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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.