The Jesus Tablet

“L'shloshet Yamin—In Three Days”
“Sar Hasarin—Prince of Princes”


No, “The Jesus Tablet” does not refer to the Ten Commandments, neither to the good ol’ doctor’s advice, take two of these and call me in the morning.

What is at issue is the following:

“A three-foot-tall tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew that scholars believe dates from the decades just before the birth of Jesus is causing a quiet stir in biblical and archaeological circles, especially because it may speak of a messiah who will rise from the dead after three days.”[1]

The tablet has come to be known as “Gabriel's Revelation”[2] because the text claims to be “a vision of the apocalypse transmitted by the angel Gabriel, draws on the Old Testament, especially the prophets Daniel, Zechariah and Haggai.”[3]

While it is reported that the tablet was “probably found near the Dead Sea in Jordan”[4] it has also been noted that “The tablet was not discovered in an organized archaeological excavation, therefore the location of its discovery is not clear.”[5]
The tablet consists of “stone with ink writings…written, not engraved, across two neat columns, similar to columns in a Torah. But the stone is broken, and some of the text is faded, meaning that much of what it says is open to debate.”[6] Two terms deciphered from the tablet are “L'shloshet yamin - in three days” and “Sar hasarin—prince of princes.”
As to the tablet’s recent history:

“the stone…was found about a decade ago and bought from a Jordanian antiquities dealer by an Israeli-Swiss collector who kept it in his Zurich home.”[7]

“‘I couldn't make much out of it when I got it,’ said David Jeselsohn, the owner, who is himself an expert in antiquities. ‘I didn't realize how significant it was until I showed it to Ada Yardeni, who specializes in Hebrew writing, a few years ago. She was overwhelmed. ‘You have got a Dead Sea Scroll on stone,’ she told me.’”[8]

As to the dating of the tablet:

“Yardeni, who analyzed the stone along with Binyamin Elitzur, is an expert on Hebrew script, especially of the era of King Herod, who died in 4 BC The two of them published a long analysis of the stone more than a year ago in Cathedra, a Hebrew-language quarterly devoted to the history and archaeology of Israel, and said that, based on the shape of the script and the language, the text dated from the late first century BC”[9]

As to the content of the tablets what, for some, is at issue are the tablet’s BC statements regarding “a messiah who will rise from the dead after three days.” Although, as noted above, this is at issue. Note the qualifier “may,” “because it may speak of a messiah...” and it is furthermore emphasized that there is a “debate over whether it speaks of a resurrected messiah.”[10]

Assuming that the text does make BC statements regarding “a messiah who will rise from the dead after three days,” some of the arguments that follow are:

“If such a messianic description really is there, it will contribute to a developing re-evaluation of both popular and scholarly views of Jesus, since it suggests that the story of his death and resurrection was not unique but part of a recognized Jewish tradition at the time.”[11]

It seems to me that there is much ado about nothing since it would not impact Christianity negatively, but may impact it positively, “If such a messianic description really is there.”
Yet, the supposed controversy has been emphasized as follows:

“Daniel Boyarin, a professor of Talmudic culture at the University of California at Berkeley, said that the stone was part of a growing body of evidence suggesting that Jesus could be best understood through a close reading of the Jewish history of his day. ‘Some Christians will find it shocking — a challenge to the uniqueness of their theology — while others will be comforted by the idea of it being a traditional part of Judaism,’ Boyarin said.”[12]

Israel Knohl goes as far as stating:

“This should shake our basic view of Christianity…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.”[13]

He certainly appears hopeful that he has found legitimacy for his own views. However, there is nothing within Christian theology to the effect that it would be problematic if Jesus’ “death and resurrection was not unique” in fact, it would enforce the concept of Jesus fulfilling what may be termed, messianic expectations.

Further elucidation of the supposed controversy is as follows:

“Israel Knohl, an iconoclastic professor of Bible studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem…posited in a book published in 2000 the idea of a suffering messiah before Jesus, using a variety of rabbinic and early apocalyptic literature as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls. But his theory did not shake the world of Christology as he had hoped, partly because he had no textual evidence from before Jesus…Knohl is part of a larger scholarly movement that focuses on the political atmosphere in Jesus' day as an important explanation of that era's messianic spirit. As he notes, after the death of Herod, Jewish rebels sought to throw off the yoke of the Rome-supported monarchy, so the rise of a major Jewish independence fighter could take on messianic overtones.”[14]

