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

Re: [John_Lit] Targum background to John's Logos title

Expand Messages
  • Ramsey Michaels
    John, Thank you for some examples of using Targums to interpret NT texts. First, as you can tell, my commentary does little with background in general, so my
    Message 1 of 23 , Feb 2, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      John,

      Thank you for some examples of using Targums to interpret NT texts. First, as you can tell, my commentary does little with "background" in general, so my neglect of Targums is perhaps not surprising. In equal opportunity fashion, I neglect Wisdom background, Philonic background, etc. as well, and will probably be duly reprimanded for that. I just think enough has been written in some of those areas. The evidence is what it is, and most people have firmly made up their minds as to what is relevant and what it not. I have concentrated instead on narrative criticism and the present form of the text.

      My friend Craig Keener, by contrast, deals extensively with backgrounds (a massive understatement), and in his index has cited all kinds of Targums. Yet in speaking about Targums in relation to the Logos in John, he is surprisingly dismissive. You might check out what he does do with them in various places. I suspect that in most cases he does little more than list references -- which I fear no one will look up. And you are right, I suspect, in saying that the reason many do not take account of certain parallels is that they are simply ignorant of them -- present company not excluded!

      A couple of comments, however. In admitting "various New Testament passages" as themselves the "greatest evidence" of the use of Targums in the first century, you are risking a certain circularity. Is it not even possible that some NT metaphors arising in a setting in which the "Christian" movement was still part of Judaism may actually have been preserved within Judaism and found their way into the Targums -- that is, that the influence could have been in the opposite direction? While I am not ready to propose such a thing, I'm not ready to rule it out either.

      Your two examples where the rubber meets the road are John 19:34 and 12:26. I don't find either one persuasive, the second less so than the first. It seems unquestionable that in 12:26 Jesus is going, if not to heaven, at least to the Father (as we learn in chapters 14-16), not merely "outside the camp," and he is certainly not excommunicating Israel -- tho he does excommunicate the devil five verses later! Your Targum may have more of a bearing on Hebrews 13:9-10. In 19:34 Jesus' side is pierced once, not twice, and there is plenty of material within the Gospel (chapter 6 for example, and 7:37-38) to go on, without appealing to Ps-Jonathan.

      Still, the concrete examples are what we need. As the Germans say, "Was kommt heraus?" What is the actual exegetical yield? I'm keeping an open mind.

      Ramsey




      ----- Original Message -----
      From: John Ronning
      To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 11:40 AM
      Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Targum background to John's Logos title



      Ramsey,

      Thanks for the kind words.

      Dating the Targums is obviously a relevant issue and a stumbling block to many.
      The fact that all of the extant Targums post-date John has to be considered.
      However, few would deny that there were Targums in use in the first century
      (various NT passages being the greatest evidence), and to put the Targums "out
      of bounds" for consideration as a background to the Logos theology, I would
      think one would have to assume the unprovable - that the 1st century Targums are
      not in the least bit reflected in the extant Targums.

      Take an example that does not involve the Word theology. The Psalms Targum
      interprets the "branches" of the vine in Psalm 80 as "disciples" (a nice example
      of the targumic practice of double translation - "branches" is translated first
      literally and then as disciples). It could not be proven that this
      interpretation was found in a first century Psalms Targum. But that is not why
      interpreters don't mention it in their discussion of the vine and branches in
      John 15. I would venture to say they don't mention it because they are ignorant
      of it.

      Another ex.: Ps-Jonathan Num 20:11 has an answer for why Moses struck the rock
      twice--the first time blood oozed out so he struck it again and water flowed
      abundantly. Tho Ps-J is late in its extant form, this could obviously reflect an
      early tradition and is of obvious potential relevance to John 19:34--John might
      have been struck by this fact and seen in it a message from God, that Jesus is
      what he said he was, the source of living water. True, this legend is found
      elsewhere (Ginzburg discusses variations of it), but is it not relevant to at
      least point out in a discussion of John 19:34? Does not the fact that it is
      overlooked, even tho Etheridge's English translation of Ps-J has been around for
      150 years, indicate a problem in Johannine scholarship? Such examples can be
      multiplied many-fold.

      Another dating issue: of relevance to the Logos title is whether the "Word
      theology" was current in the 1st century. Conceptual similarities to Philo's
      Logos (e.g. both Philo and the Pentateuchal Targums have the Word between the
      cherubim in the tabernacle), and to intertestamental wisdom literature (e.g. the
      divine Word healing the snake-bitten Israelites and destroying the Egyptian
      1st-born) and even the Tragedy of Ezekiel (Moses hears the voice of the Word at
      the burning bush) argue affirmatively, while absence of such theology in
      rabbinic Judaism would argue against late dating.

      Of special relevance is the dating of the use of Dibbera/Dibbura for the divine
      Word. This usage is much more isolated than the Memra but is very relevant to
      the question of Targumic background to the Logos title for two reasons: (1)
      while Memra is not used "aboslutely" (i.e. we find "the Word of the Lord," "my
      Word," etc. but not "the Word" as in John), Dibbera is used in this way: e.g. in
      the Palestinian Targums Israel heard the voice of "the Word" on Mt. Sinai, which
      is relevant to seeing the Word-become-flesh in the upper room as a new Sinai,
      making a new covenant, giving a new commandment, connecting love for him with
      obedience to his commands [just as in the 2nd commandment & elsewhere], etc; (2)
      a significant number of possible relations of Targum passages to John involve
      the use of Dibbera/Dibbura. E.g. John says the disciples saw his glory, full of
      grace and truth. Most agree that this is John's translation of rab xesed
      we'emet, "abounding in kindness and truth" from Exod 34:6 (i.e. it is how God
      describes himself to Moses). In the Palestinian Targums this revelation to Moses
      is a revelation of the Dibbura, the divine Word.

      In the previous chapter Moses set up a tent of meeting outside the camp, and
      those who would seek the Lord went there. Exodus Rabbah interprets this as
      evidence that God had excommunicated Israel after the worship of the golden
      calf, and that Moses followed his master outside the camp and regarded as
      excommunicated those whom God had excommunicated. Various Targum passages have
      the divine Word with Moses outside the camp, which is of potential relevance to
      the interpretation of John 12:26, where the Word-become-flesh says likewise
      those who would be his servants (as Moses was before the incarnation) must
      follow him to where he is going (which can't mean heaven but rather "outside the
      camp" - Jesus therefore announces his excommunication of Israel).

      It has been claimed that the use of Dibbura in this way dates only to the 3rd
      century and later, but besides the evidence from John, we have the fact that in
      Targum Jonathan of the Prophets, Dibbura is used only once, in Ezekiel 1, in the
      vision of the heavenly chariot. Levey ascribes the "Merkavah mysticism" used
      here to Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai, who was a prominent rabbi from the 1st
      century. Since this is the only place in Jonathan that Dibbura is used, it
      stands to reason that Johanan is also the source of the Dibbura usage in Targum
      Ezekiel, meaning that Dibbura use was contemporary with John.

      If the Logos title comes from the Targums, then we can readily see that "the
      Word became flesh" is a unifying theme throughout the Gospel, as John shows
      Jesus doing the same kinds of things YHWH did in OT times, except now he does
      them as a man. Thus in the Gospel there are both human and divine parallels to
      the OT with Jesus as warrior, bridegroom of his people, lawgiver, etc.
      Interestingly, these themes are also found in Exodus 34, which as I mentioned
      above is where God reveals himself to Moses as "full of grace and truth." So
      when Jesus says, "it was about me that he [Moses] wrote," he is saying "Moses
      was my prophet; if you believe the prophet, you must believe whom he represented
      as prophet."

      Regards,

      John Ronning

      ________________________________
      From: Ramsey Michaels <profram@...>
      To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Mon, January 31, 2011 1:13:17 PM
      Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Targum background to John's Logos title

      I appreciate John Ronning's comments about the targums. I have always been a bit
      cautious about the targums because of the difficulty of dating their origins.
      Moreover , it has seemed to me that the parallels more likely rest on a common
      use of certain key OT texts than on literary dependence one way or the other.
      Given the tendency within Judaism (and specifically in the targums) to avoid
      speaking of the Deity directly, but rather of his "word" or "name," or "glory,"
      or some other locution, parallels to the Gospel of John are not altogether
      surprising.

      However, I do agree with John that his book, along with certain others, remains
      a valuable supplement to most of the commentaries, including mine. We all need
      to be reminded of what we have overlooked either by accident or on purpose.

      Ramsey

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: John Ronning
      To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 12:16 PM
      Subject: [John_Lit] Targum background to John's Logos title

      Paul noted Jim West's review of Ramsey Michaels' new commentary on John. Jim
      also reviewed my book on John which came out a year ago:
      http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2010/03/30/the-jewish-targums-and-johns-logos-theology/


      This book amplifies on an article I mentioned on this list a few years ago: "The

      Targum of Isaiah and the Johannine Literature" (WTJ, Fall of 2007). A number of
      members on this list expressed interest at the time, although not much
      discussion ensued.

      Although Ramsey's commentary is no doubt valuable in many respects, I was
      disappointed not only in a lack of discussion of the possibility of the Targum
      background (Aramaic Memra/Dibbera as divine Word), to the Logos title, but in
      the view that the Logos title was not as important as often deemed to be.
      Recognizing the Targum background does in fact lead to seeing Jesus as "the
      Word" throughout the Gospel. In this respect, Leon Morris' commentary was
      superior, since he allowed for the Targum background (as did Raymond Brown).
      Unfortunately, although both Morris and Brown wrote post-commentary books on
      John, neither evidently pursued this possibility.

      L:et me highlight just a few of many many examples:
      1. John 1:11-12: both the idea of receiving/not receiving the divine Word, as
      well as believing/not believing in the name of the divine Word are common in the

      Targums. Sometimes they are found close together, e.g. Deut 9:23 (I give Targum
      renderings in brackets): "You neither believed him [Neofiti: you did not believe

      in the holy name of the Word of the Lord] nor listened to his voice [Onqelos and

      Ps-Jonathan: you did not receive his Word]." "Receive my Word" is also found as
      a rendering for other expressions such as "come to me" (Isa 55:1-3), an
      invitation which Jesus gave repeatedly, with evident dependence on Isa 55:1-3.

      2. John 12:37--though he had performed so many signs before them, they were not
      believing in him. This is an evident paraphrase of Num 14:11--How long will they

      not believe in me, in spite of all the signs I have done in their midst? In the
      Targums it is "how long will they not believe in my Word" (Neofiti, "in the name

      of my Word" - see again John 1:12).

      3. John 12:41--these things Isaiah said [John has just quoted Isaiah 6] because
      he saw his glory. Burney pointed out long ago that in the Isaiah Targum, Isaiah
      sees the glory of the Shekinah of the Lord and hears the Word of the Lord speak
      to him. In addition to that, Pseudo-Jonathan Deut 4:7 "lifts" a phrase from Isa
      6:1 suggesting how a more "Palestinian" Targum of Isaiah might have read in the
      time of John: "the Word of the Lord sits upon his throne, high and lifted up,
      and hears our prayers."

      4. We can also see the repeated divine "I am he" sayings of Jesus (e.g. those
      dependent on Deut 32:39, Isa 43:10, 13, and 52:6) as complementing the Logos
      title, once we see that a Targum background implies "the Word" = the name of
      God. The two come together in Neofiti and Frag. Tg. V Deut 32:39: "I, in my
      Word, am he."

      Hopefully the time will come when all of this material will be given due
      consideration. Until then, my book is a necessary supplement to the
      commentaries. Yes I know that sounds like self-interest, but I also think it's
      true and of major importance for Johannine studies.

      Regards,

      John Ronning

      ________________________________
      From: Paul Anderson <panderso@...>
      To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sun, January 23, 2011 11:52:48 AM
      Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Riddles, etc.

      Wonderful, Ramsey, excellent discussions of your fine work!

      Would you care to share with us how you approached your commentary and how
      it might follow and depart from Morris's commentary? For instance, how did
      you approach composition, setting, audience(s), literary, and historical
      issues, etc?

