, “I just bought his book.” But I’ve had some coffee and read your interaction with him, and yes, I’m on your side of the sentiment as well, b/c what else can I do? But if he shows up on Ancient Aliens then I’m drawing a line (see what I did there?).
Now I would’ve expected any archaeologist to not even talk of that stone if it hasn’t been dated, but what do I know? Or at least acknowledge that it can’t be b/c there are no remaining sedimentary deposits to do such, something. The archaeoastronomical evidence is really, really cool. Ever read Hamlet’s Mill? But look, where’s the likeliest explanation, if it be authentic–that it was fetched from the middle east during the 19th century pilgrimages, archaeological and otherwise, that were so fashionable then? Tell me what I’m missing or have got wrong.
I’m too old to learn Greek and the rest, and in the end have to fall back on my original ignorance, armed with all the experts’ evidence. I’ll probably just resort to my test for politicians…would I let them walk my dog? Or upon what may be a little easier to discern here–where’s the disconnect, like good voire dire analysis, religious affiliations, etc. That’s one thing you can get from Bart’s debates that’s not always available in writing. LOL I almost dismissed Bart, too, b/c one of the first presentations I saw of his was at SRE. Glad I didn’t stop at that.
Okay, I’m off to read the paper you posted. But lemme say, I am impressed by your interaction there with Tabor, and posts here, so you’re on my short list of people to be wary of (I did it again). You’re no slouch. Oh, and a second line of David? Fascinating.
LaoWho
Is there a second, suffering messiah tradition that ties in with this video/documentary where the discussion turns to the claim the followers of Simon continued to call him Christ after he was killed?
Steefen
a second, suffering messiah tradition that feeds into Simon which informed Josephus and the gospel writers.
Let me think about that:
Three Givens:
1) There was an oral tradition about Atronges, Judah, and Simon.
2) The Messiah of Joseph refers to a Samaritan Redeemer [Source: Dead Sea Scrolls]
Corrected to: The Samaritan Redeemer exploited a Messiah tradition.
3) The documentary says the Gabriel inscription looks like the “text and font” of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
= = =
Question: Jaobvichi does not do a good job sourcing the legend and Hebrew Bible references for a suffering Simon and a resurrecting Simon.
= = =
Continuing My Thoughts about My Second Given:
The Samaritan Redeemer exploited a Messiah tradition.
There is a Messiah tradition connected to David.
There is a Messiah tradition connected to the Messiah of Aaron. (Source: Dead Sea Scrolls)
There is a Messiah tradition connected to the Messiah of Israel. (Source: Dead Sea Scrolls)
There is a Messiah tradition connected to the Taheb/Messiah of Joseph. (Source: Samaritanism as covered by Professor Robert Eisenman in his book, The New Testament Code: Gospels, Apostles, and the Dead Sea Scrolls–hence, there was no mistake in my comprehending the Dead Sea, the mistake was not marking Eisenman had switched from Dead Sea Scrolls to Samaritanism. Apparently, Robert also had not marked in his knowledge base that the Taheb/Messiah of Joseph came from Samaritanism so his correction would have simply been: “Steefen, Messiah of Joseph is not sourced from the Dead Sea Scrolls, it is sourced from Samaritanism.” But he was insistent on my inability to comprehend/interpret the Dead Sea Scrolls. LOL, what an insult by a pompous Forum Member, who rightfully needs to be ignored when you know his insistent criticism is imprecise.)
The video says there is a Messiah tradition that is victorious but because the shepherd Simon, a Messiah figure, got his neck broken in battle, died, and was not allowed to be buried, Gabriel must resurrect this defeated Messiah as a sign that God still cares.
Well, you have been corrected of your errors.
Second, you do not agree with Eisenmann in this conversation.
There is no declaration by Eisenmann in this thread. LOL. Further reason to ignore you as a contributor.
Robert has exhibited poor communication is this thread.
1) Since Messiah Son of Joseph is not in the Dead Sea Scrolls, he should not have asked for a selection from the Dead Sea Scrolls to be re-interpreted by him. Simply, saying Messiah Son of Joseph is not in the Dead Sea Scrolls was sufficient. But no, he wants to insult people by saying my reading comprehension and interpretation skills are better. No they are not. There is nothing to read or interpret since the verses are not in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
2) Steefen, read your own Wikipedia quotation and you will have a better understanding of Knohl’s current views.
What a pompous insult: you do not read what you have posted. What I posted included: “although he maintains that ‘live’ is a possible reading” which maintains acknowledging the rebel Simon as a messiah-figure, even though he was defeated.
