Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

5928Re: [John_Lit] The Targums and the "Son of Man" title

Expand Messages
  • Jack Kilmon
    Feb 3, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      --------------------------------------------------
      From: <jgibson000@...>
      Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 1:34 PM
      To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
      Subject: Re: [John_Lit] The Targums and the "Son of Man" title

      > On 2/3/2011 1:27 PM, Jack Kilmon wrote:
      >>
      >> I do not think that the use of the self designation בר אנשׁ by Jesus,
      >> about
      >> 30 times in Matthew, was to avoid or obscure the direct claim to being
      >> the
      >> Messiah. I don't think Jesus considered himself to be the Messiah but
      >> instead exactly what he claimed himself many times, the "Son of Man" of
      >> Daniel and Enoch.
      >>
      >
      > And what exactly would that claim entail as a public and biographical
      > fact? And how does one claim to be the Son of Man of Daniel without
      > claiming that one is God's elect and the true representative/embodiment
      > of Israel -- which, at least to my eyes, is what the role of Messiah
      > involves?
      >
      > Jeffrey
      >
      > --
      > Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
      > 1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
      > Chicago, Illinois
      > e-mail jgibson000@...


      Hi Jeffret:

      Somehow and somewhere the בר אנשׁ and the משׁיחא became conflated. The
      role of the Messiah in a Jewish context appears to be ambiguous but
      redefined by Christians. In one Jewish definition (Maimonides), "And if a
      king shall arise from among the House of David, studying Torah and occupied
      with commandments like his father David, according to the written and oral
      Torah, and he will impel all of Israel to follow it and to strengthen
      breaches in its observance, and will fight Hashem's [God's] wars, this one
      is to be treated as if he were the anointed one.

      Messiahs (anointed ones) had always been priests or kings, like David, a
      warrior king who would overthrow the oppressors and rule over the re-united
      tribes of Israel. The hope for a Messiah, a Pharisaic concept, must have
      been at a fever pitch in the last two centuries BCE (134-63 BCE when a new
      generation of Essenes emerge at the time of Hyrcanus and Alexander Jannaeus
      and persecuted Pharisees come into the group. This is when the 4QTestimonia
      was written and the Manual of Discipline expanded. Suddenly we have full
      blown messianism which includes the advent of a PROPHET and the priestly
      (Aaronic) and royal (Davidic) messiahs (1QS 9-11). This is also the time
      when the basic foundations of the T12P (Testimonies of the 12
      Patriarchs)...previous thought to be of later Christian composition..was
      laid with its priestly and royal messiahs. T12P was a pharisaic work.
      During the Roman Period (63-37 BCE) the Damascus Document (CD), the oldest
      copy of which (4QDb) of 75-50 BCE now conjoins the two messiahs into ONE,
      the Messiah of Aaron and Israel (CD19:10-11; 20:1; 12:23; 14:19).

      In spite of 1 Enoch chapter 48 which is late Ethiopian, I do not think, as
      some do, that they were the same or that it was Jesus who conflated the two.
      If Jesus was, as I suspect, an Enochian Jew I think he saw them as
      seaparate. Of course the ongoing contention and debate over the two will
      probably never be settled and we all have to take a side, right?

      Regards,

      Jack

      Jack Kilmon
      San Antonio, TX
    • Show all 23 messages in this topic