      I'm sure this will be a "must-have" in all serious Johannine libraries;
      thanks for your invaluable service to readers of John internationally!

      Paul

      On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 5:26 AM, Ramsey Michaels <profram@...>wrote:

      > Hi Everyone,
      >
      > Since Paul has set a precedent, here is a link to Jim West's review of my
      > new NICNT Commentary on the Gospel of John:
      >
      >
      >http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/the-gospel-of-john-the-new-international-commentary-on-the-new-testament/
      >
      >/
      >
      >
      > Also, in case you haven't seen it, a link to Matthew Montonini's three-part
      > interview with me about the Commentary on his New Testament Perspectives:
      >
      >
      >http://newtestamentperspectives.blogspot.com/2010/10/j-ramsey-michaels-interview-part-iii.html
      >
      >l
      >
      > Best wishes to all,
      >
      > Ramsey Michaels
      > Portsmouth, New Hampshire
      >
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: Paul Anderson
      > To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 10:02 PM
      > Subject: [John_Lit] Riddles, etc.
      >
      >
      >
      > Dear fellow Johannine scholars,
      >
      > Here are a few things that might be of interest:
      >
      > a) My new introduction to John, *The Riddles of the Fourth Gospel*
      > (Fortress
      > Press, forthcoming) is being previewed by Jim West on the Zwingli website
      > in
      > case any are interested in following:
      >
      >http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2011/01/22/the-riddles-of-the-fourth-gospel-an-introduction-to-john/
      >
      >/
      >
      >http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2011/01/22/a-guest-post-by-paul-anderson/
      >
      >/
      >
      > A review session is also being organized for the May meetings of the
      > Pacific
      > Northwest AAR/SBL/ASOR meetings in Spokane, so if any of you are
      > interested
      > in serving on the panel, do let me know (offline, please, at
      > panderso@...).
      >
      > b) Tom Thatcher led an excellent Colloquium discussion on the John, Jesus,
      > and History a few days ago, so you might follow up on that if you're
      > interested in the latest on that front. See also the website, managed by
      > Felix Just, posting the papers and abstracts over the last nine years if
      > interested.
      >
      >
      > http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/john-jesus-and-history/
      >
      > http://johannine.org/JJH-2010.html
      >
      > c) And, here are several other postings on *Bible and Interpretation*,
      > giving an update on the JJH Project as well as a Bi-Optic Hypothesis, my
      > dialogue with Marcus Borg, and an overlooked first-century clue to John's
      > authorhip.
      > http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/john1357917.shtml
      >
      > http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/fourth357921.shtml
      >
      > http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/mainz357911.shtml
      > http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/acts357920.shtml
      >
      > Take care,
      >
      > Paul Anderson
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
      > MESSAGE ARCHIVE:
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messagesYahoo! Groups
      > Links
      >
      >
      >
      >

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • John Ronning
      Ramsey, On circularity - with respect to the Word theology, I presume you re not saying that the Targum Word theology could have come from Christian influence
      Message 2 of 23 , Feb 2, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Ramsey,

        On circularity - with respect to the Word theology, I presume you're not saying
        that the Targum Word theology could have come from Christian influence (the idea
        of the Word becoming flesh goes against the kind of thinking that seems to be
        behind the Word theology; i.e. keeping God transcendent, not imminent). With
        respect to examples like the branches as disciples in Tg. Psalm 80 - yes it's
        possible that 1st century Jewish thinking as reflected in the vine and branches
        discourse later influenced the Psalms Targum. My main point in an example such
        as this is to point out possibilities. In this case, many commentators point to
        Psalm 80 as important OT background for John 15; others (such as Keener) are
        dubious. I think the Psalms Targum adds weight to the view that Ps 80 is an
        important background (among many), though of course it is not proof. When such
        examples can be multiplied many fold, then I think the overall readiness to see
        a Targum background as a possibility should increase.

        With respect to John 12:26 - yes Jesus is going to the right hand of the Father,
        in heaven (where Stephen sees him); the difficulty of course is in what he means
        by saying that his followers must be where he is - he's not talking about our
        eternal destiny, but about how we serve him on earth. So where do we "go" to
        follow him now? I think you are correct to say we could answer "outside the
        camp" from Hebrews 13, what I am saying is that this answer is suggested by John
        12:26 itself.

        I should have made my case better/clearer. Besides the suggested background of
        the Exodus Rabbah interpretation of Exodus 33 (Moses followed the Lord outside
        the camp, where Israel must now seek the Lord after the golden calf incident),
        there is John 7:34, 36; "You will seek me, and you will not find me." This also
        fits in with Jewish interpretation of the golden calf incident, seen in the
        Targum of the Song of Solomon, which interprets the bride's statement "I sought
        him but did not find him" of the golden calf incident: "'Let us request
        instruction from the Lord and the holy Shekinah which has been removed from us.'
        Then they went around in the towns, streets, and squares, but they did not find
        it" (Tg. Song 3:2). The similar statement in 5:6 is related to Israel
        seeking/not finding the Shekinah at the time of the Babylonian exile. It would
        not be difficult for Jewish Christians to see a parallel after the Roman
        conquest (one reason I'm not inclined to date John early). While I don't think
        much of this as interpretation of the Song of Solomon, what is significant is
        what it says about Jewish interpretation of the golden calf incident.

        In short, if one interprets "You will seek me but you will not find me" as
        divine speech (notice how John draws attention to its importance by recording
        the crowd's question about it in v. 36), then there is much relevant OT
        background, such as Deut 4 where Moses tells Israel that if they seek the Lord
        from exile (the situation when John is writing, according to the usual dating of
        John), they will find him IF they search for him with all of their hearts. A
        corollary to that requirement comes from Exodus 33, after Israel's great sin:
        they must seek him outside the camp (i.e. they must follow where he went, and
        where Moses conversed with the divine Word before his incarnation). In the first
        century, that means they must seek him in the Christian church (Matt 18:20;
        where 2 or 3 gather in my name, there I am - similar to what the Mishnah and
        Talmud say about the Shekinah). So, in my view John 12:26 makes perfect sense
        with the idea that in returning to the Father Jesus is going "outside the camp."

        John





        ________________________________
        From: Ramsey Michaels <profram@...>
        To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Wed, February 2, 2011 11:28:41 AM
        Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Targum background to John's Logos title


        John,

        Thank you for some examples of using Targums to interpret NT texts. First, as
        you can tell, my commentary does little with "background" in general, so my
        neglect of Targums is perhaps not surprising. In equal opportunity fashion, I
        neglect Wisdom background, Philonic background, etc. as well, and will probably
        be duly reprimanded for that. I just think enough has been written in some of
        those areas. The evidence is what it is, and most people have firmly made up
        their minds as to what is relevant and what it not. I have concentrated instead
        on narrative criticism and the present form of the text.

        My friend Craig Keener, by contrast, deals extensively with backgrounds (a
        massive understatement), and in his index has cited all kinds of Targums. Yet in
        speaking about Targums in relation to the Logos in John, he is surprisingly
        dismissive. You might check out what he does do with them in various places. I
        suspect that in most cases he does little more than list references -- which I
        fear no one will look up. And you are right, I suspect, in saying that the
        reason many do not take account of certain parallels is that they are simply
        ignorant of them -- present company not excluded!

        A couple of comments, however. In admitting "various New Testament passages" as
        themselves the "greatest evidence" of the use of Targums in the first century,
        you are risking a certain circularity. Is it not even possible that some NT
        metaphors arising in a setting in which the "Christian" movement was still part
        of Judaism may actually have been preserved within Judaism and found their way
        into the Targums -- that is, that the influence could have been in the opposite
        direction? While I am not ready to propose such a thing, I'm not ready to rule
        it out either.

        Your two examples where the rubber meets the road are John 19:34 and 12:26. I
        don't find either one persuasive, the second less so than the first. It seems
        unquestionable that in 12:26 Jesus is going, if not to heaven, at least to the
        Father (as we learn in chapters 14-16), not merely "outside the camp," and he is
        certainly not excommunicating Israel -- tho he does excommunicate the devil five
        verses later! Your Targum may have more of a bearing on Hebrews 13:9-10. In
        19:34 Jesus' side is pierced once, not twice, and there is plenty of material
        within the Gospel (chapter 6 for example, and 7:37-38) to go on, without
        appealing to Ps-Jonathan.

        Still, the concrete examples are what we need. As the Germans say, "Was kommt
        heraus?" What is the actual exegetical yield? I'm keeping an open mind.

        Ramsey

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: John Ronning
        To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 11:40 AM
        Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Targum background to John's Logos title

        Ramsey,

        Thanks for the kind words.

        Dating the Targums is obviously a relevant issue and a stumbling block to many.
        The fact that all of the extant Targums post-date John has to be considered.
        However, few would deny that there were Targums in use in the first century
        (various NT passages being the greatest evidence), and to put the Targums "out
        of bounds" for consideration as a background to the Logos theology, I would
        think one would have to assume the unprovable - that the 1st century Targums are

        not in the least bit reflected in the extant Targums.

        Take an example that does not involve the Word theology. The Psalms Targum
        interprets the "branches" of the vine in Psalm 80 as "disciples" (a nice example

        of the targumic practice of double translation - "branches" is translated first
        literally and then as disciples). It could not be proven that this
        interpretation was found in a first century Psalms Targum. But that is not why
        interpreters don't mention it in their discussion of the vine and branches in
        John 15. I would venture to say they don't mention it because they are ignorant
        of it.

        Another ex.: Ps-Jonathan Num 20:11 has an answer for why Moses struck the rock
        twice--the first time blood oozed out so he struck it again and water flowed
        abundantly. Tho Ps-J is late in its extant form, this could obviously reflect an

        early tradition and is of obvious potential relevance to John 19:34--John might
        have been struck by this fact and seen in it a message from God, that Jesus is
        what he said he was, the source of living water. True, this legend is found
        elsewhere (Ginzburg discusses variations of it), but is it not relevant to at
        least point out in a discussion of John 19:34? Does not the fact that it is
        overlooked, even tho Etheridge's English translation of Ps-J has been around for

        150 years, indicate a problem in Johannine scholarship? Such examples can be
        multiplied many-fold.

        Another dating issue: of relevance to the Logos title is whether the "Word
        theology" was current in the 1st century. Conceptual similarities to Philo's
        Logos (e.g. both Philo and the Pentateuchal Targums have the Word between the
        cherubim in the tabernacle), and to intertestamental wisdom literature (e.g. the

        divine Word healing the snake-bitten Israelites and destroying the Egyptian
        1st-born) and even the Tragedy of Ezekiel (Moses hears the voice of the Word at
        the burning bush) argue affirmatively, while absence of such theology in
        rabbinic Judaism would argue against late dating.

        Of special relevance is the dating of the use of Dibbera/Dibbura for the divine
        Word. This usage is much more isolated than the Memra but is very relevant to
        the question of Targumic background to the Logos title for two reasons: (1)
        while Memra is not used "aboslutely" (i.e. we find "the Word of the Lord," "my
        Word," etc. but not "the Word" as in John), Dibbera is used in this way: e.g. in

        the Palestinian Targums Israel heard the voice of "the Word" on Mt. Sinai, which

        is relevant to seeing the Word-become-flesh in the upper room as a new Sinai,
        making a new covenant, giving a new commandment, connecting love for him with
        obedience to his commands [just as in the 2nd commandment & elsewhere], etc; (2)

        a significant number of possible relations of Targum passages to John involve
        the use of Dibbera/Dibbura. E.g. John says the disciples saw his glory, full of
        grace and truth. Most agree that this is John's translation of rab xesed
        we'emet, "abounding in kindness and truth" from Exod 34:6 (i.e. it is how God
        describes himself to Moses). In the Palestinian Targums this revelation to Moses

        is a revelation of the Dibbura, the divine Word.