As previously stated, the table “draws on the Old Testament, especially the prophets Daniel, Zechariah and Haggai”[15] and would therefore strengthen the Christian claim that Jesus’ messiahship was prophesied and prefigured in the Old Testament.
As to the “political atmosphere in Jesus' day as an important explanation of that era's messianic spirit,” there may be something to be said about this. However, Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver has identified another well known reason for “that era's messianic spirit”:

“Prior to the first century (c.e.) the Messianic interest was not excessive…The first century, however, especially the generation before the destruction [of the Second Temple], witnessed a remarkable outburst of Messianic emotionalism. This is to be attributed, as we shall see, not to an intensification of Roman persecution, but to the prevalent belief induced by the popular chronology of that day that the age was on the threshold of the Millennium…When Jesus came into Galilee, ‘spreading the gospel of the Kingdom of God,’ and saying the ‘time is fulfilled’ and ‘the Kingdom of God is at hand,’ he was voicing the opinion universally held that…the age of the Kingdom of God-was at hand…It was this chronological fact which inflamed the Messianic hope rather than the Roman persecutions…Jesus appeared in the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate (26-36 c.e.)…It seems likely, therefore, that in the minds of the people the Millennium was to begin around the year 30 c.e….The Messiah was expected around the second quarter of the first century c.e., because the Millennium was at hand. Prior to that time he was not expected, because according to the chronology of the day the Millennium was still considerably removed.”[16]

Recalling that “the stone is broken, and some of the text is faded, meaning that much of what it says is open to debate”[17] it is of interest to note what Moshe Bar-Asher stated regarding Knohl's views (Bar-Asher is the president of the Israeli Academy of Hebrew Language and emeritus professor of Hebrew and Aramaic at the Hebrew University):

“‘There is one problem,’ he said. ‘In crucial places of the text there is lack of text. 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.’”[18]

Perhaps unwittingly, Knohl ends up supporting the New Testament as he claims that the tablet,

“strongly suggested that a savior who died and rose after three days was an established concept at the time of Jesus. He notes that in the Gospels, Jesus makes numerous predictions of his suffering and New Testament scholars say such predictions must have been written in by later followers because there was no such idea present in his day.”[19]

Thus, there is no indication that such predictions must have been written in by later followers since there was such ideas present in Jesus’ day.

“The premise that the Messiah died and was resurrected after three days is considered the foundation of the Christian faith, one which differentiates it from Judaism. Through the generations, this belief stood at the center of the debate between Christians and Jews. But now, a mysterious tablet from the time of the second temple has led researchers to believe that this premise of messianic resurrection is not unique to Christianity, but rather existed in Judaism years before Jesus was born.”[20]

It is quite an overstatement to claim that “The premise that the Messiah died and was resurrected after three days…stood at the center of the debate between Christians and Jews.” The fact is that within Judaism there have always been various messianic concepts. While articles such as Rabbi Shraga Simmons’ “Why Don’t Jews Believe in Jesus” have made quite the rounds online they present an extremely narrow and convenient messianic view.
Throughout history there have been various Jewish messianic concepts such as:

Some claimed that the Messiah would be a divine agent, some a mere man and still others an impersonal era.
Some thought that he would work miracles and some, through politics.
Some said that he would bring instant world peace and some that redemption will come gradually.
Some taught that one Messiah would come twice and some that two Messiahs would come one time each.
Some claimed that he would be a humble suffering servant who would die for our sins and some that he will be a triumphant conquering king who will re-gather Israel and wipe out her enemies.
Et al.

Some examples follow:
The Talmud* (Sanhedrin 98a) presents us an example of the discussions regarding the various messianic concepts:

“R. Alexandri said: R. Joshua opposed two verses: it is written, ‘And behold, one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven’ (Daniel 7:13) while it is written, ‘[behold, your king comes to you…] lowly, and riding upon an ass!’ (Zechariah 9:7) If they are meritorious, [he will come] with the clouds of heaven; if not, lowly and riding upon an ass.”[21] [brackets in original, “R.” refers to Rabbi]

Pesikta Rabbati* (15:10) presents us with the concept of two comings of one Messiah (Midrash Rabbah*-Ruth 5:6 states virtually the same thing):

“My beloved is like a gazelle [Song of Solomon 2:9]. R. Isaac said: As a gazelle appears and then disappears, so [Moses], the first Messiah, appeared to Israel and then disappeared from them…R. Berechiah said in the name of R. Levi: Like the first redeemer, so the last redeemer; as the first one appeared before them and them disappeared from them, so the last redeemer will appear to them and then disappear from them.” [brackets mine]

Gershom Scholem (Professor Emeritus of Jewish Mysticism, Hebrew University, Jerusalem) explains:

