Collins vs. Knohl on the Vision of Gabriel: Knohl responds

With characteristic verve, Israel Knohl responds to Collins’ critique of Knohl’s “Suffering Messiah before Jesus hypothesis.” Here is Knohl's response:

I have just seen in your blog the quotations of John Collins criticism of my article in the Journal of Religion, about the Gabriel Revelation. I would like to reply here to his main arguments.

Collins says:

The text simply does not say what Knohl claims it says. It is too fragmentary. It is not clear that the Ephraim mentioned in the text is a messiah. Even if Knohl is correct in reading the word after "three days" as "live," it does not follow that it means "rise from the dead." A reference to a chariot does not necessarily mean that someone is taken up to heaven. This is not to say that Knohl's interpretation is impossible. But there is not much reason to think that it is right.

Here are my contra-arguments with regard to the two main issues, Ephraim and the resurrection after three days.

 1. Ephraim is mentioned in the inscription together with "my servant David". In fact, Ephraim seems to be superior to David since he is the one who is asked by God to put "the sign," probably the sign of salvation, while David is only the messenger who is sent by God to Ephraim. Thus it seems that we are speaking here about two messianic figures, "My servant David" and "Ephraim". As was already noted by Yardeni and Elitzur in their first publication of the text, this goes well with the two messiahs that are known in later Jewish traditions, the Messiah son of David and the Messiah son of Joseph. I have dealt with these traditions where Ephraim or the Son of Joseph is a dying a rising messiah, in my recent article that is published in the current issue of the BAR.

 2. My reading of the word after "three days" as "live," is now supported by Ada Yardeni, the best expert of the script of this period. She expressed her view in a letter to Hershel Shanks that is published as a supplement to my above mentioned article, at the BAR website (under the title "web-extras"). Collins argues that even if my reading is correct, "it does not follow that it means "rise from the dead."

This really seems very strange to me! It seems very simple that if the Angel Gabriel is saying to somebody "in three days, live" that it is clear that this person is now dead and he is supposed to come back to life after three days.

This last argument does not befit a scholar of the caliber of John Collins. In a private letter which I  sent to Collins about half a year ago, I expressed my feeling that his response to my work on the Gabriel Revelation is biased by his devotion to Christianity. I asked him to correct me if I am wrong, but he did not respond to my request. I understand the religious difficulty that some people feel with the Gabriel Revelation. Contra to what was written in various blogs and newspapers, I do not have any agenda against Christianity. All what I try to do is to interpret ancient texts. I think that this is the mission of scholars. Thus, I call for an honest and unbiased discussion of this extraordinary text.

END Of RESPONSE.

As I’ve remarked before, the debate has only just begun. For an interesting exchange between April DeConick and Israel Knohl, go here. For a more positive appreciation of Knohl’s suggestions, see Steve Cook’s comments here and here. For the text itself and relevant bibliography, including the articles mentioned by Knohl above, go here.

Comments

[Doug Mangum]

That's interesting. As a counter argument, he repeats his earlier arguments almost verbatim. Does repetition make it a better argument? He admitted in the Journal of Religion article that it was not possible to definitively say who was being addressed in line 80 whether it means rise from the dead or not. And accusing Collins of a Christian bias is a subtle ad hominem. Even if Knohl's right, his conclusion is not threatening to Christianity as all the sensationalist headlines claim. I'm getting tired of this debate already.

[JohnFH]

John Collins' caution is admirable. My training makes me incline in that direction.

But Israel Knohl's dogged pursuit of a better understanding of the history of the Messianic hope is also admirable.

It happens rather often that scholars think a particular notion must have originated relatively late in the history of ideas. Then evidence turns up that proves the opposite.

But that isn't quite true either. As Duane Smith likes to point out, proof has nothing to do with it. Probabilities, maybe; mere possibilities, more likely.