        In the previous chapter Moses set up a tent of meeting outside the camp, and
        those who would seek the Lord went there. Exodus Rabbah interprets this as
        evidence that God had excommunicated Israel after the worship of the golden
        calf, and that Moses followed his master outside the camp and regarded as
        excommunicated those whom God had excommunicated. Various Targum passages have
        the divine Word with Moses outside the camp, which is of potential relevance to
        the interpretation of John 12:26, where the Word-become-flesh says likewise
        those who would be his servants (as Moses was before the incarnation) must
        follow him to where he is going (which can't mean heaven but rather "outside the

        camp" - Jesus therefore announces his excommunication of Israel).

        It has been claimed that the use of Dibbura in this way dates only to the 3rd
        century and later, but besides the evidence from John, we have the fact that in
        Targum Jonathan of the Prophets, Dibbura is used only once, in Ezekiel 1, in the

        vision of the heavenly chariot. Levey ascribes the "Merkavah mysticism" used
        here to Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai, who was a prominent rabbi from the 1st
        century. Since this is the only place in Jonathan that Dibbura is used, it
        stands to reason that Johanan is also the source of the Dibbura usage in Targum
        Ezekiel, meaning that Dibbura use was contemporary with John.

        If the Logos title comes from the Targums, then we can readily see that "the
        Word became flesh" is a unifying theme throughout the Gospel, as John shows
        Jesus doing the same kinds of things YHWH did in OT times, except now he does
        them as a man. Thus in the Gospel there are both human and divine parallels to
        the OT with Jesus as warrior, bridegroom of his people, lawgiver, etc.
        Interestingly, these themes are also found in Exodus 34, which as I mentioned
        above is where God reveals himself to Moses as "full of grace and truth." So
        when Jesus says, "it was about me that he [Moses] wrote," he is saying "Moses
        was my prophet; if you believe the prophet, you must believe whom he represented

        as prophet."

        Regards,

        John Ronning

        ________________________________
        From: Ramsey Michaels <profram@...>
        To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Mon, January 31, 2011 1:13:17 PM
        Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Targum background to John's Logos title

        I appreciate John Ronning's comments about the targums. I have always been a bit

        cautious about the targums because of the difficulty of dating their origins.
        Moreover , it has seemed to me that the parallels more likely rest on a common
        use of certain key OT texts than on literary dependence one way or the other.
        Given the tendency within Judaism (and specifically in the targums) to avoid
        speaking of the Deity directly, but rather of his "word" or "name," or "glory,"
        or some other locution, parallels to the Gospel of John are not altogether
        surprising.

        However, I do agree with John that his book, along with certain others, remains
        a valuable supplement to most of the commentaries, including mine. We all need
        to be reminded of what we have overlooked either by accident or on purpose.

        Ramsey

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: John Ronning
        To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 12:16 PM
        Subject: [John_Lit] Targum background to John's Logos title

        Paul noted Jim West's review of Ramsey Michaels' new commentary on John. Jim
        also reviewed my book on John which came out a year ago:
        http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2010/03/30/the-jewish-targums-and-johns-logos-theology/


        This book amplifies on an article I mentioned on this list a few years ago: "The


        Targum of Isaiah and the Johannine Literature" (WTJ, Fall of 2007). A number of
        members on this list expressed interest at the time, although not much
        discussion ensued.

        Although Ramsey's commentary is no doubt valuable in many respects, I was
        disappointed not only in a lack of discussion of the possibility of the Targum
        background (Aramaic Memra/Dibbera as divine Word), to the Logos title, but in
        the view that the Logos title was not as important as often deemed to be.
        Recognizing the Targum background does in fact lead to seeing Jesus as "the
        Word" throughout the Gospel. In this respect, Leon Morris' commentary was
        superior, since he allowed for the Targum background (as did Raymond Brown).
        Unfortunately, although both Morris and Brown wrote post-commentary books on
        John, neither evidently pursued this possibility.

        L:et me highlight just a few of many many examples:
        1. John 1:11-12: both the idea of receiving/not receiving the divine Word, as
        well as believing/not believing in the name of the divine Word are common in the


        Targums. Sometimes they are found close together, e.g. Deut 9:23 (I give Targum
        renderings in brackets): "You neither believed him [Neofiti: you did not believe


        in the holy name of the Word of the Lord] nor listened to his voice [Onqelos and


        Ps-Jonathan: you did not receive his Word]." "Receive my Word" is also found as
        a rendering for other expressions such as "come to me" (Isa 55:1-3), an
        invitation which Jesus gave repeatedly, with evident dependence on Isa 55:1-3.

        2. John 12:37--though he had performed so many signs before them, they were not
        believing in him. This is an evident paraphrase of Num 14:11--How long will they


        not believe in me, in spite of all the signs I have done in their midst? In the
        Targums it is "how long will they not believe in my Word" (Neofiti, "in the name


        of my Word" - see again John 1:12).

        3. John 12:41--these things Isaiah said [John has just quoted Isaiah 6] because
        he saw his glory. Burney pointed out long ago that in the Isaiah Targum, Isaiah
        sees the glory of the Shekinah of the Lord and hears the Word of the Lord speak
        to him. In addition to that, Pseudo-Jonathan Deut 4:7 "lifts" a phrase from Isa
        6:1 suggesting how a more "Palestinian" Targum of Isaiah might have read in the
        time of John: "the Word of the Lord sits upon his throne, high and lifted up,
        and hears our prayers."

        4. We can also see the repeated divine "I am he" sayings of Jesus (e.g. those
        dependent on Deut 32:39, Isa 43:10, 13, and 52:6) as complementing the Logos
        title, once we see that a Targum background implies "the Word" = the name of
        God. The two come together in Neofiti and Frag. Tg. V Deut 32:39: "I, in my
        Word, am he."

        Hopefully the time will come when all of this material will be given due
        consideration. Until then, my book is a necessary supplement to the
        commentaries. Yes I know that sounds like self-interest, but I also think it's
        true and of major importance for Johannine studies.

        Regards,

        John Ronning

        ________________________________
        From: Paul Anderson <panderso@...>
        To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sun, January 23, 2011 11:52:48 AM
        Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Riddles, etc.

        Wonderful, Ramsey, excellent discussions of your fine work!

        Would you care to share with us how you approached your commentary and how
        it might follow and depart from Morris's commentary? For instance, how did
        you approach composition, setting, audience(s), literary, and historical
        issues, etc?

        I'm sure this will be a "must-have" in all serious Johannine libraries;
        thanks for your invaluable service to readers of John internationally!

        Paul

        On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 5:26 AM, Ramsey Michaels <profram@...>wrote:

        > Hi Everyone,
        >
        > Since Paul has set a precedent, here is a link to Jim West's review of my
        > new NICNT Commentary on the Gospel of John:
        >
        >
        >http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/the-gospel-of-john-the-new-international-commentary-on-the-new-testament/
        >
        >
        >/
        >
        >
        > Also, in case you haven't seen it, a link to Matthew Montonini's three-part
        > interview with me about the Commentary on his New Testament Perspectives:
        >
        >
        >http://newtestamentperspectives.blogspot.com/2010/10/j-ramsey-michaels-interview-part-iii.html
        >
        >
        >l
        >
        > Best wishes to all,
        >
        > Ramsey Michaels
        > Portsmouth, New Hampshire
        >
        >
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: Paul Anderson
        > To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 10:02 PM
        > Subject: [John_Lit] Riddles, etc.
        >
        >
        >
        > Dear fellow Johannine scholars,
        >
        > Here are a few things that might be of interest:
        >
        > a) My new introduction to John, *The Riddles of the Fourth Gospel*
        > (Fortress
        > Press, forthcoming) is being previewed by Jim West on the Zwingli website
        > in
        > case any are interested in following:
        >
        >http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2011/01/22/the-riddles-of-the-fourth-gospel-an-introduction-to-john/
        >
        >
        >/
        >
        >http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2011/01/22/a-guest-post-by-paul-anderson/
        >
        >
        >/
        >
        > A review session is also being organized for the May meetings of the
        > Pacific
        > Northwest AAR/SBL/ASOR meetings in Spokane, so if any of you are
        > interested
        > in serving on the panel, do let me know (offline, please, at
        > panderso@...).
        >
        > b) Tom Thatcher led an excellent Colloquium discussion on the John, Jesus,
        > and History a few days ago, so you might follow up on that if you're
        > interested in the latest on that front. See also the website, managed by
        > Felix Just, posting the papers and abstracts over the last nine years if
        > interested.
        >
        >
        > http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/john-jesus-and-history/
        >
        > http://johannine.org/JJH-2010.html
        >
        > c) And, here are several other postings on *Bible and Interpretation*,
        > giving an update on the JJH Project as well as a Bi-Optic Hypothesis, my
        > dialogue with Marcus Borg, and an overlooked first-century clue to John's
        > authorhip.
        > http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/john1357917.shtml
        >
        > http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/fourth357921.shtml
        >
        > http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/mainz357911.shtml
        > http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/acts357920.shtml
        >
        > Take care,
        >
        > Paul Anderson
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
        > MESSAGE ARCHIVE:
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messagesYahoo! Groups
        > Links
        >
        >
        >
        >

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • John Ronning
        w.r.t. backgrounds to study of John s Gospel, scholars obviously have to decide whether a particular area of study promises to be fruitful in illuminating
        Message 3 of 23 , Feb 3, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          w.r.t. "backgrounds" to study of John's Gospel, scholars obviously have to
          decide whether a particular area of study promises to be fruitful in
          illuminating the text under discussion. However, I doubt that anyone would
          affirm that OT background can be overlooked in the study of any NT book. The
          point I would make in connection with this is that the Targums should be studied
          not just as "one potential background among many possible," but as
          (interpretive) translations of the OT, therefore automatically of interest. No
          one needs to justify looking at the LXX translation as part of OT background
          studies, but there seems to be a strange double standard when it comes to the
          Targums.

          E.g. Keener, in rejecting the Targums as a background for the Logos title,
          treats the Word theology in the Targums as an isolated strand of early Jewish
          thought, therefore unlikely to be of general interest (p. 350). Surely the
          opposite is the case, since the Targums were for the purpose of being recited in
          the synagogue, i.e. they are for the common people; they were the Aramaic LXX
          plus interpretive notes (as far as we know, the entire Pentateuch and portions
          of the prophets were read on Sabbaths, other books like Song of Solomon were
          read on feast days).

          To be fair, Keener joins this statement with the observation that since the
          extant Targums are all post-John, we can't be sure of how the Word theology
          might have been used in the first century. To an extent I would agree, but if we
          investigate the extant Targums and see passage after passage in John illuminated
          by such an examination, then we do approach probability and perhaps certainty,
          though it would take considerable study to get to that point (thus, my book). To
          fail to undertake such a study is in my view a "head in the sand" approach. Of
          course, since scholars are busy, they might rely on others who say that such a
          study is a waste of time--many like to quote Barrett: "Memra is a blind alley in
          the study of John's logos doctrine" (also on p. 350 of Keener). Whether Barrett
          himself went down this alley to see if it was blind I don't know, but since he
          was such a Greek specialist I wonder if he was biased.

          In 1 Cor 15:45, Paul quotes Gen 2:7, "The first man, Adam, became a living
          soul." Sometimes in the Targums Adam is called )dm qdmy). (MacNamara remarks
          that this corresponds to Hebrew adam harishon, common in ranninic lit.). None of
          the extant Targums use this at Gen 2:7 but Neofiti uses it in the following
          verse. Some translators of the Aramaic Bible series translate this as "first
          man," others translate it as "first Adam." Interesting that Paul's phrase "the
          first man, Adam" looks like a conflation of these two possibilities.

