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

The Targums and the "Son of Man" title

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Regards,
      John Ronning




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Jack Kilmon
      ... From: John Ronning Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 11:27 AM To: Subject: [John_Lit] The
      Message 2 of 23 , Feb 3, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        --------------------------------------------------
        From: "John Ronning" <jronning@...>
        Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 11:27 AM
        To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
        Subject: [John_Lit] The Targums and the "Son of Man" title

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


        Hi John:

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

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

        Use of ממרא
        and נהורא

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

        I do not think that the use of the self designation בר אנשׁ by Jesus, about
        30 times in Matthew, was to avoid or obscure the direct claim to being the
        Messiah. I don't think Jesus considered himself to be the Messiah but
        instead exactly what he claimed himself many times, the "Son of Man" of
        Daniel and Enoch.

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Quoted in the Book of Jude:

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

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

        Other references to the SON OF MAN in Enoch:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Regards,

        Jack Kilmon
        San Antonio, TX
      • jgibson000@comcast.net
        ... And what exactly would that claim entail as a public and biographical fact? And how does one claim to be the Son of Man of Daniel without claiming that
        Message 3 of 23 , Feb 3, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          On 2/3/2011 1:27 PM, Jack Kilmon wrote:
          >
          > I do not think that the use of the self designation בר אנשׁ by Jesus, about
          > 30 times in Matthew, was to avoid or obscure the direct claim to being the
          > Messiah. I don't think Jesus considered himself to be the Messiah but
          > instead exactly what he claimed himself many times, the "Son of Man" of
          > Daniel and Enoch.
          >

          And what exactly would that claim entail as a public and biographical
          fact? And how does one claim to be the Son of Man of Daniel without
          claiming that one is God's elect and the true representative/embodiment
          of Israel -- which, at least to my eyes, is what the role of Messiah
          involves?

          Jeffrey

          --
          Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
          1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
          Chicago, Illinois
          e-mail jgibson000@...
        • John Ronning
          Hi Jack, That s all very interesting -- I don t have the background to comment on all of the Enoch references. I tend to think that the DSS don t tell us
          Message 4 of 23 , Feb 3, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Jack,

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

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

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

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

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

            Regards,
            John




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




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

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

            Hi John:

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

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

            Use of ממרא
            and נהורא

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

            I do not think that the use of the self designation בר אנשׁ by Jesus, about
            30 times in Matthew, was to avoid or obscure the direct claim to being the
            Messiah. I don't think Jesus considered himself to be the Messiah but
            instead exactly what he claimed himself many times, the "Son of Man" of
            Daniel and Enoch.

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

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

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

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

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

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

            Quoted in the Book of Jude:

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

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

            Other references to the SON OF MAN in Enoch:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            Regards,

            Jack Kilmon
            San Antonio, TX







            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Jack Kilmon
            ... From: Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 1:34 PM To: Subject: Re: [John_Lit] The Targums and
            Message 5 of 23 , Feb 3, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              --------------------------------------------------
              From: <jgibson000@...>
              Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 1:34 PM
              To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
              Subject: Re: [John_Lit] The Targums and the "Son of Man" title

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


              Hi Jeffret:

