More recently, with the rise of historicism, deconstruction, and other critical methodologies, scholars began to realize that the kinds of comparisons that they made often obscured significant differences, and frequently distorted what they were studying. The rise of this school of thought in religious studies emphasized differences and particularity over broad similarities. J.Z. Smith, for instance, demonstrates forcefully how Eliade completely misunderstands and distorts some of the evidence he uses for his theories.

I tend to come at things from this latter methodological perspective which requires me to check my presuppositions and have more rigorous standards of evidence, which is why I am skeptical of your readings.

Here are my thoughts on your points.
1. According to all the major news reports that I have read, the discovery of this stone sheds light on pre-Christian Christian themes, particularly a 3-day resurrection, which existed in Judaism prior to Christianity, which has not been assumed before by some. My point was that this 3-day resurrection motif may exist not only in first century BCE Judaism but in many other cultures as well, even in the Old Testament, and I believe they all point to very early Christian beliefs among the antediluvian patriarchs which is not incompatible with the restored gospel.
2. Many of the apocalyptic texts that I have studied in the apocrypha have all had temple motifs scattered throughout them, just as John’s Revelation does in the Bible. I believe this is a common element among many, if not all, apocalyptic texts, and is further evidence that Hazon Gabriel is an apocalypse, besides the fact that scholars have labeled it as such.
3. Asking “which temple” is a good question to ask. Although I was just reading again today the words of Joseph Smith when he says “We all admit that the Gospel has ordinances, and if so, had it not always ordinances, and were not its ordinances alwas (sic) the same?” (HC 2:16). Even I have admitted on this blog that the ordinances in the scriptures do not appear the same as they do today, but I am increasingly being convinced that it is because of the filters that the Bible has had to pass through to get to us today that it appears this way. I think the ordinances have generally been very similar since Adam. Nibley saw modern LDS temple imagery in many ancient documents, and rightly so, for it is the same eternal pattern repeated consistently throughout antiquity, or as Nibley puts it, “the same sort of thing has been going on for a very long time and in virtually all parts of the world” (MJSP, 2nd ed., xxvii).
4. Generic, yes, and that is intentional. The details of temple ritual change from era to era, but the general framework stays the same. Nibley consistently pointed out the same general motifs of primordial existence, purification, creation, garden, travel, and ascension. These he says, “are basic to the mysteries everywhere” (MJSP, 2nd ed., xxvi). While they may have extensive non-temple associations, looking at them through a temple lens can also be beneficial. Many texts lend themselves to analysis on more levels than direct correlation and meaning. Symbolism often runs deep and can lend itself to an understanding of contemporaneous belief systems.
5. My reading didn’t treat a “general” resurrection, so I’m unsure of that critique. While reference to “gardens” several times in this text may not seem to have direct Eden connotations, when combined with the corpus of apocalyptic literature that deals with trees, ritual-meals, flowers, gardens, lush environments, waters, fruits, transformations, serpents, etc., you begin to get strong garden of Eden imagery. As for the “signs,” is there a difference between ritualistic signs and apocalyptic signs? I’m not sure there is. They may be one in the same on a much deeper level.
6. While you may not read the text ritualistically, I see no reason why not to. Everything I read these days is with a temple lens, which opens up some very interesting readings, particularly in scriptures such as the Book of Mormon. I believe these things permeate our surroundings, even to something as mundane as blowing out birthday candles.

Thanks for your comments.

Anyway, I’d love to get your thoughts on any of these items.

Thank you Hans for recognizing a possible connection with the “sign” of the Book of Mormon. As with any symbol, there are are a multitude of possible interpretations and each may find some truth. I believe a symbol is largely what one believes it to be, and finds meaning in one’s own experience and intellect.