          Paul goes on to say that "the last Adam [became] a life-giving Spirit." One
          answer that has been given to the question, why is Jesus only called "the Son of
          Man" in the Gospels and Acts, not in any of the epistles?, is that in calling
          Jesus the last Adam, it amounts to the same thing as calling him the Son of Man;
          the reason he doesn't use the phrase "Son of Man" is that in the Gospels the
          title is meant to be obscure, to avoid a direct claim to be the Messiah, but
          Paul means to explain, not obscure. This interpretation depends in part on
          assuming that "the Son of Man" depends on Ps 8:4, as one might suspect from
          Hebrews 2. The obstacle to this has been the belief that no saying in the
          Gospels can be traced to Psalm 8. In fact, however, the first use of this title
          both in Matthew and John can be read as depending in part on Psalm 8. Matt 8:20:
          "The foxes have holes" etc. can be seen as an ironic allusion to Psalm 8,
          according to which man/son of man is given dominion over the beasts of the field
          [e.g. foxes] and birds of the air. Jesus, the true Adam, doesn't even have a
          fixed place to lie down, whereas the creatures under his dominion do. This was
          pointed out, by the way, in the ABD article on the Son of Man, which also
          pointed out that in Daniel 7, one like a son of man is given dominion over
          kingdoms depicted as animals, with characteristics of beasts of the field and
          birds of the air - an eschatological version of Psalm 8 (with relevance to some
          Gospel Son of Man sayings alluding to Dan 7:13).

          Likewise the first use of the title in John: angels ascending and descending
          upon the Son of Man, besides the obvious allusion to Genesis 28, depicts the Son
          of Man as "lower than the angels" a la Psalm 8. I point out in chapter 4 of my
          book that all of the Son of Man sayings in John, except possibly 5:27, can be
          categorized according to how Hebrews 2 adapts Psalm 8 to Jesus: (1) his
          temporary descent to a place "lower than the angels" (1:51; 3:13; 6:62); (2) his
          glorification or lifting up (3:14; 8:12; 12:23, 34; 13:31); (3) "bringing many
          sons to glory" i.e. spiritual progenitor of his people as Adam was the physical
          progenitor (9:35; 6:27, 53).

          Of interest in all of this is that Tg. Neofiti, besides calling Adam "the first
          man/Adam," also calls him "the son of man" (bar nasha, used generically for
          "man") (Gen 1:27; 2:18). Neof. Gen 1:27 is particularly interesting in light of
          John 1:14: "The Word of the Lord created the son of man." If this reading were
          current in the first century, then it is possible that another clue to the
          meaning of the Son of Man title as "the last Adam" is the Targum use of "the son
          of man" for "the first Adam."

          Is this information not at least as relevant as the use of "the son of man" in
          the Ethiopic version of the Book of Enoch?

          A generic use of "the son of man" in the Palestinian Targums Gen 40:23 is also
          of interest to johannine studies. The Targums are evidently trying to answer the
          question, why Joseph was stuck in prison for two more years after foretelling
          the future of Pharaoh's cup-bearer and baker. The answer that they give is that
          Joseph forgot the lesson of Jeremiah 17 (this anachronism is solved in Neofiti
          by saying that the passage is also in "the Book of the Wars"). In asking the
          cup-bearer to remember him to Pharaoh, Joseph trusted in flesh that tastes the
          cup of death, and forgot the Scripture that says "Cursed is the son of man who
          trusts in the flesh . . . but blessed is the man who trusts in the name of the
          Word of the Lord, and makes the Word of the Lord his trust."

          The quotes are from Jer 17:5, 7. The reason I quoted this from Pal. Tgs. Gen
          40:23 rather than from the Targum of Jeremiah is that the latter (as is true of
          Targum Jonathan generally) does not use the expression "name of the Word of the
          Lord," the expression I suggest is meant in John 1:12 - "those who believe in
          his (the Word's) name."

          We can easily imagine Jewish Christians being charged with the same offense:
          "You trust in Jesus, you are trusting in a son of man, in flesh that tasted the
          cup of death, therefore you are under God's curse." John gives his answer at the
          end of chapter 2, read in light of Jer 17 as quoted in Pal. Tgs. Gen 40:23:
          v. 23; "during the feast, many believed in his name, beholding the signs which
          he was doing." Why does such faith not put them in the category of those who are
          cursed acc. to Jer 17:5, for trusting in the son of man, in flesh etc.? Because
          they are actually in the category of those who are blessed acc. to Jer 17:7,
          because they trust in the name of the Word of the Lord (who became the Son of
          Man; yes he tasted death, but overcame it).

          John goes on to say that Jesus himself observed Jer 17:5: he himself did not put
          his trust in men (v. 24). Not only that, John goes on to say that Jesus knew all
          men, and knew what was in man which is what Jer 17:9-10 says about the Lord:
          "The heart is deceitful . . . who can know it? I the Lord search the heart, I
          test the mind, to give to each man according to his ways" (also paraphrased by
          Jesus in Rev 2:23).

          Regards,
          John Ronning




          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Jack Kilmon
          ... From: John Ronning Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 11:27 AM To: Subject: [John_Lit] The
          Message 4 of 23 , Feb 3, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            --------------------------------------------------
            From: "John Ronning" <jronning@...>
            Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 11:27 AM
            To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
            Subject: [John_Lit] The Targums and the "Son of Man" title

            > w.r.t. "backgrounds" to study of John's Gospel, scholars obviously have to
            > decide whether a particular area of study promises to be fruitful in
            > illuminating the text under discussion. However, I doubt that anyone would
            > affirm that OT background can be overlooked in the study of any NT book.
            > The
            > point I would make in connection with this is that the Targums should be
            > studied
            > not just as "one potential background among many possible," but as
            > (interpretive) translations of the OT, therefore automatically of
            > interest. No
            > one needs to justify looking at the LXX translation as part of OT
            > background
            > studies, but there seems to be a strange double standard when it comes to
            > the
            > Targums.
            >
            > E.g. Keener, in rejecting the Targums as a background for the Logos title,
            > treats the Word theology in the Targums as an isolated strand of early
            > Jewish
            > thought, therefore unlikely to be of general interest (p. 350). Surely the
            > opposite is the case, since the Targums were for the purpose of being
            > recited in
            > the synagogue, i.e. they are for the common people; they were the Aramaic
            > LXX
            > plus interpretive notes (as far as we know, the entire Pentateuch and
            > portions
            > of the prophets were read on Sabbaths, other books like Song of Solomon
            > were
            > read on feast days).
            >
            > To be fair, Keener joins this statement with the observation that since
            > the
            > extant Targums are all post-John, we can't be sure of how the Word
            > theology
            > might have been used in the first century. To an extent I would agree, but
            > if we
            > investigate the extant Targums and see passage after passage in John
            > illuminated
            > by such an examination, then we do approach probability and perhaps
            > certainty,
            > though it would take considerable study to get to that point (thus, my
            > book). To
            > fail to undertake such a study is in my view a "head in the sand"
            > approach. Of
            > course, since scholars are busy, they might rely on others who say that
            > such a
            > study is a waste of time--many like to quote Barrett: "Memra is a blind
            > alley in
            > the study of John's logos doctrine" (also on p. 350 of Keener). Whether
            > Barrett
            > himself went down this alley to see if it was blind I don't know, but
            > since he
            > was such a Greek specialist I wonder if he was biased.
            >
            > In 1 Cor 15:45, Paul quotes Gen 2:7, "The first man, Adam, became a living
            > soul." Sometimes in the Targums Adam is called )dm qdmy). (MacNamara
            > remarks
            > that this corresponds to Hebrew adam harishon, common in ranninic lit.).
            > None of
            > the extant Targums use this at Gen 2:7 but Neofiti uses it in the
            > following
            > verse. Some translators of the Aramaic Bible series translate this as
            > "first
            > man," others translate it as "first Adam." Interesting that Paul's phrase
            > "the
            > first man, Adam" looks like a conflation of these two possibilities.
            >
            > Paul goes on to say that "the last Adam [became] a life-giving Spirit."
            > One
            > answer that has been given to the question, why is Jesus only called "the
            > Son of
            > Man" in the Gospels and Acts, not in any of the epistles?, is that in
            > calling
            > Jesus the last Adam, it amounts to the same thing as calling him the Son
            > of Man;
            > the reason he doesn't use the phrase "Son of Man" is that in the Gospels
            > the
            > title is meant to be obscure, to avoid a direct claim to be the Messiah,
            > but
            > Paul means to explain, not obscure. This interpretation depends in part on
            > assuming that "the Son of Man" depends on Ps 8:4, as one might suspect
            > from
            > Hebrews 2. The obstacle to this has been the belief that no saying in the
            > Gospels can be traced to Psalm 8. In fact, however, the first use of this
            > title
            > both in Matthew and John can be read as depending in part on Psalm 8. Matt
            > 8:20:
            > "The foxes have holes" etc. can be seen as an ironic allusion to Psalm 8,
            > according to which man/son of man is given dominion over the beasts of the
            > field
            > [e.g. foxes] and birds of the air. Jesus, the true Adam, doesn't even have
            > a
            > fixed place to lie down, whereas the creatures under his dominion do. This
            > was
            > pointed out, by the way, in the ABD article on the Son of Man, which also
            > pointed out that in Daniel 7, one like a son of man is given dominion over
            > kingdoms depicted as animals, with characteristics of beasts of the field
            > and
            > birds of the air - an eschatological version of Psalm 8 (with relevance to
            > some
            > Gospel Son of Man sayings alluding to Dan 7:13).
            >
            > Likewise the first use of the title in John: angels ascending and
            > descending
            > upon the Son of Man, besides the obvious allusion to Genesis 28, depicts
            > the Son
            > of Man as "lower than the angels" a la Psalm 8. I point out in chapter 4
            > of my
            > book that all of the Son of Man sayings in John, except possibly 5:27, can
            > be
            > categorized according to how Hebrews 2 adapts Psalm 8 to Jesus: (1) his
            > temporary descent to a place "lower than the angels" (1:51; 3:13; 6:62);
            > (2) his
            > glorification or lifting up (3:14; 8:12; 12:23, 34; 13:31); (3) "bringing
            > many
            > sons to glory" i.e. spiritual progenitor of his people as Adam was the
            > physical
            > progenitor (9:35; 6:27, 53).
            >
            > Of interest in all of this is that Tg. Neofiti, besides calling Adam "the
            > first
            > man/Adam," also calls him "the son of man" (bar nasha, used generically
            > for
            > "man") (Gen 1:27; 2:18). Neof. Gen 1:27 is particularly interesting in
            > light of
            > John 1:14: "The Word of the Lord created the son of man." If this reading
            > were
            > current in the first century, then it is possible that another clue to the
            > meaning of the Son of Man title as "the last Adam" is the Targum use of
            > "the son
            > of man" for "the first Adam."
            >
            > Is this information not at least as relevant as the use of "the son of
            > man" in
            > the Ethiopic version of the Book of Enoch?
            >
            > A generic use of "the son of man" in the Palestinian Targums Gen 40:23 is
            > also
            > of interest to johannine studies. The Targums are evidently trying to
            > answer the
            > question, why Joseph was stuck in prison for two more years after
            > foretelling
            > the future of Pharaoh's cup-bearer and baker. The answer that they give is
            > that
            > Joseph forgot the lesson of Jeremiah 17 (this anachronism is solved in
            > Neofiti
            > by saying that the passage is also in "the Book of the Wars"). In asking
            > the
            > cup-bearer to remember him to Pharaoh, Joseph trusted in flesh that tastes
            > the
            > cup of death, and forgot the Scripture that says "Cursed is the son of man
            > who
            > trusts in the flesh . . . but blessed is the man who trusts in the name of
            > the
            > Word of the Lord, and makes the Word of the Lord his trust."
            >
            > The quotes are from Jer 17:5, 7. The reason I quoted this from Pal. Tgs.
            > Gen
            > 40:23 rather than from the Targum of Jeremiah is that the latter (as is
            > true of
            > Targum Jonathan generally) does not use the expression "name of the Word
            > of the
            > Lord," the expression I suggest is meant in John 1:12 - "those who believe
            > in
            > his (the Word's) name."
            >
            > We can easily imagine Jewish Christians being charged with the same
            > offense:
            > "You trust in Jesus, you are trusting in a son of man, in flesh that
            > tasted the
            > cup of death, therefore you are under God's curse." John gives his answer
            > at the
            > end of chapter 2, read in light of Jer 17 as quoted in Pal. Tgs. Gen
            > 40:23:
            > v. 23; "during the feast, many believed in his name, beholding the signs
            > which
            > he was doing." Why does such faith not put them in the category of those
            > who are
            > cursed acc. to Jer 17:5, for trusting in the son of man, in flesh etc.?
            > Because
            > they are actually in the category of those who are blessed acc. to Jer
            > 17:7,
            > because they trust in the name of the Word of the Lord (who became the Son
            > of
            > Man; yes he tasted death, but overcame it).
            >
            > John goes on to say that Jesus himself observed Jer 17:5: he himself did
            > not put
            > his trust in men (v. 24). Not only that, John goes on to say that Jesus
            > knew all
            > men, and knew what was in man which is what Jer 17:9-10 says about the
            > Lord:
            > "The heart is deceitful . . . who can know it? I the Lord search the
            > heart, I
            > test the mind, to give to each man according to his ways" (also
            > paraphrased by
            > Jesus in Rev 2:23).
            >
            > Regards,
            > John Ronning


            Hi John:

            This is going to get rather lengthy also, so bear with me

            As the "follow the Aramaic" guy, I find this very interesting but I have
            several concerns. The extant Targumym are post John as for their final
            forms and codification but clearly date back to the time of John (c. 95 CE)
            and prior judging from the Aramaic text of Neofiti, copied in the 16th
            century from an earlier copy.