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

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

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

              Regards,

              Jack

              Jack Kilmon
              San Antonio, TX
            • jgibson000@comcast.net
              ... I am afraid that this does not answer my question. What would someone being the Davidic Son of man entail? How would this identity manifest itself in
              Message 6 of 23 , Feb 3, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                On 2/3/2011 2:46 PM, Jack Kilmon wrote:
                >
                > --------------------------------------------------
                > From:<jgibson000@...>
                > Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 1:34 PM
                > To:<johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] The Targums and the "Son of Man" title
                >
                >
                >> On 2/3/2011 1:27 PM, Jack Kilmon wrote:
                >>
                >>> I do not think that the use of the self designation בר אנשׁ by Jesus,
                >>> about
                >>> 30 times in Matthew, was to avoid or obscure the direct claim to being
                >>> the
                >>> Messiah. I don't think Jesus considered himself to be the Messiah but
                >>> instead exactly what he claimed himself many times, the "Son of Man" of
                >>> Daniel and Enoch.
                >>>
                >>>
                >> And what exactly would that claim entail as a public and biographical
                >> fact? And how does one claim to be the Son of Man of Daniel without
                >> claiming that one is God's elect and the true representative/embodiment
                >> of Israel -- which, at least to my eyes, is what the role of Messiah
                >> involves?
                >>
                >> Jeffrey
                >>
                >> --
                >> Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
                >> 1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
                >> Chicago, Illinois
                >> e-mail jgibson000@...
                >>
                >
                > Hi Jeffret:
                >
                > Somehow and somewhere the בר אנשׁ and the משׁיחא became conflated. The
                > role of the Messiah in a Jewish context appears to be ambiguous but
                > redefined by Christians. In one Jewish definition (Maimonides), "And if a
                > king shall arise from among the House of David, studying Torah and occupied
                > with commandments like his father David, according to the written and oral
                > Torah, and he will impel all of Israel to follow it and to strengthen
                > breaches in its observance, and will fight Hashem's [God's] wars, this one
                > is to be treated as if he were the anointed one.
                >
                > Messiahs (anointed ones) had always been priests or kings, like David, a
                > warrior king who would overthrow the oppressors and rule over the re-united
                > tribes of Israel. The hope for a Messiah, a Pharisaic concept, must have
                > been at a fever pitch in the last two centuries BCE (134-63 BCE when a new
                > generation of Essenes emerge at the time of Hyrcanus and Alexander Jannaeus
                > and persecuted Pharisees come into the group. This is when the 4QTestimonia
                > was written and the Manual of Discipline expanded. Suddenly we have full
                > blown messianism which includes the advent of a PROPHET and the priestly
                > (Aaronic) and royal (Davidic) messiahs (1QS 9-11). This is also the time
                > when the basic foundations of the T12P (Testimonies of the 12
                > Patriarchs)...previous thought to be of later Christian composition..was
                > laid with its priestly and royal messiahs. T12P was a pharisaic work.
                > During the Roman Period (63-37 BCE) the Damascus Document (CD), the oldest
                > copy of which (4QDb) of 75-50 BCE now conjoins the two messiahs into ONE,
                > the Messiah of Aaron and Israel (CD19:10-11; 20:1; 12:23; 14:19).
                >
                > In spite of 1 Enoch chapter 48 which is late Ethiopian, I do not think, as
                > some do, that they were the same or that it was Jesus who conflated the two.
                > If Jesus was, as I suspect, an Enochian Jew I think he saw them as
                > seaparate. Of course the ongoing contention and debate over the two will
                > probably never be settled and we all have to take a side, right?
                >
                >
                I am afraid that this does not answer my question. What would someone
                being the Davidic Son of man entail? How would this identity manifest
                itself in the villages and by ways of Palestine. How specifically was
                one to act if one were to claim this role as one's own? What specific
                action script would one who was Son of Man think he needed to follow?

                Jeffrey

                --
                Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
                1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
                Chicago, Illinois
                e-mail jgibson000@...
              • Jack Kilmon
                ... From: John Ronning Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 2:18 PM To: Subject: Re: [John_Lit] The
                Message 7 of 23 , Feb 3, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  --------------------------------------------------
                  From: "John Ronning" <jronning@...>
                  Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 2:18 PM
                  To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                  Subject: Re: [John_Lit] The Targums and the "Son of Man" title

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

                  Hi John:

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

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

                  Regards,

                  Jack

                  Jack Kilmon
                  San Antonio, TX
                • Jack Kilmon
                  ... From: Jack Kilmon Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 2:46 PM To: Subject: Re: [John_Lit]
                  Message 8 of 23 , Feb 3, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --------------------------------------------------
                    From: "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...>
                    Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 2:46 PM
                    To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                    Subject: Re: [John_Lit] The Targums and the "Son of Man" title

                    > Hi Jeffret: (ooops! Sorry, old friend) JEFFREY
                    >
                    > Somehow and somewhere the בר אנשׁ and the משׁיחא became conflated. The
                    > role of the Messiah in a Jewish context appears to be ambiguous but
                    > redefined by Christians. In one Jewish definition (Maimonides), "And if
                    > a
                  • Jack Kilmon
                    ... From: Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 2:53 PM To: Subject: Re: [John_Lit] The Targums and
                    Message 9 of 23 , Feb 3, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --------------------------------------------------
                      From: <jgibson000@...>
                      Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 2:53 PM
                      To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                      Subject: Re: [John_Lit] The Targums and the "Son of Man" title

