>Much is being written about Gabriel’s Revelation and the mention of resurrection on the third day. I have not written on this controversial tablet yet, but may do so in the future.
James Carroll has a very good perspective on this controversy in a column he wrote for The Boston Globe. The following is an excerpt from his column:
A staple of pulp fiction is the archeological discovery that blows traditional Christian faith out of the water. The mummified corpse of Jesus will do, as will, say, some of kind DNA proof that he had children. It is as if the war between science and religion can be resolved (against religion, natch) by scientific breakthrough.This conceit trivializes both belief and rationality, but it is based on one of the astounding developments of the modern era: the way in which age-old notions of religious faith have indeed been transformed by inventions of the mind – not only archeology, but also scientific historical criticism.
Today’s believers, especially Christians, know more about the authentic origins of their faith than people who lived close to the time of those origins. The latest example of such challenging discovery hit The New York Times front page last week, under the headline “Ancient Tablet Ignites Debate On Messiah and Resurrection.”
Read Carroll’s column by clicking here.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tag: Archaeology, Gabriel’s Revelation, James Carroll
var addthis_pub = ‘claude mariottini’;
Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament 
>The article seems to focus on the three days (which appear numerous times in the tablet), and indeed it is an obstacle to Christianity if it hangs on the notion that its gospel is new and unthinkable. Carroll quotes Hosea 6:2, but interestingly if we look two verses over we find: “O Ephraim, what shall I do unto thee? O Judah, what shall I do unto thee?”, and the names “Judah” and “Ephraim” do appear in the tablet (see line 16).At the end of the article, more than at other places, Carroll shows despair over the agonizing transformation of Christianity. Christians do have to keep in mind which is the root and which is the branch, and in our case, the branch is overly withered.
LikeLike
>Rahuma’i,Thank you for your comment. I do not believe the concept of three days is an obstacle or a threat to Christianity. Christianity does not stand on the fact that the conception of resurrection in three days existed before Christianity.Christianity stands on the fact that Jesus rose on the third day and that fulfills the hopes of those who expected a Messiah to rise on the third day.Thank you for visiting my blog.Claude Mariottini
LikeLike