            Use of ממרא
            and נהורא

            in Neofiti Genesis 1:16-17 and 2:2-3 are clearly reminiscent of the
            Johannine epilog wording of "the Word" and "the light" but I am more
            inclined to believe these are neo-Platonic elements in an antiphonal hymn
            prefixed in the 2nd century to a Gospel that originally began at John 1:19.
            This does not mean that the logos doctrine may not have had a circuitous
            route from the targumym to Alexandrian neo-Platonic elements in Christianity
            to the epilog. Targums were oral and not written accounting for their
            scarcity in the DSS and it was probably pretty much up to the lector in the
            synagogue how he was going to present the Hebrew verse (one verse for the
            Torah, three for the prophets) in his and the congregants' native Aramaic.
            It was a free exercise so he may have decided on a literal translation, a
            paraphrase or an interpretation of what the Hebrew verse meant. I imagine
            that prior to being set down in writing in a fixed form in the
            post-destruction centuries, each lector would give a different form at
            different synagogues and at different times. Of course this does not mean
            that fixed forms did not become codified in oral targimic traditions. If
            the "cry from the cross" is historical (Mark being the original), Jesus may
            have been mouthing a targum of Psalms 22.

            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.

            There is a ton of literature on Yeshua's use of his self-description as the
            bar nasha (Son of Man) and disagreements on what that meant. If the Dead
            Sea Scroll corpus is a good barometer, the late 2nd temple period saw an
            emergence of Daniel-Enochian fervor. In both Daniel and the Enochian
            literature, the "son of man" plays a central role.

            Yeshua himself, NOT ONCE, refers to himself with certainty as the Messiah
            but instead refers to himself as the bar nasha/ben adam of Daniel and
            Enoch..."coming on the clouds, etc." It was Paul of Tarsus...hostile to the
            Nazarenes, who conferred the name of XRISTOS on Yeshua in his reconstruction
            of Yeshua as the Pauline "Christ Crucified."

            The cradle from which both Jewish and Christian "mysticism" arose was
            Enochian apocalypticism, the same cradle from which post-destruction Ma'asei
            Merkavah (which would eventually develop into Kabbala) and the Hekhalot
            literature arose which deals with "mystical" ascents into heaven.

            Anyone pursuing the ancient Jewish sources from which the Nazarenes arose,
            should read the considerable Enochian literary corpus now available thanks
            to the Qumran texts. The Books of Enoch and their related texts, Jubilees,
            Giants, Weeks, Parables, Watchers, Testimonies of the 12 Patriarchs, Dreams,
            etc. Enochian apocalypticism is a reflection of a Mesopotamian alternative
            to Mosaic" Judaism with its focus on Enmeduranki, the 7th antediluvian king
            of Sippar in the Sumerian Chronicles and a counterpart (or model) for Enoch.

            There was a considerable influence by Zoroastrianism on Judaism as a result
            to the Babylonian Captivity after which they brought the Enochian traditions
            to Jerusalem upon the return. The Jerusalem priests at that time hated the
            Enochian Jews (and it is my position that Jesus was an Enochian Jew) who
            supported the Maccabees thereby gaining favor with the Hasmoneans. These
            Enochian Jews became, IMO, the Essenes who subsequently developed serious
            issues with the Hasmonean priest-kings. I don't think anyone would argue
            that the Dead Sea Scrolls are not strongly Enochian.

            The Jewish Nazarenes ("branchers") were heirs, IMO, to the Enochian
            traditions but Gentile Christianity imported a constellation of influences
            from Graeco-Roman sources. That Enochian Judaism was alternative to Mosaic
            nomian Judaeism can explain why Paul appears anti-nomian and why Enoch was
            not included in the Rabbinical canon.

            Quoted in the Book of Jude:

            "And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones To execute
            judgement upon all, And to destroy all the ungodly: And to convict all flesh
            of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, And
            of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him."
            (Enoch 1:9)

            This is not a Bar Nasha that is "just a feller."

            Other references to the SON OF MAN in Enoch:

            "And there I saw One who had a head of days, And His head was white like
            wool, And with Him was another being whose countenance had the appearance of
            a man, And his face was full of graciousness, like one of the holy angels. 2
            And I asked the angel who went with me and showed me all the hidden things,
            concerning that 3 Son of Man, who he was, and whence he was, (and) why he
            went with the Ancient of Days? And he answered and said unto me: This
            is the Son of Man who hath righteousness, With whom dwelleth righteousness,
            And who revealeth all the treasures of that which is hidden, Because the
            Lord of Hosts hath chosen him, And whose lot hath the pre-eminence before
            the Lord of Hosts in uprightness for ever." (Part 8 Chapter 46:1-3)

            1 And in that place I saw the fountain of righteousness Which was
            inexhaustible: And around it were many fountains of wisdom: And all the
            thirsty drank of them, And were filled with wisdom, And their dwellings were
            with the righteous and holy and elect. 2 And at that hour that Son of Man
            was named In the presence of the Lord of Hosts, And his name before the
            Ancient of Days. 3 Yea, before the sun and the signs were created, Before
            the stars of the heaven were made, His name
            was named before the Lord of Hosts. 4 He shall be a staff to the righteous
            whereon to stay themselves and not fall, And he shall be the light of the
            Gentiles, And the hope of those who are troubled of heart. 5 All who dwell
            on earth shall fall down and worship before him, And will praise and bless
            and celebrate with song the Lord of Hosts. 6 And for this reason hath he
            been chosen and hidden before Him, Before the creation of the world and for
            evermore. 7 And the wisdom of the Lord of Hosts hath revealed him to the
            holy and righteous; For he hath preserved the lot of the righteous, Because
            they have hated and despised this world of unrighteousness, And have hated
            all its works and ways in the name of the Lord of Hosts: For in his name
            they are saved, And according to his good pleasure hath it been in regard to
            their life. (Part 8 Chapter 48:1-7)

            The Book of Daniel, like Enoch, was written originally in Aramaic. It
            contains the most famous reference to the SON OF MAN.

            Daniel 7:13-14 (WEB)
            13 חזה הוית בחזוי ליליא וארו עם־ענני שׁמיא כבר אנשׁ אתה הוה ועד־עתיק יומיא
            מטה וקדמוהי הקרבוהי׃ 14 ולה יהיב שׁלטן ויקר ומלכו וכל עממיא אמיא ולשׁניא לה
            יפלחון שׁלטנה שׁלטן עלם די־לא יעדה ומלכותה פ

            13 I saw in the night-visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of
            the sky one like a son of man (כבר אנש [kibar 'anash]), and he came even to
            the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. 14 There was
            given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations,
            and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
            which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be
            destroyed.

            Yeshua spoke of himself, just as above in Daniel, at Matthew 24:30 And
            then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all
            the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in
            the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

            .....and at Matthew 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said:
            nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting
            on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

            As you can see, Yeshua refers to himself as the SON OF MAN (Aramaic bar
            nasha) of Daniel and Enoch and not, IMO, as simply the bar nash/a idiom for
            "just a guy."

            An Enochian Jew, in the late second temple period, is one who believed in
            the Enochian apocalyptic such as the Essenes and Yohanan haMatbil.

            Jesus/Yeshua was indeed, IMO, a herald of the imminent malkutha
            d'alaha (Kingdom of God) in the Enochian tradition and, as such, outside of
            "normative" Mosaic Judaism. I think there are other indicators that this
            "Son of Man" from the ancient of days could be "Lord of the Sabbath" as well
            as the Mosaic laws (seen in the formula "It is written" or "You have
            heard"...ABC "but *I* tell you"...XYZ).

            So yes, he was apocalyptic but, in his mind, just not a "sage" but THE bar
            nasha that was expected by Yohanan/John (Matthew 11:3), with a different
            eschatology, perhaps, than the Essenes or John, more ethical than
            apocalyptic, the redeemer of Daniel 7:13-14.

            Having said all this, I am intrigued by the concept of targumym elements in
            first stratum NT material. What the Aramaic speaking first stratum Jesus
            People in the Galilee and Judea knew about the Old Testament came to them in
            oral Targumym.

            Regards,

            Jack Kilmon
            San Antonio, TX
          • jgibson000@comcast.net
            ... 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
            Message 5 of 23 , Feb 3, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              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@...
            • John Ronning
              Hi Jack, That s all very interesting -- I don t have the background to comment on all of the Enoch references. I tend to think that the DSS don t tell us
              Message 6 of 23 , Feb 3, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Jack,

                That's all very interesting -- I don't have the background to comment on all of
                the Enoch references. I tend to think that the DSS don't tell us anything
                definitive about Targum usage in the first century outside of the Essene
                community.

                I would disagree that Jesus never once claimed with certainty that he was the
                Messiah (taking the "words in red" from the NT, whether or not you regard them
                as authentic).

                Interesting that his clearest claim to this title is spoken to the Samaritan
                woman (John 4:26), not to the Jews. Is this not consistent with the view that he
                veiled such claims when speaking to the Jews?

                But when Peter says "You are the Christ," Jesus says this (truth) has been
                revealed to him by his Father (Matt 16:17).

                And at his trial he identifies himself as the Son of Man in terms of Dan 7:13
                (Matt 26:64 etc.), equating this figure with the one at the right hand of God
                referred to in Psalm 110:1, whom Jesus elsewhere affirmed is the Christ (Matt
                22:42-45). At least, his accusers took this as a "yes" answer to the question
                "Are you the Christ?" and he did not correct them. John the Baptist gave a very
                plain "no" to such questions, as piety required of him - so should Jesus if "no"
                was the answer. In the Synoptic accounts of Jesus' trial, then, it seems to be
                assumed that the one like a son of man of Dan 7:13 was to be equated with the
                Messiah.