                      > On 2/3/2011 2:46 PM, Jack Kilmon wrote:
                      >>
                      >> --------------------------------------------------
                      >> From:<jgibson000@...>
                      >> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 1:34 PM
                      >> To:<johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                      >> Subject: Re: [John_Lit] The Targums and the "Son of Man" title
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>> On 2/3/2011 1:27 PM, Jack Kilmon wrote:
                      >>>
                      >>>> I do not think that the use of the self designation בר אנשׁ by Jesus,
                      >>>> about
                      >>>> 30 times in Matthew, was to avoid or obscure the direct claim to being
                      >>>> the
                      >>>> Messiah. I don't think Jesus considered himself to be the Messiah but
                      >>>> instead exactly what he claimed himself many times, the "Son of Man" of
                      >>>> Daniel and Enoch.
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>> And what exactly would that claim entail as a public and biographical
                      >>> fact? And how does one claim to be the Son of Man of Daniel without
                      >>> claiming that one is God's elect and the true representative/embodiment
                      >>> of Israel -- which, at least to my eyes, is what the role of Messiah
                      >>> involves?
                      >>>
                      >>> Jeffrey
                      >>>
                      >>> --
                      >>> Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
                      >>> 1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
                      >>> Chicago, Illinois
                      >>> e-mail jgibson000@...
                      >>>
                      >>
                      >> Hi Jeffret:
                      >>
                      >> Somehow and somewhere the בר אנשׁ and the משׁיחא became conflated. The
                      >> role of the Messiah in a Jewish context appears to be ambiguous but
                      >> redefined by Christians. In one Jewish definition (Maimonides), "And if
                      >> a
                      >> king shall arise from among the House of David, studying Torah and
                      >> occupied
                      >> with commandments like his father David, according to the written and
                      >> oral
                      >> Torah, and he will impel all of Israel to follow it and to strengthen
                      >> breaches in its observance, and will fight Hashem's [God's] wars, this
                      >> one
                      >> is to be treated as if he were the anointed one.
                      >>
                      >> Messiahs (anointed ones) had always been priests or kings, like David, a
                      >> warrior king who would overthrow the oppressors and rule over the
                      >> re-united
                      >> tribes of Israel. The hope for a Messiah, a Pharisaic concept, must have
                      >> been at a fever pitch in the last two centuries BCE (134-63 BCE when a
                      >> new
                      >> generation of Essenes emerge at the time of Hyrcanus and Alexander
                      >> Jannaeus
                      >> and persecuted Pharisees come into the group. This is when the
                      >> 4QTestimonia
                      >> was written and the Manual of Discipline expanded. Suddenly we have full
                      >> blown messianism which includes the advent of a PROPHET and the priestly
                      >> (Aaronic) and royal (Davidic) messiahs (1QS 9-11). This is also the time
                      >> when the basic foundations of the T12P (Testimonies of the 12
                      >> Patriarchs)...previous thought to be of later Christian composition..was
                      >> laid with its priestly and royal messiahs. T12P was a pharisaic work.
                      >> During the Roman Period (63-37 BCE) the Damascus Document (CD), the
                      >> oldest
                      >> copy of which (4QDb) of 75-50 BCE now conjoins the two messiahs into ONE,
                      >> the Messiah of Aaron and Israel (CD19:10-11; 20:1; 12:23; 14:19).
                      >>
                      >> In spite of 1 Enoch chapter 48 which is late Ethiopian, I do not think,
                      >> as
                      >> some do, that they were the same or that it was Jesus who conflated the
                      >> two.
                      >> If Jesus was, as I suspect, an Enochian Jew I think he saw them as
                      >> seaparate. Of course the ongoing contention and debate over the two will
                      >> probably never be settled and we all have to take a side, right?
                      >>
                      >>
                      > I am afraid that this does not answer my question. What would someone
                      > being the Davidic Son of man entail? How would this identity manifest
                      > itself in the villages and by ways of Palestine. How specifically was
                      > one to act if one were to claim this role as one's own? What specific
                      > action script would one who was Son of Man think he needed to follow?
                      >
                      > Jeffrey
                      >
                      > --
                      > Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
                      > 1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
                      > Chicago, Illinois
                      > e-mail jgibson000@...


                      OK, let me take your questions individually:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                      Regards,

                      Jack

                      Jack Kilmon
                      San Antonio, TX

                      >
                    • jgibson000@comcast.net
                      ... I meant to write Danielic. ... Great. But how would one be this Son of Man -- who really is Israel -- on earth before the day of Judgment? ... That s it?
                      Message 10 of 23 , Feb 3, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On 2/3/2011 4:12 PM, Jack Kilmon wrote:
                        >
                        >> I am afraid that this does not answer my question. What would someone
                        >> being the Davidic Son of man entail?
                        >>
                        > I don't think the Son of Man was Davidic.
                        I meant to write Danielic.
                        > unless I can be convinced Psalm
                        > 144:3 (the only place it is mentioned outside of Daniel) proves differently.
                        > The Son of Man would be a divine figure of Daniel 7 seated at the RIGHT HAND
                        > of God (the right hand was where all of God's mojo comes from) and the
                        > eschatological arbiter of judgment. I recall this is discussed in detail by
                        > Darrell Brock (Blasphemy and Exultation in Judaism.
                        >
                        >
                        Great. But how would one be this Son of Man -- who really is Israel --
                        on earth before the day of Judgment?

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

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

                        Jeffrey

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



                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Jack Kilmon
                        Sorry about the delay in response. Real life called. ... From: Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 4:29 PM To:
                        Message 11 of 23 , Feb 4, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Sorry about the delay in response. Real life called.

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

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


                          > I meant to write Danielic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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



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

                          Or he GOES to instead of COMES.

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

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

                          Jack

                          Jack Kilmon
                          San Antonio, TX

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