Robert: “But to think that I was insulting you is false.”
Steefen: Your falsehood/denial does not work.
= = =
As for Robert not agreeing with me and Robert Eisenmann in this discussion, I advise you to ignore Robert on this point. I put forward the Jewish Encyclopedia which is not at odds with my reference to Robert Eisenmann:
From the Dogma section of this Samaritans entry:
- (2) Moses as the only prophet. None can arise like unto Moses, according to Deut. xxxiv. 10 (where the Targum reads
for 
); hence they reject all the Jewish books except the Pentateuch. The Law which he gave is perfect, having been created before the world and brought forth by the hand of God from the depth of the very good. - (3) Mt. Gerizim, which is the House of God, the place in which He chose to put His name. On it the twelve stones (Deut. xxvii. 4) are still shown; there the temple was erected; and there in the last days will the Shekinah reappear.
** you do not have permission to see this link **The “Taheb.”
- (4) The Messiah doctrine, which, though of less importance, is clearly defined. The term used is
(
), which has been variously explained as “the restorer” or “he who returns.” During all the time that has elapsed since the schism of Eli and the disappearance of the Tabernacle, the world (i.e., Israel) has been suffering under the divine displeasure. This is called the period of 
. It will be terminated by the coming of the “Taheb,” who will restore the period of favor (
), establish the true religion, and destroy the followers of Ezra. He will live 110 years on earth, and then die. - (5) The resurrection, which will take place after the death of the Taheb, and will be accompanied by the final judgment,
, when the righteous will go into the garden of Eden, and the wicked be burned with fire.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
“Eschatology and Messianism in the Gabriel Inscription”
by Torleif Elgvin
The somewhat crude script can be dated to the second half of the first century B.C.E.
Steefen
Obviously this pre-dates the Biblical Jesus and the gospels.
Elgvin
“Who are you?” – “I am Gabriel, the angel sent [by the Lord . . . and] 78
you shall rescue them. A prophet and a shepherd shall rescue you.” – [“Ten I]
ask 79 you for three shepherds, for three prophets.”
80 On the third day: the sign! I am Gabriel, king of the angels, 81 the
prince of princes, of those who are close to the courts . . . 82 The sign is for him.
See, they[ a]sk you. See those who love the king!
Steefen
Compare Knohl.
Lines 79-81 translated by Knohl
from before of you the three signs three …
In 3 days, live, I Gabriel command you, Prince of Princes, the dung of crevices.
versus
Lines 79-80 translated by Elgvin
you for three shepherds, for three prophets.
On the third day: the sign! I am Gabriel, king of the angels, the Prince of Princes, of those who are close to the courts . . .
Elgvin
Joseph Heinemann attributes the development of the idea of a fighting
messiah from Joseph/Ephraim who is killed by Israel’s enemies, to rabbinic
refection after Bar Kokhba’s catastrophic defeat (Heinemann 1975).
Steefen
This is nonsense. You have to go from the second half of the first century BCE (the Gabriel Revelation Stone) to Bar Kokhba’s Revolt defeat in 135 CE–jumping over the Atronges-Judah-Simon insurrection, jumping over all the messiahs after them through the end of the First Jewish-Roman War to agree with Elgvin quoting Heinemann.
Then Elgvin goes on to say the Messiah son of Joseph is a Jewish (not a Samaritan) internalization [Pscho-babble nonsense] of Jesus as messiah.
Well, with this nonsense, I say this “article” put forward by Robert is just more of his poor quality contributions to this thread and a waste of people’s time–Jews internalizing Jesus as messiah should be Jews for Jesus internalizing Jesus as messiah. The Gabriel Revelation Stone was not created in response to a fictional Jesus not crucified under Pontius Pilate.
Robert said
No, never read Hamlet’s Mill.If the inscription could be proven ancient (it can’t), yes, I agree your explanation for how it got there would seem more plausible.
Haven’t seen Tabor on Ancient Aliens, but I don’t actually watch that show. Maybe Steefen does?
LOL. No, that was my joke, that I watch Ancient Aliens. Sorry.
Oops, still trying to use the forum correctly but I pressed a wrong…something.
First, I’ll have to watch again Steefen because I’m uncertain exactly what Simcha’s episode said and, more importantly in light of what I’m hearing from you and Robert, what he didn’t say.