                Regards,
                John




                ________________________________
                From: Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@...>
                To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Thu, February 3, 2011 2:27:25 PM
                Subject: Re: [John_Lit] The Targums and the "Son of Man" title




                --------------------------------------------------
                From: "John Ronning" <jronning@...>
                Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 11:27 AM
                To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                Subject: [John_Lit] The Targums and the "Son of Man" title

                > w.r.t. "backgrounds" to study of John's Gospel, scholars obviously have to
                > decide whether a particular area of study promises to be fruitful in
                > illuminating the text under discussion. However, I doubt that anyone would
                > affirm that OT background can be overlooked in the study of any NT book.
                > The
                > point I would make in connection with this is that the Targums should be
                > studied
                > not just as "one potential background among many possible," but as
                > (interpretive) translations of the OT, therefore automatically of
                > interest. No
                > one needs to justify looking at the LXX translation as part of OT
                > background
                > studies, but there seems to be a strange double standard when it comes to
                > the
                > Targums.
                >
                > E.g. Keener, in rejecting the Targums as a background for the Logos title,
                > treats the Word theology in the Targums as an isolated strand of early
                > Jewish
                > thought, therefore unlikely to be of general interest (p. 350). Surely the
                > opposite is the case, since the Targums were for the purpose of being
                > recited in
                > the synagogue, i.e. they are for the common people; they were the Aramaic
                > LXX
                > plus interpretive notes (as far as we know, the entire Pentateuch and
                > portions
                > of the prophets were read on Sabbaths, other books like Song of Solomon
                > were
                > read on feast days).
                >
                > To be fair, Keener joins this statement with the observation that since
                > the
                > extant Targums are all post-John, we can't be sure of how the Word
                > theology
                > might have been used in the first century. To an extent I would agree, but
                > if we
                > investigate the extant Targums and see passage after passage in John
                > illuminated
                > by such an examination, then we do approach probability and perhaps
                > certainty,
                > though it would take considerable study to get to that point (thus, my
                > book). To
                > fail to undertake such a study is in my view a "head in the sand"
                > approach. Of
                > course, since scholars are busy, they might rely on others who say that
                > such a
                > study is a waste of time--many like to quote Barrett: "Memra is a blind
                > alley in
                > the study of John's logos doctrine" (also on p. 350 of Keener). Whether
                > Barrett
                > himself went down this alley to see if it was blind I don't know, but
                > since he
                > was such a Greek specialist I wonder if he was biased.
                >
                > In 1 Cor 15:45, Paul quotes Gen 2:7, "The first man, Adam, became a living
                > soul." Sometimes in the Targums Adam is called )dm qdmy). (MacNamara
                > remarks
                > that this corresponds to Hebrew adam harishon, common in ranninic lit.).
                > None of
                > the extant Targums use this at Gen 2:7 but Neofiti uses it in the
                > following
                > verse. Some translators of the Aramaic Bible series translate this as
                > "first
                > man," others translate it as "first Adam." Interesting that Paul's phrase
                > "the
                > first man, Adam" looks like a conflation of these two possibilities.
                >
                > Paul goes on to say that "the last Adam [became] a life-giving Spirit."
                > One
                > answer that has been given to the question, why is Jesus only called "the
                > Son of
                > Man" in the Gospels and Acts, not in any of the epistles?, is that in
                > calling
                > Jesus the last Adam, it amounts to the same thing as calling him the Son
                > of Man;
                > the reason he doesn't use the phrase "Son of Man" is that in the Gospels
                > the
                > title is meant to be obscure, to avoid a direct claim to be the Messiah,
                > but
                > Paul means to explain, not obscure. This interpretation depends in part on
                > assuming that "the Son of Man" depends on Ps 8:4, as one might suspect
                > from
                > Hebrews 2. The obstacle to this has been the belief that no saying in the
                > Gospels can be traced to Psalm 8. In fact, however, the first use of this
                > title
                > both in Matthew and John can be read as depending in part on Psalm 8. Matt
                > 8:20:
                > "The foxes have holes" etc. can be seen as an ironic allusion to Psalm 8,
                > according to which man/son of man is given dominion over the beasts of the
                > field
                > [e.g. foxes] and birds of the air. Jesus, the true Adam, doesn't even have
                > a
                > fixed place to lie down, whereas the creatures under his dominion do. This
                > was
                > pointed out, by the way, in the ABD article on the Son of Man, which also
                > pointed out that in Daniel 7, one like a son of man is given dominion over
                > kingdoms depicted as animals, with characteristics of beasts of the field
                > and
                > birds of the air - an eschatological version of Psalm 8 (with relevance to
                > some
                > Gospel Son of Man sayings alluding to Dan 7:13).
                >
                > Likewise the first use of the title in John: angels ascending and
                > descending
                > upon the Son of Man, besides the obvious allusion to Genesis 28, depicts
                > the Son
                > of Man as "lower than the angels" a la Psalm 8. I point out in chapter 4
                > of my
                > book that all of the Son of Man sayings in John, except possibly 5:27, can
                > be
                > categorized according to how Hebrews 2 adapts Psalm 8 to Jesus: (1) his
                > temporary descent to a place "lower than the angels" (1:51; 3:13; 6:62);
                > (2) his
                > glorification or lifting up (3:14; 8:12; 12:23, 34; 13:31); (3) "bringing
                > many
                > sons to glory" i.e. spiritual progenitor of his people as Adam was the
                > physical
                > progenitor (9:35; 6:27, 53).
                >
                > Of interest in all of this is that Tg. Neofiti, besides calling Adam "the
                > first
                > man/Adam," also calls him "the son of man" (bar nasha, used generically
                > for
                > "man") (Gen 1:27; 2:18). Neof. Gen 1:27 is particularly interesting in
                > light of
                > John 1:14: "The Word of the Lord created the son of man." If this reading
                > were
                > current in the first century, then it is possible that another clue to the
                > meaning of the Son of Man title as "the last Adam" is the Targum use of
                > "the son
                > of man" for "the first Adam."
                >
                > Is this information not at least as relevant as the use of "the son of
                > man" in
                > the Ethiopic version of the Book of Enoch?
                >
                > A generic use of "the son of man" in the Palestinian Targums Gen 40:23 is
                > also
                > of interest to johannine studies. The Targums are evidently trying to
                > answer the
                > question, why Joseph was stuck in prison for two more years after
                > foretelling
                > the future of Pharaoh's cup-bearer and baker. The answer that they give is
                > that
                > Joseph forgot the lesson of Jeremiah 17 (this anachronism is solved in
                > Neofiti
                > by saying that the passage is also in "the Book of the Wars"). In asking
                > the
                > cup-bearer to remember him to Pharaoh, Joseph trusted in flesh that tastes
                > the
                > cup of death, and forgot the Scripture that says "Cursed is the son of man
                > who
                > trusts in the flesh . . . but blessed is the man who trusts in the name of
                > the
                > Word of the Lord, and makes the Word of the Lord his trust."
                >
                > The quotes are from Jer 17:5, 7. The reason I quoted this from Pal. Tgs.
                > Gen
                > 40:23 rather than from the Targum of Jeremiah is that the latter (as is
                > true of
                > Targum Jonathan generally) does not use the expression "name of the Word
                > of the
                > Lord," the expression I suggest is meant in John 1:12 - "those who believe
                > in
                > his (the Word's) name."
                >
                > We can easily imagine Jewish Christians being charged with the same
                > offense:
                > "You trust in Jesus, you are trusting in a son of man, in flesh that
                > tasted the
                > cup of death, therefore you are under God's curse." John gives his answer
                > at the
                > end of chapter 2, read in light of Jer 17 as quoted in Pal. Tgs. Gen
                > 40:23:
                > v. 23; "during the feast, many believed in his name, beholding the signs
                > which
                > he was doing." Why does such faith not put them in the category of those
                > who are
                > cursed acc. to Jer 17:5, for trusting in the son of man, in flesh etc.?
                > Because
                > they are actually in the category of those who are blessed acc. to Jer
                > 17:7,
                > because they trust in the name of the Word of the Lord (who became the Son
                > of
                > Man; yes he tasted death, but overcame it).
                >
                > John goes on to say that Jesus himself observed Jer 17:5: he himself did
                > not put
                > his trust in men (v. 24). Not only that, John goes on to say that Jesus
                > knew all
                > men, and knew what was in man which is what Jer 17:9-10 says about the
                > Lord:
                > "The heart is deceitful . . . who can know it? I the Lord search the
                > heart, I
                > test the mind, to give to each man according to his ways" (also
                > paraphrased by
                > Jesus in Rev 2:23).
                >
                > Regards,
                > John Ronning

                Hi John:

                This is going to get rather lengthy also, so bear with me

                As the "follow the Aramaic" guy, I find this very interesting but I have
                several concerns. The extant Targumym are post John as for their final
                forms and codification but clearly date back to the time of John (c. 95 CE)
                and prior judging from the Aramaic text of Neofiti, copied in the 16th
                century from an earlier copy.

                Use of ממרא
                and נהורא

                in Neofiti Genesis 1:16-17 and 2:2-3 are clearly reminiscent of the
                Johannine epilog wording of "the Word" and "the light" but I am more
                inclined to believe these are neo-Platonic elements in an antiphonal hymn
                prefixed in the 2nd century to a Gospel that originally began at John 1:19.
                This does not mean that the logos doctrine may not have had a circuitous
                route from the targumym to Alexandrian neo-Platonic elements in Christianity
                to the epilog. Targums were oral and not written accounting for their
                scarcity in the DSS and it was probably pretty much up to the lector in the
                synagogue how he was going to present the Hebrew verse (one verse for the
                Torah, three for the prophets) in his and the congregants' native Aramaic.
                It was a free exercise so he may have decided on a literal translation, a
                paraphrase or an interpretation of what the Hebrew verse meant. I imagine
                that prior to being set down in writing in a fixed form in the
                post-destruction centuries, each lector would give a different form at
                different synagogues and at different times. Of course this does not mean
                that fixed forms did not become codified in oral targimic traditions. If
                the "cry from the cross" is historical (Mark being the original), Jesus may
                have been mouthing a targum of Psalms 22.

                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.

                There is a ton of literature on Yeshua's use of his self-description as the
                bar nasha (Son of Man) and disagreements on what that meant. If the Dead
                Sea Scroll corpus is a good barometer, the late 2nd temple period saw an
                emergence of Daniel-Enochian fervor. In both Daniel and the Enochian
                literature, the "son of man" plays a central role.

                Yeshua himself, NOT ONCE, refers to himself with certainty as the Messiah
                but instead refers to himself as the bar nasha/ben adam of Daniel and
                Enoch..."coming on the clouds, etc." It was Paul of Tarsus...hostile to the
                Nazarenes, who conferred the name of XRISTOS on Yeshua in his reconstruction
                of Yeshua as the Pauline "Christ Crucified."

                The cradle from which both Jewish and Christian "mysticism" arose was
                Enochian apocalypticism, the same cradle from which post-destruction Ma'asei
                Merkavah (which would eventually develop into Kabbala) and the Hekhalot
                literature arose which deals with "mystical" ascents into heaven.

                Anyone pursuing the ancient Jewish sources from which the Nazarenes arose,
                should read the considerable Enochian literary corpus now available thanks
                to the Qumran texts. The Books of Enoch and their related texts, Jubilees,
                Giants, Weeks, Parables, Watchers, Testimonies of the 12 Patriarchs, Dreams,
                etc. Enochian apocalypticism is a reflection of a Mesopotamian alternative
                to Mosaic" Judaism with its focus on Enmeduranki, the 7th antediluvian king
                of Sippar in the Sumerian Chronicles and a counterpart (or model) for Enoch.

                There was a considerable influence by Zoroastrianism on Judaism as a result
                to the Babylonian Captivity after which they brought the Enochian traditions
                to Jerusalem upon the return. The Jerusalem priests at that time hated the
                Enochian Jews (and it is my position that Jesus was an Enochian Jew) who
                supported the Maccabees thereby gaining favor with the Hasmoneans. These
                Enochian Jews became, IMO, the Essenes who subsequently developed serious
                issues with the Hasmonean priest-kings. I don't think anyone would argue
                that the Dead Sea Scrolls are not strongly Enochian.

                The Jewish Nazarenes ("branchers") were heirs, IMO, to the Enochian
                traditions but Gentile Christianity imported a constellation of influences
                from Graeco-Roman sources. That Enochian Judaism was alternative to Mosaic
                nomian Judaeism can explain why Paul appears anti-nomian and why Enoch was
                not included in the Rabbinical canon.

                Quoted in the Book of Jude:

                "And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones To execute
                judgement upon all, And to destroy all the ungodly: And to convict all flesh
                of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, And
                of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him."
                (Enoch 1:9)

                This is not a Bar Nasha that is "just a feller."

