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

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

Expand Messages
  • Jack Kilmon
    ... From: John Ronning Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 11:27 AM To: Subject: [John_Lit] The
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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.