I think it's a good idea to read the translation:

“A New Dead Sea Scroll in Stone?” (Biblical Archaeology Review, January/February 2008), by scholar Ada Yardeni:

Translation (Semitic sounds in caps and\or italics)

Column A
(Lines 1-6 are unintelligible)

7. [… ]the sons of Israel …[…]…

8. […]… […]…

9. [… ]the word of yhw[h …]…[…]

10. […]… I\you asked …

11. yhwh, you ask me. Thus said the Lord of Hosts:

12. […]… from my(?) house, Israel, and I will tell the greatness(es?) of Jerusalem.

13. [Thus] said yhwh, the Lord of Israel: Behold, all the nations are

14. … against(?)\to(?) Jerusalem and …,

15. [o]ne, two, three, fourty(?) prophets(?) and the returners(?),

16. [and] the Hasidin(?). My servant, David, asked from before Ephraim(?)

17. [to?] put the sign(?) I ask from you. Because He said, (namely,)

18. [y]hwh of Hosts, the Lord of Israel: …

19. sanctity(?)\sanctify(?) Israel! In three days you shall know, that(?)\for(?) He said,

20. (namely,) yhwh the Lord of Hosts, the Lord of Israel: The evil broke (down)

21. before justice. Ask me and I will tell you what 22this bad 21plant is,

22. lwbnsd/r/k (=? [To me? in libation?]) you are standing, the messenger\angel. He

23. … (= will ordain you?) to Torah(?). Blessed be the Glory of yhwh the Lord, from

24. his seat. “In a little while”, qyTuT (=a brawl?\ tiny?) it is, “and I will shake the

25. … of? heaven and the earth”. Here is the Glory of yhwh the Lord of

26. Hosts, the Lord of Israel. These are the chariots, seven,

27. [un]to(?) the gate(?) of Jerusalem, and the gates of Judah, and … for the

sake of

28. … His(?) angel, Michael, and to all the others(?) ask\asked

29. …. Thus He said, yhwh the Lord of Hosts, the Lord of

30. Israel: One, two, three, four, five, six,

31. [se]ven, these(?) are(?) His(?) angel …. 'What is it', said the blossom(?)\diadem(?)

32. …[…]… and (the?) … (= leader?/ruler?), the second,

33. … Jerusalem…. three, in\of the greatness(es?) of

34. […]…[…]…

35. […]…, who saw a man … working(?) and […]…

36. that he … […]… from(?) Jerusalem(?)

37. … on(?) … the exile(?) of …,

38. the exile(?) of …, Lord …, and I will see

39. …[…] Jerusalem, He will say, yhwh of

40. Hosts, …

41. […]… that will lift(?) …

42. […]… in all the

43. […]…

44. […]…




Column B
(Lines 45-50 are unintelligible)

51. Your people(?)\with you(?) …[…]

52. … the [me]ssengers(?)\[a]ngels(?)[ …]…

53. on\against His/My people. And …[…]…

54. [… ]three days(?). This is (that) which(?) …[… ]He(?)

55. the Lord(?)\these(?)[ …]…[…]

56. see(?) …[…]

57. closed(?). The blood of the slaughters(?)\sacrifices(?) of Jerusalem. For He said,

yhwh of Hos[ts],

58. the Lord of Israel: For He said, yhwh of Hosts, the Lord of

59. Israel: …

60. […]… me(?) the spirit?\wind of(?) …

61. …[…]…

62. in it(?) …[…]…[…]

63. …[…]…[…]

64. …[…]… loved(?)/… …[…]

65. The three saints of the world\eternity from\of …[…]

66. […]… peace he? said, to\in you we trust(?) …

67. Inform him of the blood of this chariot of them(?) …[…]

68. Many lovers He has, yhwh of Hosts, the Lord of Israel …

69. Thus He said, (namely,) yhwh of Hosts, the Lord of Israel …:

70. Prophets have I sent to my people, three. And I say

71. that I have seen …[…]…

72. the place for the sake of(?) David the servant of yhwh[ …]…[…]

73. the heaven and the earth. Blessed be …[…]

74. men(?). “Showing mercy unto thousands”, … mercy […].

75. Three shepherds went out to?/of? Israel …[…].

76. If there is a priest, if there are sons of saints …[…]

77. Who am I(?), I (am?) Gabri’el the …(=angel?)… […]

78. You(?) will save them, …[…]…

79. from before You, the three si[gn]s(?), three …[….]

80. In three days …, I, Gabri’el …[?],

81. the Prince of Princes, …, narrow holes(?) …[…]…

82. to/for … […]… and the …

83. to me(?), out of three - the small one, whom(?) I took, I, Gabri’el.

84. yhwh of Hosts, the Lord of(?)[ Israel …]…[….]

85. Then you will stand …[…]…

86. …\

87. in(?) … eternity(?)

------------------------

If you see this text, you can see that we have absolutely no idea what the three days are referring to. The scripture of God acting in three days is also from the Old Testament in a few places, so there's no reason to think that this tradition of three days is extra-biblical.

However, Paul mentions in I Cor. 15:4 that there was a scripture that foretold of Christ's resurrection after three days. So, maybe this is it.

Travis, the human condition and the solution for it was not new. Jesus actualized it.

