"Gabriel's Revelation"

[Ahanu]

They require a log-in to read it so please cut and paste the basics for us that aren't hooked up.

Okay . . .

[My servant David, ask of Ephraim (that he) place the sign; (this) I ask of
you.]
The Lord addresses David, asking him to request of Ephraim that he
place a sign. The nature of the sign is not specified.
Two biblical characters are mentioned in this text: David and Ephraim.
The expression “My servant David” also appears in the Bible as a term
for an eschatological leader (see Ezek. 34:23, 24, 37:24, 25). As for
Ephraim, the biblical Ephraim is the son of Joseph; consequently, “My​

servant David” and “Ephraim” in

Hazon Gabriel are apparently parallel

to the “Messiah son of David” and the “Messiah son of Joseph” mentioned

in the Talmud. As Yardeni and Elitzur observe, “Ephraim” is the
name of the Messiah in ​

Pesikta Rabbati, who suffers in order to atone

for Israel.​

2 In the Bible Ephraim refers to northern Israel. I do believe

that some biblical references to Ephraim are the basis of the image of

Ephraim as a suffering “Son of God” or a suffering messianic figure.
In Jer. 31:18 we hear the words of Ephraim: “Thou hast chastend me,
and I was chastend.” God answers Ephraim and says: “Truly, Ephraim
is a dear son to Me. A child that is dandled!”​

and beloved Son of God.​

4 A similar picture of Ephraim is found in

Hosea 11:1–8.

The tradition of the “Messiah son of Joseph” and his death first appears
in the Talmud (BT Sukkah 52a) and at length in “Sefer Zerubbabel.”
5 ​

In an article I published a few years ago, I have argued that

the character of the Messiah son of Joseph and the tradition of his

killing were created in the late first century BCE or the early first century
CE.​

6 Hazon Gabriel confirms my assumption that this messianic
character was already known at that time.​

In ​

Hazon Gabriel, we find our earliest reference to “Ephraim” as a messianic

figure. In the Hebrew Bible there is no evidence of “Ephraim”

as a Messiah. However, as I have noted above, I think that the figure
of “Ephraim” in ​

Hazon Gabriel is based on biblical verses that describe

him as the suffering Son of God. The atmosphere of ​

Hazon Gabriel

contains elements of mourning and exile, death, and bloodshed.​

17 It

appears that “Ephraim” is a symbolic figure containing all these elements.

Unlike the messianic figure of “David,” which traditionally represents
bravery, military skill, and triumph, the figure of “Ephraim”
symbolizes a very different, new type of messianism. “Ephraim” is a
Messiah of suffering and death. It should also be noted in this context
that some books written at approximately the same time as ​

Hazon Gabriel

also have the image of Ephraim’s father, Joseph, as a son of God

and one who atones with his suffering for the sins of others:
In the book entitled ​

Joseph and Aseneth, Joseph is described as the

“son of God.”​

18 This book, probably written between 100 BC and 115

CE, also gives Joseph the title “God’s firstborn son.”​

19 While scholars

are undecided whether these titles were originally intended to designate

Joseph as a Messiah or redeemer,​

20 readers of the book could

obviously have gotten the impression that Joseph is a messianic figure.

In another work of the second temple period, “Testaments of the
Twelve Patriarchs,” we find a connection between Joseph and the figure
of the “Suffering Servant.” In the ​

Testament of Benjamin (5:8),


The author of the testament had clearly identified Joseph with the​

suffering servant of Isaiah 52–53. He was probably led to this idea by

the fact that Joseph had himself been a suffering slave.​

23 At the same

time, one could say of Joseph as of Isaiah’s servant: “Behold my servant

shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high”
(Isa. 52:13).
Thus, it seems that the designation of the suffering Messiah as the
“son of Joseph” extends back to sources from the second temple period,
including ​

Joseph and Aseneth, the Testament of Benjamin, and now

Hazon Gabriel​

 

[shawn]

Thanks M8

 

[Netti-Netti]

Can someone familiar with the Jewish religion tell me if "Messiah" is a concept used to portray Ideal Self?

 

[Ahanu]

Justin Martyr debates messianism with a follower of Judaism in the Dialogue with Trypho . In this dialogue, the Jew says: “for we know that he should suffer and be led as a sheep . . . let these things be so as you say—namely, that it was foretold Christ would suffer . . . you have sufficiently proved by means of the Scriptures previously quoted by you, that it is declared in the Scriptures that Christ must suffer” (90:1; 36:1; 39:7). While I have not read the Dialogue with Trypho due to its length, these quotes are intriguing; a Jew expects the messiah to suffer. I received these quotes from John Collin’s book The Scepter and the Star . Because I need to do my school work, I have not finished reading it!

