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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 23 , Feb 2, 2011
      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 2 of 23 , Feb 3, 2011
        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 3 of 23 , Feb 3, 2011
          --------------------------------------------------
          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 4 of 23 , Feb 3, 2011
            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 5 of 23 , Feb 3, 2011
              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 6 of 23 , Feb 3, 2011
                --------------------------------------------------
                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 7 of 23 , Feb 3, 2011
                  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 8 of 23 , Feb 3, 2011
                    --------------------------------------------------
                    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 9 of 23 , Feb 3, 2011
                      --------------------------------------------------
                      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 10 of 23 , Feb 3, 2011
                        --------------------------------------------------
                        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 11 of 23 , Feb 3, 2011
                          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 12 of 23 , Feb 4, 2011
                            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.