Re: [XTalk] Gabriel, Ephraim and stone
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 5:08 AM
Subject: [XTalk] Gabriel, Ephraim and stone
> It will probably se some time untill we know if the "Gabriel Revelation"
> is genuine or fraudulent. Patina studies surely play a role, though that
> appears to be evolving science. The text is much like some known texts,
> and has
> been compared to the Dead Sea Scrolls. The extent to which Ada Yardeni may
> may not agree with Knohl's reading is so far reported differently in
> press reports or editions.
> Actually being too much like known texts could raise questions, just as
> Smith's "Secret Mark" being hyper-consistent with the Clement concordance
> he owned. The DSS brought some newly-attested--though also in effect
> predicted--new collocations: ma'ase hatorah and 'osey hatorah. When was
> stone first known? It could, possibly--one should at least consider (I do
> know nor claim that it is fake)--have been written to order. One might
> compare the doubtful, also said to be from Jordan, Angel or Ben Padiah
> (or putative scrolls?).
> Actually, in symbology, rather than grammar and script, it is not like
> the Qumran Essene scrolls, which use a quite different symbology for
> about which I wrote in "The Exclusion of Ephraim in Rev. 7:4-8 and Essene
> Polemic against Pharisees." Dead Sea Discoveries 2/1 (1995) 80-85 and
> Polemic in the Apocalypse of John." In Legal Texts and Legal Issues:
> Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for
> Studies, Cambridge, 1995: Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten, ed.
> Moshe J. Bernstein, Florentino García Martínez, and John Kampen, 453-460.
> STDJ 23. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Paul, reportedly, had been a Pharisee.
> of Pharisees and Essenes differed.
> Also to be compared is an inscription, ink on stone, from Qumran, KhQ
> found (unlike the new stone) by archaeologists in Qumran locus 129 on Feb.
> 1955, published by Lemaire in Humbert and Chambon, pages 360-362. Both the
> and the weathering could be considered.
> Stephen Goranson
I have just a tad different perspective on the Hebrew but this thing about a
"messiah's Stone" is silly, in my mind. I just posted elsewhere:
I don't see anything in lines 19-21 or 79-81 (where three days are
mentioned) that imply anything about a Messiah.
Line 19.... l$l$t ymyn td(..."In THREE DAYS you will know.....ky amar..HE
(God) said, 20. yhwh elohym cb)wt )lhy y$r)l...Yahweh Lord of Hosts, Lord of
Israel...n$br hr( ....broke the evil..21...mlpny hctq..before justice..."
Line 33....[....] (l ...[ ]$lm..."protection? of Jerusalem" .....$lw$h
bgdlwt...."THREE with the greatness of..."
Line 54....[...]$l$t ymyn (in?) THREE days... zh $)m....[......] hw)..this
is (that, there?) which....he...
Line 75...$lw$h rw(yn yc)w ly$r)l "THREE Shepherds went out to Israel....."
Line 79.....mlpnyk $lw$h h)[t or r?]wt $lw$h "in front of you THREE (signs?
Line 80...l$lw$t ymyn x[....] )ny gbry)l....... "in THREE DAYS......I
Line 83... ly mn $lw$h hqtl $lqxty )ny gbri)l......."to me, out of THREE,
the small one, whom I took, I Gabriel.."
This is about the angel Gabriel, not a messiah. THREE angels, THREE
shepherds, THREE prophets, THREE days, three signs or lights (I lean toward
"lights"). I think the lacuna at the end of line 79 is "angels."
This, like the DSS, is an Enochian milieu and 1 Enoch 20 gives a list of 7
archangels (Sariel, Gabriel, Remiel, Uriel, Raphael, Raguel and Michael) and
1 Enoch 9 lists 4 ( Michael, Sariel, Raphael and Gabriel) see lines 30, 31.
This inscription is about the superiority of Gabriel who is the "Prince of
Princes (found?) in the narrowest holes" of line 81.
It is about Gabriel, not a Messiah.
San Antonio, TX