Suffering messiah . . .

I am familiar with the Christian interpretation of Isaiah chapter 53. Surely Christians have read the following to refer to Jesus, the Christ:

“He [my servant] was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from who men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not” (Isaiah 52: 13; 53:3).

From the scholar Bart D. Ehrman, I learned that the servant was understood to the writer of Isaiah to be Israel. “But for you, O Israel, my servant . . . You are my servant, Israel . . . “ (Isaiah 41: 8; 49:3) Previously, I thought all Jews during the time of Jesus believed that the messiah would be a military hero who would defeat the Romans. Think Simon bar Kokhba. Therefore, Jews in the militant messiah ideology would not see the messiah as a suffering servant since the Old Testament passage quoted above could be taken as Israel.

Yet, as Gabriel’s Revelation shows, the messiah as suffering servant was interpreted before the Jesus group arrived on the scene, so it was there with the militant messiah tradition. From Knohl’s “By Three Days, Live”: Messiahs, Resurrection, and Ascent to Heaven in Hazon Gabriel , Knohl writes: “As for Ephraim, the biblical Ephraim is the son of Joseph; consequently, ‘My servant David’ and ‘Ephraim’ in Hazon Gabriel are apparently parallel to the ‘Messiah son of David’ and the ‘Messiah son of Joseph’ mentioned in the Talmud. As Yardeni and Elitzur observe, ‘Ephraim is the name of the Messiah in Pesikta Rabbati, who suffers in order to atone for Israel.” Interesting! While Gabriel’s Revelation is thought to refer to Simon son of Joseph (4 BCE), the interpretation of a suffering messiah figure is prevalent. These are some scriptures from the Old Testament referring to Ephraim I noted from Knohl's writing: “I have surely heard Ephraim’s moaning: ‘You disciplined me like an unruly calf, and I have been disciplined. Restore me, and I will return, because you are the Lord my God . . . Is not Ephraim my dear son, the child in whom I delight? Though I often speak against him, I still remember him. Therefore my heart yearns for him; I have great compassion for him,’ declares the Lord” (Jeremiah 31: 18; 31: 20). Now, interesting speculation can be made with Jesus as son of Joseph. Holding this in mind, Gabriel’s Revelation contains this interesting read from lines 16-17: [My servant David, ask of Ephraim (that he) place the sign; (this) I ask of you.] Take the Christ’s words in Matthew 24 as an example: “At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn” (Matthew 24: 30). Here Jesus quotes Zechariah 12:12, but what is the sign of the Son of Man? Knohl speculates it could be a reference to the following words: “The blood will be a sign for you” (Ex 12:13). In Gabriel’s Revalation, the sign is “heralding the advent of salvation,” says Knohl, as was already noted by Dream in the beginning of this thread.

Dondi said: "And while many were looking for a conqueror over the current regime and the ushering in of a new kingdom, there was also the idea of a very different outcome."

The Ephraim reference as a messiah figure shows me the different outcome. The Jesus group went with it, and I now think Jesus was aware of the theological significance of being the son of Joseph, if Gabriel's Revelation is authentic, that is!

As for authenticity, here is Knohl's response to Collin's criticism . . .

Collins vs. Knohl on the Vision of Gabriel: Knohl responds - Ancient Hebrew Poetry

 

[Dream]

Good link, Ahanu. I think this dialogue between the critic and the claimant shows that our understanding of the culture that wrote the document is more fragmented than the document itself. The document is a fragment and should be treated as just that -- a piece of an ancient creature. Putting today's understanding of Gabriel into yesterday's fragments is likely to reflect the present understanding of Gabriel rather than illuminate the past. At least -- you can't really know what the fragment is if you fill in the gaps with modern knowledge. It is like patching together fossilized dinosaur DNA with modern frog DNA. It just won't give you the original dinosaur. The fragments must be compared to works that are contemporary with them, instead of modern ones. It is just hard for us to wait upon scholars to do the necessary research, and not many people are qualified to look into the matter. It is tempting to try to plug in modern English translations of the Bible and see if we can 'Make sense' of the fragment; but if we do that than we are 'Making sense' which is not the same thing as trying to obtain the sense of the original document and compare it with modern sense.

 

[Dondi]

I wish to point out that the OP article no longer links. But a rudimentary search in Google out to bring one to similiar articles.