As always, you provide a most fascinating analysis. It will take time for scholars to nail all the pieces together, so to speak. In my own analysis posted at Mormon Insights, I stated the following:

*****

Although these findings [from the stone] are exciting, several caveats are in order: 1) The essential aspects of the provenance of the stone are unknown. However, Knohl states, “The authenticity of the inscription was recently checked and confirmed by Yuval Goren of Tel Aviv University.” The Goren report, however, has yet to be published. 2) The stone is in bad condition, and the ink on the stone is highly faded and indecipherable in places. The Knohl translation involves some educated conjecture. 3) Knohl is known for his book, The Messiah before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls (translated in English, 2000, University of California Press), which describes the early historical context of the Jewish concept of a slain Messiah. His natural biases to the “pre-Jesus Messiah” thesis possibly could have predisposed his interpretations of the Hazon Gabriel text. 4) Knohl makes it clear that the “prince of princes” in the text is NOT identified as Jesus. However, portions of the text do appear to have a prophetic tone. 5) Scholarly analysis of the stone and its text is at the beginning stages, and there will be much debate over the Knohl translation.

July, 2008
THE "GABRIEL REVELATION" STONE

This past week, a flurry of press reports dealt with a three-foot oblong stone
tablet originally found on the east shore of the Dead Sea and presently owned by
David Jeselsohn, an Israeli-Swiss collector from Zurich. The stone was not found in
the course of an archaeological dig, nor was it engraved, but contained lettering
in ink, much of it faded. Lettering styles placed the script in the first century
B.C., according to specialists. Some claim that lines 80 to 87 refer to a
suffering Messiah who died and would rise again in three days.

As a result, sensationalist headlines on the discovery screamed: "WILL STONE
TABLET SHAKE CHRISTIANITY?" and "STONE TABLET CASTS DOUBT ON THE RESURRECTION."

This is rubbish for many reasons, but two in particular: First, the text itself is
by no means clear or agreed upon by scholars. It is rather pock-marked by
questionable renderings and many elisions where no readings are possible,
especially crucial line 86. And yet Israel Knohl, professor at Hebrew University
in Jerusalem, is bold to translate the critical passage regarding a suffering
Messiah: "In three days you will rise….I, Gabriel, command you." One doubts
that this will be the official rendering.

Secondly, even if this reading were accepted, what's the point? Some commentators
have suggested that this is where the idea of a suffering Messiah first arose,
which is ridiculous. The Old Testament is rife with passages regarding the Messiah
who will suffer, such as Gen. 3:15, Psalm 22, Isaiah 52 and 53, and more. Nor is
this where a resurrection concept was first devised. If that were the case, how
could the Pharisees before Jesus' day believe in a resurrection? Accordingly, the
Gabriel stone actually supports rather than subverts the biblical record.

What is unconscionable is Professor Knohl's conclusion that the Christian Gospels
adapted the existing concept of a suffering Messiah who would rise in three days as
a pattern for their own stories about Jesus. Since he had come to this conclusion
long before the Gabriel stone appeared, his translation and response are highly
suspect and not shared by other scholars in Israel. Other translations will
doubtless be attempted, none of which will pose any threat to Christianity.

PAUL L. MAIER, Ph.D., Litt.D.
Department of History, Western Michigan University
Kalamazoo, Michigan 49008

A second point I want to make is the sign of Ephraim that Knohl seems to think is the blood or atonement of the Messiah. After reading this, it reminded me of the Savior’s teachings to the Nephites in 3 Nephi 21, especially the beginning verses:

1 And verily I say unto you, I give unto you a sign, that ye may know the time when these things shall be about to take place--that I shall gather in, from their long dispersion, my people, O house of Israel, and shall establish again among them my Zion;

2 And behold, this is the thing which I will give unto you for a sign--for verily I say unto you that when these things which I declare unto you, and which I shall declare unto you hereafter of myself, and by the power of the Holy Ghost which shall be given unto you of the Father, shall be made known unto the Gentiles [through the BoM] that they may know concerning this people who are a remnant of the house of Jacob, and concerning this my people who shall be scattered by them;

5 Therefore, when these works and the works which shall be wrought among you hereafter shall come forth from the Gentiles, unto your seed which shall dwindle in unbelief because of iniquity;

7 And when these things come to pass that thy seed shall begin to know these things--it shall be a sign unto them, that they may know that the work of the Father hath already commenced unto the fulfilling of the covenant which he hath made unto the people who are of the house of Israel.

In other words, the Book of Mormon is the sign to the House of Israel that the restoration is occurring. The Son of David [Jesus] asks Ephraim [the modern church], as per Hazon Gabriel, to deliver the sign [BoM] to the rest of the world.