Resurrection Motif and the Gabriel Stone

Recently a new archaeological discovery has come to light from the Jordanian banks near the Dead Sea. A local antiquities collector purchased a large stone inscription approximately a decade ago that details (as one archaeologist claims) a messianic resurrection motif that predates the birth of Christ by a few decades. (For more on this story, see the TIME Magazine article at http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1820685,00.html, and the CNN video at http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2008/07/11/wedeman.gabriel.cnn?iref=videosearch.)

The stone inscription is approximately three feet tall and consists of ink inscribed on the stone, and has been chemically dated to a few decades before the time of Christ. The stone theoretically describes the death of a messianic figure, followed by his resurrection after a short time by the archangel Gabriel. (This reading, however, depends on creative interpretation of a smudged passage on the stone, and thus is not at all conclusive for ascertaining the actual reading of the stone.)

Many scholars have argued that the credibility of Christianity was dependant on the unique nature of the Christian claim. The idea of a murdered Messiah was an anathema to the people of Israel, and was so audacious that the Christian claim had to be true! Thus, the reliability of the Christian message, at least as posited in their arguments, relies on the audacious uniqueness of the Christian message.

And indeed, the idea of a murdered Messiah would have been a shock to the Jews. Although Christians equate the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 (et al) as a reference to Messiah, there is no evidence that the Jews of the day had any similar ideas. The Messiah was the one who was anointed by God to be the Savior of the people of Israel, the one who would drive out the Romans (and any other conquerors), consecrate the Temple by reestablishing the holy worship of YHWH, and establish the eternal reign of God from Mt. Zion. The Messiah was to be God’s chosen instrument to bring peace to the world (and power to the people of Israel) through his military conquest of Israel’s enemies. God would once again reveal his power through his chosen people, and the Messiah would be his instrument of conquest.

(Note: There were as many different Messianic expectations as there were sects/individuals in Israel. These generalized statements sum up the gist of most of their expectations. For more on the Messianic expectations of first century Judaism, see John J, Collins, The Scepter and the Star, and Daniel McGraw, “Messianic Expectations of the Qumran Community in 4Q246 and 4Q521.”)

A few years ago a scholar claimed to have uncovered a Qumran connection to a Suffering Messiah, the Anointed One who died at the hands of his enemies. The passage, however, turned out to refer instead to the conquering Messiah who put his enemies to death, not a suffering Christological figure. Thus, the idea of a Messiah who suffers (or, even worse, dies) would be an anathema to the people of Israel.

The stone, however, has been verified as authentic (at least, at this time.) The question arises: How does the uniqueness of Christianity stand in light of this “new information”?

The Bible itself lends credence to the belief in a resurrection idea that developed during the Intertestamental Period, even a possible form of bodily resurrection. A group of Sadducees ask Jesus about the marriage of a seven-time widow in Matthew 22:23-33 (cf. Mark 12, Luke 20.) We are told here in this passage, as well as in Acts (4:1-3; 23:7-8), that the resurrection was not a concept believed by the Sadducees but was accepted by the Pharisees.

Two of the main sects within Judaism adhered to different ideas concerning the resurrection of the dead. However, none would have tied it to the Messianic figure. Not even the "Murdered Messiah" fragment from the dead sea scrolls (now proved to refer to the Messiah killing his enemies)would make such a claim...

But if it DOES indeed refer to a crucified messiah, does that negate the validity of Jesus' claim? God has already shown us that he works through the cultural and intellectual conceptions of humanity (i.e. Suzrainty treaty outline of Deuteronomy, the depiction of God as a Baal-like figure in Psalms, the similarities AND differences between Genesis 1-11 and other ANE literature.) Why couldn't God chose to work that way again?

What do you think? Log in and let me know your thoughts and responses.