The problem was known long before Jesus arrival. Jesus actualized the solution. In this way Christianity does not replace the other great traditions but rather adds an important ingredient for their purpose which is the help of the Spirit.

Yet, for some reason, the researchers seem to be leaning in this direction. They must be conspiracists too! Why is what Paul allegedly says an indiction? The tablet does not mention Jesus? I see, anything that might hint of it gets simplified to Jesus, they just got the name wrong. Just like the Dead Sea Scrolls, never mentions Jesus, but anything that could be inferred that way must be about Jesus.

-TC

So, you are of the "the Devil counterfeited the others to throw us off"? There is no "solution" for the human condition, the human condition creates its own problems and solutions, this being one of them, and not an original one at that. The only real difference is that it is the problem and solution you believe in. Those of us on the outside looking in say "a story retold and resold".

-TC

The Devil didn't throw us off. Last I heard he was green with envy from becoming aware of mankind's ability for self deception which transcended even his ingenuity to inspire. Very ego deflating.

Believe what you will but I'll maintain that the human condition is the result of acquired psychological sleep and the solution is awakening with help from above. It is a conception often repeated but only a few respect it sufficiently to profit from it.

Fair enough, but why does that require Christianity? Buddha, Krishna, heck, Plato an Plotinus all avocated such. What does any of that have to do with Jesus being historical? Couldn't he just be the same example Buddha and Krishna are? Were their insights just rehersals for Jesus as well?

-TC

TC, you are way over reacting to evidence that you can read above is very, very incomplete. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy of any sort (afterall, I'm not like the "Jesus did not exist" conspiracists). If a majority of open-minded scholars (e.g., Crossan, Borg, Vermes, Meier, etc.) conclude from this incomplete document that Jesus did not exist, then outside of evidence that they have completely lost their minds, I'm willing to accept scholarly opinion (unlike of course the "Jesus did not exist" conspiracists who would never accept scholarly opinion...).


Well, let's look at I Cor. 15:4:


This doesn't require that Jesus' name be mentioned in this Gabriel Revelation, in fact since it's a prophecy that Paul is referring to, we wouldn't expect Jesus to be mentioned.


I don't understand what you are saying. If Paul felt that he was quoting scripture (which we obviously don't have this scripture in the Old Testament since there is no scripture that suggests that a Messiah would be raised from the dead after 3 days), then what we should hope to possibly find is an important archaeological find like this Gabriel Revelation. Given that it was put in stone, it seems likely that this document was considered to be scripture--hence it doesn't seem to be a wild assumption that Paul might have thought of it as scripture.

In any case, I look forward to the scholarly community to have a few years to study this, and start accessing it's archaeological value. Given the incomplete nature of the text, I'm sure it will be frustrating for most scholars to make any definite statement. Even Israel Knohl whose opinion has made the "Jesus did not exist" crowd giddy, believes that Jesus of Nazareth existed. But, not that this matters to those who have no respect for scholarly opinion.

Is conscious evolution an example or a reality? If it is just the result of some people BSing then of course what is believed about Jesus may be a complete distortion including his existence. However if one believes in conscious evolution the question becomes how it becomes possible.

As for me, I believe the time was right astrologically for the quality of Jesus to be born that could be capable of receiving the Spirit. Just as Mary was of a certain emotional quality to be able to receive the life of the Spirit manifesting as Jesus' birth, Jesus was capable of receiving the Christ and enduring conscious re-birth opening a path towards the "Way".for others to follow.

As Paul said, Christianity without the Resurrection is meaningless. You can say there aren't enough documents about Jesus life. There are also not enough documents indicating the progress to prove that the Great Pyramid in Egypt was built.

Christianity makes enough emotional and logical sense to me to believe that it was the right time, as the visiting wise men at his birth knew, that a connection between levels of reality was possible. I believe Jesus actualized the conscious potential of re-birth men of wisdom were aware of and the energy of this connection permeated into the world for the benefit of those open to it..

Naturally, anything of value must be perverted. It is human nature. So Christianity devolved in society into the many forms of Christendom. if Christianity still exists it is hidden as it must for its preservation and one has to need it in order to find it.

I think you are jumping to a conclusion I did not state. I stated that this is evidence the Jesus story is not original, particularly the "three days motif", which now may appear to have been known to some Jewish sects before the time of Christ. I'm not at all suggesting that this "proves" Jesus didn't exist, I'm saying that it is possible evidence that the resurrecting godman story was not unknown to the Jews, and therefore cannot be something "unique". It cannot be said this is not a borrowed theme.


Well, its funny how this is one of those disputed passages as to whether or not it is an interpolation. In fact, Dr. Price says verses 3-11 are just such an interpolation, which of course would mean "Paul" was not referring to any old testament scripture. He notes:



But, of course, you don't read the opposing point of views. Stick with the standbys, no reason to read beyond what comforts your belief structure.


IF, it was original. Do you even entertain the thought it wasn't?


Yes, no respect at all. You keep telling yourself that. Its funny how pointing out natural biases becomes "no respect". I didn't state this proved Jesus didn't exist, I said it is evidence the story was not original which increases the chances the story of Jesus is not historical, but mythical in nature. Worry not, I'm sure the caretakers of your faith will never let these ideas become anything more than crazy conspiracists for you.

-TC

That seems awfully close to a type of Doceticism. Maybe I'm just reading you wrong.

-TC