what always struck me is just how many self-proclaimed 'messiahs' were circulating around in those days
What I find intriguing is the preposition that's used: l'shloshet yamin instead of b'shloshet yamin. Of course I defer to the linguists of ancient Hebrew. I only speak modern and it's also not my first language. However in modern Hebrew l'shloshet yamim (notice the "m" instead of the "n" on the end) would be "for three days."
I find no challenge to my faith in this discovery whatsoever. It does seem from both the Gospel accounts and the Epistles that the writers are trying to say, "Hey guys, look at our existing sources, don't you see Jesus as the fulfillment of them?" It would make sense to me if the first followers came to understand Jesus in light of their current realities. Besides what is unique about the Jesus event isn't just the messianic prophecies but the reassessment of what messiah meant. Most of the first century stuff of which I am aware has messianic understandings lodged firmly in the camp of a political/military leader who would overthrow the Romans. A successor to David in as much as a warrior king. Jesus repaints the expectations, at least according to a Christian understanding. Thanks for sharing the story and link
Interesting indeed, not so much in the "Shake the foundations of" rather in the sense that 1st century artifacts that have any probative value are rare indeed, as I recall there was a "Simon Bar Jesus" that was a rebel during that time period, and Paul was asked if he was a part of that group that "Went out into the desert". Good stuff Celtkin..
Thanks Celtkin. I will never understand how enlightment is seen as a threat to anyone. "The Truth shall make us free."