“Even as Moses ascended to heaven in body and soul and remained there for forty days, so also this messiah, while remaining unknown to others and known only to himself…will be hidden away body and soul in the manner of [Moses, of whom the Scripture says] ‘and Moses entered into the cloud.’ Then he will be raised up to heaven even as Moses ascended to heaven, and thereafter the messiah will reveal himself fully and all Israel will recognize him and gather around him.”[22]

Let us also consider the two Messiah theory whereby we get a view of the Jewish concepts of a Messiah who is killed. The Messiahs were named Messiah ben Yosef and Messiah ben David. We find the following elucidation from Raphael Patai (noted anthropologist and Biblical scholar who taught at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem):

“This splitting of the Messiah in two persons, which took place in the Talmudic period, achieved another purpose besides resolving the dilemma of the slain Messiah [referring to Dan. 9:24-26]. According to an old tradition, the Messiah was perfectly prefigured in Moses. But Moses died before he could lead the Children of Israel into the Land of Promise. Consequently, for the parallel to be complete, the Messiah, too, had to die before accomplishing his great task of ultimate Redemption. Since, however, the Messiah would not be the True Redeemer of God if he did not fulfill that task, the only solution was to let one Messiah, like Moses, die, and then assign the completion of the work of Redemption to a second Messiah.”[23]

Note also that Zechariah 12:10 states:

“I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn (NKJV)”

Dr. Abraham Cohen comments on this text thusly,

“In the Talmud the passage is interpreted with reference to the Messianic era, and the martyr who was thrust through is the Messiah the son of Joseph who will fall in battle.”[24]

Furthermore, note that Pesikta Rabbati* (37:1) presents the Messiah as suffering imprisonment and insults (note the references to Psalm 22):

“…in the year when the Messiah appears, the Patriarchs will ask him whether he is displeased with Israel because of the affliction he endured on their account…The Patriarchs will arise and say…thou didst suffer for the iniquities of our children, and terrible ordeals befell thee, such ordeal as did not befall earlier generations or later ones; for the sake of Israel thou didst become a laughingstock and a derision among the nations of the earth; and didst sit in darkness, in thick darkness, and thine eyes saw no light, and thy skin cleaved to thy bones, and thy body was as dry as a piece of wood; and thine eyes grew dim from fasting, and thy strength was dried up like a potsherd—all these afflictions on account of the iniquities of our children(1), all these because of thy desire to have our children benefit by that goodness which the Holy One, blessed be He, will bestow in abundance upon Israel…our true Messiah…will be shut up in prison, a time when the nations of the world will gnash their teeth at him every day, wink their eyes at one another in derision of him, nod their heads at him in contempt, open wide their lips to guffaw [loud course burst of laughter], as is said All they that see me laugh me to scorn; they shoot out the lip, they shake the head (Ps. 22:8); My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my throat; and thou layest me in the dust of death (Ps. 22:16). Moreover, they will roar over him like lions, as is said They open wide their mouth against me, as a ravening and roaring lion. I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is become like wax; it is melted in mine inmost parts (Ps. 22:14-15).” [italics in original, brackets mine]

Footnote: (1) “…when Israel’s sins exceeded all bounds, God first vented His wrath on the sticks and stones of the Temple…It may be that after the Temple’s destruction the Messiah, by the same token, became a divine whipping boy upon whom God’s wrath was vented.”

Furthermore, note that there are circa 558 separate quotations from Rabbinic writings in which 456 biblical texts are interpreted messianically and certainly these do not all speak of a Messiah who is a conquering king who brings instant world peace.

For example, some of the Rabbinic writings, individual Rabbis and Jewish scholars who have applied Isaiah 53, the suffering servant who dies passage, are as follows:

The Talmud, Midrash Rabbah, Pesikta Rabbati, Midrash Tillim, Midrash Tanhuma, Midrash Yalkut Schimeon (or Yalqut Shimeoni), Midrash Siphre, the Targunim, Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon (aka the Rambam or Maimonides), Rabbi Mosheh Ben Nachman (aka the Ranban or Nachmanides), Rabbi Sh'lomoh Astruc, Rabbi Shim'on ben Yohai, Rabbi Levi ben Gershon, Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver, Rabbi Mosheh Kohen ibn Crispin, Rabbi Isaac Abrabanel, Rabbi Eleazer Kalir, Rabbi Levi Ben Gershom, Rabbi Moses Haddarshan, Rabbi Elijah Ben Moshe De Vidas, Rabbi Moses Alshekh (or El-Sheikh), Rabbi Naphtali ben Asher Altschuler, Rav Asher Soloff, Herz Homberg, Yefeth ben Ali (The Karaite or Quarite), Jacob Mann, Ralbag (Gersonides), Raphael Patai, Julius H. Greenstone, Abraham Ezra Millgram, Claude Joseph Goldsmith Montefiore, Herbert Martin James Loewe, Michael Fishbane, Gershom Scholem, Max I. Dimont.

