THE VISION OF GABRIEL (or Revelation of Gabriel) continues to get lots of media attention, much of it for all the wrong reasons. Three of the better articles:

Time Magazine: "Was Jesus' Resurrection a Sequel?"

A good overview of the issues, focusing inevitably on potential (and I suspect far-fetched - see below) comparisons with Jesus.

The MSNBC Cosmic Log blog: "MESSIANIC MESSAGE STIRS DEBATE"

Lots of good links in this one.

The Telegraph: "Stone tablet 'redefines links between Judaism and Christianity'"

This one is interesting because it includes a note of skepticism about the inscription's authenticity:

An Israeli archeologist who asked not to be named doubted the authenticity.

"It's very strange that such a text was written in ink on a tablet and was preserved until now. To determine whether it is authentic one would have to know in which condition and exactly where the tablet was discovered, which we do not," she said.

But Yuval Goren, director of the archeology department at Tel Aviv university and a specialist in identifying forgeries, said he could not detect any sign of forgery in the text on the tablet.

For other reasons to be cautious, see here. I take no position on its authenticity at present, except to note that the majority view of people who have a right to an opinion is in favor of it.

Of greater interest than the media treatments, Ed Cook has a post at Ralph on the supposed reference to a resurrection after three days. He is skeptical. Recent media attention to this inscription reminds me of the hoo-haw in the early 90s over the so-called "pierced Messiah" text among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Upon a little reflection on the grammar and context, it became clear that it was the Messiah who was doing the piercing.

The Vision of Gabriel, assuming it is genuine, is important because it is a newly discovered apocalypse from the first century which is bound to tell us lots of interesting things about ancient Jewish theology, eschatology, angelology, and first-century Hebrew. The probability that it would also have a direct connection, let alone some sort of direct challenge, to the central Christian theme of Jesus' resurrection is low. The fact that this connection has been suggested for an ambiguious, damaged, and hard to read place in the inscription (as opposed to well preserved lines whose meaning is unambiguous) should make us very cautious.

UPDATE: Professor Stephen A. Kaufman of Hebrew Union College e-mails:

Appreciate your continuing thoughts on the Gabriel stone. I would add a few comments:
a) in this day and age of computer graphics for everyone, producing a totally convincing and consistent ink text is not difficult. An inscribed one (i.e. Joash) is easily discovered to be bogus by those who know how to see. Until we see a complete scientific analysis, extreme skepticism over a totally new typology of document is warranted.
b) the argument about Gesenius grammar NOT being violated has to be ascribed to content as well. In other words, the fact that the text is overloaded with reference to "three days" SCREAMS forgery. An innocuous text would not.

UPDATE (9 July): More here.