Second, there is no way that I’ll be able to engage you guys on this, or anything, because of all you know and which would take me years to get to, if then. And I’m beginning to feel bad for having so casually tossed the question out there. I couldn’t have known that I wasn’t even prepared for your explanations, let alone your back and forth.
Third, I’m with you Steefen, I really am, and what you’ve provided has given me much to follow up on in my own study, including two valuable reference sources in the books you’ve just cited (Eisenman and Jewish Encyclopedia), and it sounds like you’re not partial to Elgvin(?), but I don’t know any better yet and I can only go by my background in Lit for discernment, poor though that is for this field. (Maybe if I had a spread sheet of contradictions and refutations according to author, etc.) But I will get to something, if only because I’m interested in the broad strokes of a big picture of this thing we’re all in. I never had the luxury or the burden of the tenets of this faith, and I’ve never had faith. Mine was an experience in a christian setting. That’s all, and it’s still everything. I probably should’ve investigated back then but I left the bible for other books and now I’m just back to try to understand the man and the making. Even when I was reading the early church fathers and medieval allegorists it was for my own selfish reasons–sometimes they made me high, sometimes they had me pondering imponderables, and sometimes it was just grasping for more. The jots and tittles I left in law school, if I ever even minded them, so yeah, I do wanna know what Pilate had for breakfast that morning.
Finally, I’m just a silly Lit guy with an overactive imagination (I blame Tolkien and that magical mythopoeic stream of the Romantics and Inklings), whose philosophical side gets in the way too often (I blame them all, unless we can count Boethius and Plotinus) by its tortured logic and impossible exactitudes, looking for a bottom somewhere that doesn’t even exist. Fundamentalism comes in many shapes and sizes–christianity doesn’t have a corner on that–and I’ll be shaking its poor habits til I’m not here to try.
What you’ve done for me here in this short space, well, I don’t think anyone’s ever done that for me before, so I hope that it really does interest you too. If not then leave off, and I’ll ask you again when I’m having trouble with my homework. You’ve provided me with enough for that already. In a word, I’m not out to be right. I wouldn’t even know what I was being right about, if you get my meaning. “Show me a sane man and I’ll cure him for you.” There’s no standard to what I’m doing. I’m just a poor stiff trying a little alchemy like everybody else, without justification, and it’s nice having others to do that with, like you’ve done for me.
Cheers
I talked about this with my wife, and before this even asked Judith to keep me on track. Cuz I got a thing for bullies. And I don’t know your histories. So let’s just point out the obvious, okay?
All the evidence says that you two must really wanna talk to each other. So if your gonna do that, then just do that. But you’re not using me in this bashing. I also said there are a lotta forms to fundamentalism, and you’re acting like one of them.
Now if you tell me that this is just the way you guys talk, it’s a disconnect. You wouldn’t use me just to slam him. So what is it? I mean besides your being so god-awful right about little things?
LaoWho,
Thank you.
= = =
Do not let it go unnoticed that the Biblical Archaeological Society (BAS) has not published an article refuting or updating Israel Knohl’s article of September / October 2008.
I do see a reader wrote a letter and BAS published that and Knohl’s response. Let us look at that exchange.
I would like to offer an alternative reading of a key word, which affects Knohl’s case for the death and resurrection of a pre-Christian messiah in this text. Knohl reads a somewhat faded word in line 80 as חאיה, “live” (an imperative verb, with the א as a rare vowel marker), so that the text reads, “in three days, live!” This is the basis for his striking thesis.
After examining the photos in BAR and on your Web site, I think that an equally plausible reading of this word is האות, “the sign,” so that the text reads, “in three days, the sign …” Several of the letters in question—ה/ח and י/ו—are barely distinguishable in the script of this inscription. The alternative reading echoes similar expressions in previous lines: “place the sign” (line 17) and, less legibly, “three signs” (line 79). Notice that the last letters in “signs” in line 79—ות—look just like the last two letters in our word in line 80. I don’t know what “the sign” is here, but this is good apocalyptic language.
In sum, “the sign” is a plausible paleographical reading of the word in question, and it perhaps better suits the context. It also suits the guideline that my teacher, Frank Moore Cross, always advocated when reading difficult inscriptions: The more banal reading is to be preferred.
In sum, “the sign” is a plausible paleographical reading of the word in question, and it perhaps better suits the context. It also suits the guideline that my teacher, Frank Moore Cross, always advocated when reading difficult inscriptions: The more banal reading is to be preferred.
Ronald Hendel
Norma and Sam Dabby Professor of Hebrew Bible and Jewish Studies
University of California
Berkeley, California
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)