Lastly, the fact that the authoritative Rabbinic writings were put into writing after the time of Jesus, although they derive from earlier oral tradition, only strengthens the point of these concepts being known before, during and after the time of Jesus, as will the tablet.



*Succinct definition of the Rabbinic writings cited above:
The vast amount of rabbinic commentary/interpretation that developed eventually came to be/was put into written form. The Mishnah (which contains the oral laws) was compiled around 200AD along with the Gemara (which comments on the Mishnah). When both the Mishnah and Gemara were combined, it came to be called the Talmud (which means study). Sometimes the term Gemarais used in referring to the Talmud as a whole. There are actually two Talmuds: the Babylonian or Bavli and the Jerusalem (or Palestinian) or Yerushalmi. They were put into writing between 400-600AD.

The Midrashim (Hebrew plural of Midrash) are compilations of homilies, including biblical exegesis3 and sermons from 400-1200AD. Two well known Midrashim are Midrash Rabbah (fourth century AD) and Pesikta Rabbati (ninth century AD).

[1] Ethan Bronner, “Tablet ignites debate on messiah and resurrection,” The New York Times, Saturday, July 5, 2008
[2] Ethan Bronner, “Tablet ignites debate on messiah and resurrection,” The New York Times, Saturday, July 5, 2008
[3] Ethan Bronner, “Tablet ignites debate on messiah and resurrection,” The New York Times, Saturday, July 5, 2008
[4] Ethan Bronner, “Tablet ignites debate on messiah and resurrection,” The New York Times, Saturday, July 5, 2008
[5] Ofri Ilani, “Dead Sea tablet suggests Jewish resurrection imagery pre-dates Jesus,” Haaretz
[6] Ethan Bronner, “Tablet ignites debate on messiah and resurrection,” The New York Times, Saturday, July 5, 2008
[7] Ethan Bronner, “Tablet ignites debate on messiah and resurrection,” The New York Times, Saturday, July 5, 2008
[8] Ethan Bronner, “Tablet ignites debate on messiah and resurrection,” The New York Times, Saturday, July 5, 2008
[9] Ethan Bronner, “Tablet ignites debate on messiah and resurrection,” The New York Times, Saturday, July 5, 2008
[10] Ethan Bronner, “Tablet ignites debate on messiah and resurrection,” The New York Times, Saturday, July 5, 2008
[11] Ethan Bronner, “Tablet ignites debate on messiah and resurrection,” The New York Times, Saturday, July 5, 2008
[12] Ethan Bronner, “Tablet ignites debate on messiah and resurrection,” The New York Times, Saturday, July 5, 2008
[13] Ethan Bronner, “Tablet ignites debate on messiah and resurrection,” The New York Times, Saturday, July 5, 2008
[14] Ethan Bronner, “Tablet ignites debate on messiah and resurrection,” The New York Times, Saturday, July 5, 2008
[15] Ethan Bronner, “Tablet ignites debate on messiah and resurrection,” The New York Times, Saturday, July 5, 2008
[16] Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver, A History of Messianic Speculation in Israel (Macmillan Co., 1927), pp. 5-7
[17] Ethan Bronner, “Tablet ignites debate on messiah and resurrection,” The New York Times, Saturday, July 5, 2008
[18] Ethan Bronner, “Tablet ignites debate on messiah and resurrection,” The New York Times, Saturday, July 5, 2008
[19] Ethan Bronner, “Tablet ignites debate on messiah and resurrection,” The New York Times, Saturday, July 5, 2008
[20] Ofri Ilani, “Dead Sea tablet suggests Jewish resurrection imagery pre-dates Jesus,” Haaretz
[21] That he opposed the verses does not mean that he was against them but that he set them opposite each other in order to understand the seeming contradiction.
[22] Gershom Scholem, Sabbatai Sevi – The Mystical Messiah 1626-1676 (NJ: Princeton University Press, 1973), pp. 51-52
[23] Raphael Patai, Messiah Text (NY: Avon Books, 1979), pp. 166-167
[24] A. Cohen, The Twelve Prophets, Hebrew Text and English Translations with Introductions and Commentary (NY: Soncino Press, 1848, 12th ed. 1985)