                Other references to the SON OF MAN in Enoch:

                "And there I saw One who had a head of days, And His head was white like
                wool, And with Him was another being whose countenance had the appearance of
                a man, And his face was full of graciousness, like one of the holy angels. 2
                And I asked the angel who went with me and showed me all the hidden things,
                concerning that 3 Son of Man, who he was, and whence he was, (and) why he
                went with the Ancient of Days? And he answered and said unto me: This
                is the Son of Man who hath righteousness, With whom dwelleth righteousness,
                And who revealeth all the treasures of that which is hidden, Because the
                Lord of Hosts hath chosen him, And whose lot hath the pre-eminence before
                the Lord of Hosts in uprightness for ever." (Part 8 Chapter 46:1-3)

                1 And in that place I saw the fountain of righteousness Which was
                inexhaustible: And around it were many fountains of wisdom: And all the
                thirsty drank of them, And were filled with wisdom, And their dwellings were
                with the righteous and holy and elect. 2 And at that hour that Son of Man
                was named In the presence of the Lord of Hosts, And his name before the
                Ancient of Days. 3 Yea, before the sun and the signs were created, Before
                the stars of the heaven were made, His name
                was named before the Lord of Hosts. 4 He shall be a staff to the righteous
                whereon to stay themselves and not fall, And he shall be the light of the
                Gentiles, And the hope of those who are troubled of heart. 5 All who dwell
                on earth shall fall down and worship before him, And will praise and bless
                and celebrate with song the Lord of Hosts. 6 And for this reason hath he
                been chosen and hidden before Him, Before the creation of the world and for
                evermore. 7 And the wisdom of the Lord of Hosts hath revealed him to the
                holy and righteous; For he hath preserved the lot of the righteous, Because
                they have hated and despised this world of unrighteousness, And have hated
                all its works and ways in the name of the Lord of Hosts: For in his name
                they are saved, And according to his good pleasure hath it been in regard to
                their life. (Part 8 Chapter 48:1-7)

                The Book of Daniel, like Enoch, was written originally in Aramaic. It
                contains the most famous reference to the SON OF MAN.

                Daniel 7:13-14 (WEB)
                13 חזה הוית בחזוי ליליא וארו עם־ענני שׁמיא כבר אנשׁ אתה הוה ועד־עתיק יומיא
                מטה וקדמוהי הקרבוהי׃ 14 ולה יהיב שׁלטן ויקר ומלכו וכל עממיא אמיא ולשׁניא לה
                יפלחון שׁלטנה שׁלטן עלם די־לא יעדה ומלכותה פ

                13 I saw in the night-visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of
                the sky one like a son of man (כבר אנש [kibar 'anash]), and he came even to
                the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. 14 There was
                given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations,
                and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
                which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be
                destroyed.

                Yeshua spoke of himself, just as above in Daniel, at Matthew 24:30 And
                then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all
                the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in
                the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

                .....and at Matthew 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said:
                nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting
                on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

                As you can see, Yeshua refers to himself as the SON OF MAN (Aramaic bar
                nasha) of Daniel and Enoch and not, IMO, as simply the bar nash/a idiom for
                "just a guy."

                An Enochian Jew, in the late second temple period, is one who believed in
                the Enochian apocalyptic such as the Essenes and Yohanan haMatbil.

                Jesus/Yeshua was indeed, IMO, a herald of the imminent malkutha
                d'alaha (Kingdom of God) in the Enochian tradition and, as such, outside of
                "normative" Mosaic Judaism. I think there are other indicators that this
                "Son of Man" from the ancient of days could be "Lord of the Sabbath" as well
                as the Mosaic laws (seen in the formula "It is written" or "You have
                heard"...ABC "but *I* tell you"...XYZ).

                So yes, he was apocalyptic but, in his mind, just not a "sage" but THE bar
                nasha that was expected by Yohanan/John (Matthew 11:3), with a different
                eschatology, perhaps, than the Essenes or John, more ethical than
                apocalyptic, the redeemer of Daniel 7:13-14.

                Having said all this, I am intrigued by the concept of targumym elements in
                first stratum NT material. What the Aramaic speaking first stratum Jesus
                People in the Galilee and Judea knew about the Old Testament came to them in
                oral Targumym.

                Regards,

                Jack Kilmon
                San Antonio, TX







                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Jack Kilmon
                ... From: Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 1:34 PM To: Subject: Re: [John_Lit] The Targums and
                Message 7 of 23 , 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
                • jgibson000@comcast.net
                  ... I am afraid that this does not answer my question. What would someone being the Davidic Son of man entail? How would this identity manifest itself in
                  Message 8 of 23 , Feb 3, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On 2/3/2011 2:46 PM, Jack Kilmon wrote:
                    >
                    > --------------------------------------------------
                    > 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?
                    >
                    >
                    I am afraid that this does not answer my question. What would someone
                    being the Davidic Son of man entail? How would this identity manifest
                    itself in the villages and by ways of Palestine. How specifically was
                    one to act if one were to claim this role as one's own? What specific
                    action script would one who was Son of Man think he needed to follow?

                    Jeffrey

                    --
                    Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
                    1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
                    Chicago, Illinois
                    e-mail jgibson000@...
                  • Jack Kilmon
                    ... From: John Ronning Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 2:18 PM To: Subject: Re: [John_Lit] The
                    Message 9 of 23 , Feb 3, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --------------------------------------------------
                      From: "John Ronning" <jronning@...>
                      Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 2:18 PM
                      To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                      Subject: Re: [John_Lit] The Targums and the "Son of Man" title

                      > Hi Jack,
                      >
                      > That's all very interesting -- I don't have the background to comment on
                      > all of
                      > the Enoch references. I tend to think that the DSS don't tell us anything
                      > definitive about Targum usage in the first century outside of the Essene
                      > community.
                      >
                      > I would disagree that Jesus never once claimed with certainty that he was
                      > the
                      > Messiah (taking the "words in red" from the NT, whether or not you regard
                      > them
                      > as authentic).
                      >
                      > Interesting that his clearest claim to this title is spoken to the
                      > Samaritan
                      > woman (John 4:26), not to the Jews. Is this not consistent with the view
                      > that he
                      > veiled such claims when speaking to the Jews?
                      >
                      > But when Peter says "You are the Christ," Jesus says this (truth) has been
                      > revealed to him by his Father (Matt 16:17).
                      >
                      > And at his trial he identifies himself as the Son of Man in terms of Dan
                      > 7:13
                      > (Matt 26:64 etc.), equating this figure with the one at the right hand of
                      > God
                      > referred to in Psalm 110:1, whom Jesus elsewhere affirmed is the Christ
                      > (Matt
                      > 22:42-45). At least, his accusers took this as a "yes" answer to the
                      > question
                      > "Are you the Christ?" and he did not correct them. John the Baptist gave a
                      > very
                      > plain "no" to such questions, as piety required of him - so should Jesus
                      > if "no"
                      > was the answer. In the Synoptic accounts of Jesus' trial, then, it seems
                      > to be
                      > assumed that the one like a son of man of Dan 7:13 was to be equated with
                      > the
                      > Messiah.
                      >
                      > Regards,
                      > John

                      Hi John:

                      I am going to clip the double lengthy posts of ours that anyone can look
                      back on.

                      I consider the entire block between about John 3:9 to 4:42 (with absolutely
                      no parallels, even as elaborated or redacted passages, elsewhere) to be an
                      invention of John of Ephesus (that's another story) and I think very few
                      scholars accept Matthew 16:17 as authentic to the vox Iesu. I think the
                      lack of a clear admission to being the Messiah and the clear statement
                      invoking Daniel 7:13 at the trial (perhaps a suggestion of authenticity)
                      supports my position.

                      Regards,

                      Jack

                      Jack Kilmon
                      San Antonio, TX
                    • Jack Kilmon
                      ... From: Jack Kilmon Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 2:46 PM To: Subject: Re: [John_Lit]
                      Message 10 of 23 , Feb 3, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --------------------------------------------------
                        From: "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...>
                        Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 2:46 PM
                        To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                        Subject: Re: [John_Lit] The Targums and the "Son of Man" title

                        > Hi Jeffret: (ooops! Sorry, old friend) JEFFREY
                        >
                        > 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
                      • Jack Kilmon
                        ... From: Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 2:53 PM To: Subject: Re: [John_Lit] The Targums and
                        Message 11 of 23 , Feb 3, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --------------------------------------------------
                          From: <jgibson000@...>
                          Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 2:53 PM
                          To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                          Subject: Re: [John_Lit] The Targums and the "Son of Man" title

                          > On 2/3/2011 2:46 PM, Jack Kilmon wrote:
                          >>
                          >> --------------------------------------------------
                          >> 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?
                          >>
                          >>
                          > I am afraid that this does not answer my question. What would someone
                          > being the Davidic Son of man entail? How would this identity manifest
                          > itself in the villages and by ways of Palestine. How specifically was
                          > one to act if one were to claim this role as one's own? What specific
                          > action script would one who was Son of Man think he needed to follow?
                          >
                          > Jeffrey
                          >
                          > --
                          > Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
                          > 1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
                          > Chicago, Illinois
                          > e-mail jgibson000@...


                          OK, let me take your questions individually:

                          > I am afraid that this does not answer my question. What would someone
                          > being the Davidic Son of man entail?

                          I don't think the Son of Man was Davidic. unless I can be convinced Psalm
                          144:3 (the only place it is mentioned outside of Daniel) proves differently.
                          The Son of Man would be a divine figure of Daniel 7 seated at the RIGHT HAND
                          of God (the right hand was where all of God's mojo comes from) and the
                          eschatological arbiter of judgment. I recall this is discussed in detail by
                          Darrell Brock (Blasphemy and Exultation in Judaism.

                          > How would this identity manifest
                          > itself in the villages and by ways of Palestine.

                          The ordinary am ha-aretz were disenfranchised. They lived poorly, dressed
                          poorly and were highly taxed. They were the last at the temple, lucky if
                          they could afford a sacrificial dove. If they were infirm or maimed they
                          could not even approach the temple precinct.The Son of Man could only give
                          them hope and reassurance that in the Malkutha d'alaha it was they who would
                          be first in line.

                          > How specifically was
                          > one to act if one were to claim this role as one's own?

                          The SOM would go from village to village informing the poor and
                          under-trodden by the temple elite that their time was coming. "Tubayhon
                          l'miskene - congratulations you poor!" "Tubayhon l'abile - congratulations
                          you mourners!" "Tubayhon abdai shlama - congratulations you makers of
                          peace!" "Tubayhon laylen d'itirdepu mittol tsaddikutha d'dilhon malkutha
                          d'shemaya - congratulations to you who are persecuted because of
                          righteousness, yours is the Kingdom of Heaven!" The Son of Man told them
                          that their time had come and they would be rewarded. Justice will prevail
                          after all.

                          What specific
                          > action script would one who was Son of Man think he needed to follow?

                          Daniel 7:13 חָזֵה הֲוֵית בְּחֶזְוֵי לֵֽילְיָא וַאֲרוּ עִם־עֲנָנֵי שְׁמַיָּא
                          כְּבַר אֱנָשׁ אָתֵה הֲוָה וְעַד־עַתִּיק יֹֽומַיָּא מְטָה וּקְדָמֹוהִי
                          הַקְרְבֽוּהִי׃

                          I saw in the night visions, and, behold, [one] like the Son of man came with
                          the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him
                          near before him.

                          But the SOM came at the END and Jesus was already there. This is why he
                          spoke of the SOM in the 3rd person. He therefore had to die and as he told
                          Pilatus, return on the clouds of Heaven when he would judge those who would
                          enter his malkutha d'alaha.

                          Regards,

                          Jack

                          Jack Kilmon
                          San Antonio, TX

                          >
                        • jgibson000@comcast.net
                          ... I meant to write Danielic. ... Great. But how would one be this Son of Man -- who really is Israel -- on earth before the day of Judgment? ... That s it?
                          Message 12 of 23 , Feb 3, 2011
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On 2/3/2011 4:12 PM, Jack Kilmon wrote:
                            >
                            >> I am afraid that this does not answer my question. What would someone
                            >> being the Davidic Son of man entail?
                            >>
                            > I don't think the Son of Man was Davidic.
                            I meant to write Danielic.
                            > unless I can be convinced Psalm
                            > 144:3 (the only place it is mentioned outside of Daniel) proves differently.
                            > The Son of Man would be a divine figure of Daniel 7 seated at the RIGHT HAND
                            > of God (the right hand was where all of God's mojo comes from) and the
                            > eschatological arbiter of judgment. I recall this is discussed in detail by
                            > Darrell Brock (Blasphemy and Exultation in Judaism.
                            >
                            >
                            Great. But how would one be this Son of Man -- who really is Israel --
                            on earth before the day of Judgment?

                            >> How would this identity manifest
                            >> itself in the villages and by ways of Palestine.
                            >>
                            > The ordinary am ha-aretz were disenfranchised. They lived poorly, dressed
                            > poorly and were highly taxed. They were the last at the temple, lucky if
                            > they could afford a sacrificial dove. If they were infirm or maimed they
                            > could not even approach the temple precinct.The Son of Man could only give
                            > them hope and reassurance that in the Malkutha d'alaha it was they who would
                            > be first in line.
                            >
                            That's it? That's how is to be Israel/the saints of the most high/the
                            vindicated one -- by promising pie in the sky to the downtrodden?
                            >
                            >> How specifically was
                            >> one to act if one were to claim this role as one's own?
                            >>
                            > The SOM would go from village to village informing the poor and
                            > under-trodden by the temple elite that their time was coming. "Tubayhon
                            > l'miskene - congratulations you poor!" "Tubayhon l'abile - congratulations
                            > you mourners!" "Tubayhon abdai shlama - congratulations you makers of
                            > peace!" "Tubayhon laylen d'itirdepu mittol tsaddikutha d'dilhon malkutha
                            > d'shemaya - congratulations to you who are persecuted because of
                            > righteousness, yours is the Kingdom of Heaven!" The Son of Man told them
                            > that their time had come and they would be rewarded. Justice will prevail
                            > after all.
                            >
                            Did he never attempt to institute this justice in the now? Did he never
                            call the leaders of Israel to a new path?
                            > What specific
                            >
                            >> action script would one who was Son of Man think he needed to follow?
                            >>
                            > Daniel 7:13 חָזֵה הֲוֵית בְּחֶזְוֵי לֵֽילְיָא וַאֲרוּ עִם־עֲנָנֵי שְׁמַיָּא
                            > כְּבַר אֱנָשׁ אָתֵה הֲוָה וְעַד־עַתִּיק יֹֽומַיָּא מְטָה וּקְדָמֹוהִי
                            > הַקְרְבֽוּהִי׃
                            >
                            > I saw in the night visions, and, behold, [one] like the Son of man came with
                            > the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him
                            > near before him.
                            >

                            Yes, he comes /to/ the Ancient of days, not to earth.
                            > But the SOM came at the END and Jesus was already there. This is why he
                            > spoke of the SOM in the 3rd person. He therefore had to die and as he told
                            > Pilatus, return on the clouds of Heaven when he would judge those who would
                            > enter his malkutha d'alaha.
                            >
                            >
                            Where is the mention of the SoM /returning/ on the clouds? And isn't
                            the role of judge a role also that the both Israel and its Messiah has?

                            Jeffrey

                            --
                            Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
                            1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
                            Chicago, Illinois
                            e-mail jgibson000@...



                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Jack Kilmon
                            Sorry about the delay in response. Real life called. ... From: Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 4:29 PM To:
                            Message 13 of 23 , Feb 4, 2011
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Sorry about the delay in response. Real life called.

                              --------------------------------------------------
                              From: <jgibson000@...>
                              Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 4:29 PM
                              To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                              Subject: Re: [John_Lit] The Targums and the "Son of Man" title

                              > On 2/3/2011 4:12 PM, Jack Kilmon wrote:
                              >>
                              >>> I am afraid that this does not answer my question. What would someone
                              >>> being the Davidic Son of man entail?
                              >>>
                              >> I don't think the Son of Man was Davidic.


                              > I meant to write Danielic.

                              >> unless I can be convinced Psalm
                              >> 144:3 (the only place it is mentioned outside of Daniel) proves
                              >> differently.
                              >> The Son of Man would be a divine figure of Daniel 7 seated at the RIGHT
                              >> HAND
                              >> of God (the right hand was where all of God's mojo comes from) and the
                              >> eschatological arbiter of judgment. I recall this is discussed in detail
                              >> by
                              >> Darrell Brock (Blasphemy and Exultation in Judaism.
                              >>
                              >>
                              > Great. But how would one be this Son of Man -- who really is Israel --
                              > on earth before the day of Judgment?

                              We have to keep in mind that we have to look at this in the context of
                              Jesus' sayings and try to evaluate what HE thought because there was no more
                              consensus then among the "scholars" than now. Since the HJ quest has been
                              primarily focused on his sayings corpus we have to look at what Jesus said
                              about the SOM. As I said, he spoke about the SOM in the 3rd person since he
                              could not come FROM heaven on a cloudburst until he went to heaven UNLESS
                              the SOM was not coming but going (see below). We are also very familiar
                              with "normative" Mosaic Judaism. If Jesus was outside of that box (my
                              opinion) as an Enochian Jew, his view of the Bar Nasha would not necessarily
                              be that which we extrapolate from the OT texts. Additionally, the view that
                              he learned growing up and the view he held as a developing adult which he
                              applied to himself may also not be the same. All we can do is look at the
                              sayings material:

                              Some are authentic to Jesus and others are not but the last saying in this
                              list is what I find more significant in how Jesus saw himself as being the
                              SOM and found itself in the Matthean tradition.

                              Matthew 8:20 And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds
                              of the air [have] nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay [his]
                              head.

                              Mark 8:31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many
                              things, and be rejected of the elders, and [of] the chief priests, and
                              scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

                              Matthew 9:6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to
                              forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy
                              bed, and go unto thine house.

                              Matthew 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into
                              another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities
                              of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

                              Matthew 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold
                              a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But
                              wisdom is justified of her children.

                              Matthew 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

                              Matthew 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall
                              be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not
                              be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the [world] to come.

                              Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's
                              belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart
                              of the earth.

                              Matthew 13:37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed
                              is the Son of man;

                              Matthew 13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall
                              gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do
                              iniquity;

                              Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked
                              his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

                              Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with
                              his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

                              Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which
                              shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his
                              kingdom.

                              Matthew 17:9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them,
                              saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from
                              the dead.

                              Matthew 17:12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew
                              him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also
                              the Son of man suffer of them.

                              Matthew 17:22 And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son
                              of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men:

                              Matthew 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

                              Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye
                              which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in
                              the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the
                              twelve tribes of Israel.

                              Matthew 20:18 Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be
                              betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn
                              him to death,

                              Matthew 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to
                              minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

                              Matthew 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even
                              unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

                              Matthew 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven:
                              and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son
                              of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. (this is
                              right out of Enoch 7)

                              Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noe [were], so shall also the coming of
                              the Son of man be.

                              Matthew 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so
                              shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

                              Matthew 24:44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think
                              not the Son of man cometh.

                              Matthew 25:13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour
                              wherein the Son of man cometh.

                              Matthew 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy
                              angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

                              Matthew 26:2 Ye know that after two days is [the feast of] the passover,
                              and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.

                              Matthew 26:24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto
                              that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man
                              if he had not been born.

                              Matthew 26:45 Then cometh he to his disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep
                              on now, and take [your] rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of
                              Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.

                              Matthew 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto
                              you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of
                              power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

                              λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς Σὺ εἶπας πλὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι ὄψεσθε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ
                              ἀνθρώπου καθήμενον ἐκ δεξιῶν τῆς δυνάμεως καὶ ἐρχόμενον ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ
                              οὐρανοῦ

                              ἔρχομαι means BOTH arriving or returning, coming and going. It could
                              just as well mean that Jesus saw himself as GOING in a cloud to the throne
                              to be seated at the right hand of God as in Daniel. The Aramaic Chayaya is
                              also coming or going. This would accommodate him as the SOM on earth before
                              the end times and an ethical rather than apocalytpic eschatology that sets
                              up the apocalyptic in the future, the Parousia. Luke appears to confirm
                              this at Acts 1:9 "And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, HE
                              WAS TAKEN UP; AND A CLOUD RECEIVED HIM out of their sight."


                              >
                              >>> How would this identity manifest
                              >>> itself in the villages and by ways of Palestine.
                              >>>
                              >> The ordinary am ha-aretz were disenfranchised. They lived poorly,
                              >> dressed
                              >> poorly and were highly taxed. They were the last at the temple, lucky if
                              >> they could afford a sacrificial dove. If they were infirm or maimed they
                              >> could not even approach the temple precinct.The Son of Man could only
                              >> give
                              >> them hope and reassurance that in the Malkutha d'alaha it was they who
                              >> would
                              >> be first in line.
                              >>
                              > That's it? That's how is to be Israel/the saints of the most high/the
                              > vindicated one -- by promising pie in the sky to the downtrodden?

                              That "pie" was being FIRST in the Kingdom of Heaven for eternity.


                              >>
                              >>> How specifically was
                              >>> one to act if one were to claim this role as one's own?
                              >>>
                              >> The SOM would go from village to village informing the poor and
                              >> under-trodden by the temple elite that their time was coming. "Tubayhon
                              >> l'miskene - congratulations you poor!" "Tubayhon l'abile -
                              >> congratulations
                              >> you mourners!" "Tubayhon abdai shlama - congratulations you makers of
                              >> peace!" "Tubayhon laylen d'itirdepu mittol tsaddikutha d'dilhon malkutha
                              >> d'shemaya - congratulations to you who are persecuted because of
                              >> righteousness, yours is the Kingdom of Heaven!" The Son of Man told them
                              >> that their time had come and they would be rewarded. Justice will prevail
                              >> after all.
                              >>
                              > Did he never attempt to institute this justice in the now? Did he never
                              > call the leaders of Israel to a new path?

                              The "now" was not his schtick. His primary message and movement was based
                              around the imminent malkutha d'alaha "Kingdom of God." It was right around
                              the corner so suffer the "now" just a little longer and be righteous and
                              "hayden chadau w'arwazu d'agrakon seggy b'shemaya hakanna ger radapu
                              lanabiyye demin qadamaykon" Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great [is]
                              your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before
                              you.



                              >> What specific
                              >>
                              >>> action script would one who was Son of Man think he needed to follow?
                              >>>
                              >> Daniel 7:13 חָזֵה הֲוֵית בְּחֶזְוֵי לֵֽילְיָא וַאֲרוּ עִם־עֲנָנֵי
                              >> שְׁמַיָּא
                              >> כְּבַר אֱנָשׁ אָתֵה הֲוָה וְעַד־עַתִּיק יֹֽומַיָּא מְטָה וּקְדָמֹוהִי
                              >> הַקְרְבֽוּהִי׃
                              >>
                              >> I saw in the night visions, and, behold, [one] like the Son of man came
                              >> with
                              >> the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought
                              >> him
                              >> near before him.
                              >>
                              >
                              > Yes, he comes /to/ the Ancient of days, not to earth.

                              Or he GOES to instead of COMES.

                              >> But the SOM came at the END and Jesus was already there. This is why he
                              >> spoke of the SOM in the 3rd person. He therefore had to die and as he
                              >> told
                              >> Pilatus, return on the clouds of Heaven when he would judge those who
                              >> would
                              >> enter his malkutha d'alaha.
                              >>
                              >>
                              > Where is the mention of the SoM /returning/ on the clouds? And isn't
                              > the role of judge a role also that the both Israel and its Messiah has?

                              Daniel 7:13 and paraphrased by Matthew 26:64 but as I said, I think Jesus as
                              SOM was GOING in a cloud (Acts 1:9) and would RETURN in a cloud at the
                              second coming.

                              Jack

                              Jack Kilmon
                              San Antonio, TX

                              >
                              > Jeffrey
                              >
                              > --
                              > Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
                              > 1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
                              > Chicago, Illinois
                              > e-mail jgibson000@...
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > ------------------------------------
                              >
                              > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                              > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                              > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
                              > MESSAGE ARCHIVE:
                              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messagesYahoo! Groups
                              > Links
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.