MrShorty Posted January 6, 2012 Report Share Posted January 6, 2012 I was reading in Luke 18 a couple of weeks ago, and came across something that piqued my interest. In verses 35-43, we have the account of Jesus healing a blind man. The thing that stood out to me was in verses 38 and 39, where the blind man addresses Jesus as "thou Son of David." In our day, the "Son of David" is code for the promised Messiah who, the OT prophets said, would be a descendant of David. But was that the case in Jesus's time as well? Was the geneology (especially of David's line) publicly known so that the people knew who had a legitimate claim to David's throne, and then used this phrase to acknowledge his geneology? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maureen Posted January 6, 2012 Report Share Posted January 6, 2012 From the NET Bible:18:35 As Jesus approached Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the road begging. 18:36 When he heard a crowd going by, he asked what was going on. 18:37 They told him, “Jesus the Nazarene is passing by.” 18:38 So he called out, “Jesus, Son of David,111 have mercy on me!” 18:39 And those who were in front scolded him to get him to be quiet, but he shouted even more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” 18:40 So Jesus stopped and ordered the beggar to be brought to him. When the man came near, Jesus asked him, 18:41 “What do you want me to do for you?” He replied, “Lord, let me see again.”18:42 Jesus said to him, “Receive your sight; your faith has healed you.”18:43 And immediately he regained his sight and followed Jesus, praising God. When all the people saw it, they too gave praise to God.111sn Jesus was more than a Nazarene to this blind person, who saw quite well that Jesus was Son of David. He understood what Luke 7:22-23 affirms. There was a tradition in Judaism that the Son of David (Solomon) had great powers of healing (Josephus, Ant. 8.2.5 [8.42-49]).NET Bible : The Biblical Studies FoundationM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrShorty Posted January 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2012 There was a tradition in Judaism that the Son of David (Solomon) had great powers of healing (Josephus, Ant. 8.2.5 [8.42-49]). Does this then suggest that, to the Jews of that day, the phrase "Son of David" was sort of a euphemism for "someone with great powers of healing?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volgadon Posted January 6, 2012 Report Share Posted January 6, 2012 Does this then suggest that, to the Jews of that day, the phrase "Son of David" was sort of a euphemism for "someone with great powers of healing?"No. This suggests that the NET Bible often engages in faulty readings of sources. Nowhere in the passage does Josephus link the healings, excorcisms and philosophy with the term "son of David" nor does it he use it that way later on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maureen Posted January 7, 2012 Report Share Posted January 7, 2012 No. This suggests that the NET Bible often engages in faulty readings of sources. Nowhere in the passage does Josephus link the healings, excorcisms and philosophy with the term "son of David" nor does it he use it that way later on.Others disagree with you volgadon. I've added a link that I can't copy and paste; start reading at 3.4 Solomon as Exorcist:Messiah, the healer of the sick: a study of Jesus as the Son of David in the ... - Lidija Novaković - Google BooksM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volgadon Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 Others disagree with you volgadon. I've added a link that I can't copy and paste; start reading at 3.4 Solomon as Exorcist:Messiah, the healer of the sick: a study of Jesus as the Son of David in the ... - Lidija Novaković - Google BooksM.Maureen, are you sure you've read this through? Try from p. 103 onwards. The book actually supports what I was saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maureen Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 Maureen, are you sure you've read this through? Try from p. 103 onwards. The book actually supports what I was saying.Yes, I can see how the Josephus example is not the best to use when defining the term "Son of David" but it does appear as shown on page 106 that "In none of the text do we find the term "Son of David" used in the absolute sense, but always as a qualifier of the reference to Solomon." So like John the Baptist is a type of Elijah, so too is Jesus shown as a type of Solomon in the healing sense.M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volgadon Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 From p. 106. "Furthermore, the term "Son of David" is always applied to the historical Solomon, and not to a person who possesses the knowledge of Solomon and uses it in practice." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volgadon Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 "It is therefore very questionable whether we can speak about Solomon redivivus, even less about the titular use of the term "Son of David" in this sense. The ability to heal by exorcising demons with the help of certain techniques left over from Solomon does not qualify a person to bear the title "Son of David" "THe author strongly disagrees that Jesus is depicted here as a type of Solomon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maureen Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 I agree that's that what the author has stated, but maybe the people calling out "Son of David" in the gospels didn't know that. :) M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volgadon Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 I agree that's that what the author has stated, but maybe the people calling out "Son of David" in the gospels didn't know that. :)M.Please show me some evidence that they did consider "Son of David" a title for Solomon or a Solomonic figure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maureen Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 Please show me some evidence that they did consider "Son of David" a title for Solomon or a Solomonic figure.I was slightly teasing with my post (see emoticon).M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volgadon Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 I was slightly teasing with my post (see emoticon).M.As long as we're in agreement that the evidence doesn't support the NET Bible's reading of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maureen Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 As long as we're in agreement that the evidence doesn't support the NET Bible's reading of this. I'm in agreement that the Josephus text does not describe Solomon as the "Son of David" therefore your argument is valid, but I can see how they rationalized their choice to use it.M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volgadon Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 I'm in agreement that the Josephus text does not describe Solomon as the "Son of David" therefore your argument is valid, but I can see how they rationalized their choice to use it.M.I can also see how they rationalise their choice- after all, I pointed out how they misread it- but the book you linked to shows at length how such a rationale is untenable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) Did everyone know Jesus's lineage?At minimun, either Mark of Matthew did not. At least one of them got it very wrong. Edited January 12, 2012 by Snow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seminarysnoozer Posted January 11, 2012 Report Share Posted January 11, 2012 No. This suggests that the NET Bible often engages in faulty readings of sources. Nowhere in the passage does Josephus link the healings, excorcisms and philosophy with the term "son of David" nor does it he use it that way later on.What is the significance of understanding it that way? Does it matter to our gospel whether Christ is a literal descendant of David or a "euphemistic" descendant of David, as in the way a lot of us are adopted into Abraham's lineage? In other words, what is the difference between someone who is a literal descendant of the house of Israel versus an adopted descendant in the grand scheme of things? Does not the "adopted" son have a a right to the throne as well? Will the designation of literal (genetic link) versus adopted have some eternal significance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volgadon Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 What is the significance of understanding it that way? Does it matter to our gospel whether Christ is a literal descendant of David or a "euphemistic" descendant of David, as in the way a lot of us are adopted into Abraham's lineage? In other words, what is the difference between someone who is a literal descendant of the house of Israel versus an adopted descendant in the grand scheme of things? Does not the "adopted" son have a a right to the throne as well? Will the designation of literal (genetic link) versus adopted have some eternal significance?I'm not sure you understood what I was saying. Maureen provided a source claiming that the title "Son of David" was applied to Solomon-like healers and excorcists. I pointed out that the evidence doesn't support this reading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maureen Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 No. This suggests that the NET Bible often engages in faulty readings of sources. Nowhere in the passage does Josephus link the healings, excorcisms and philosophy with the term "son of David" nor does it he use it that way later on. What is the significance of understanding it that way? Does it matter to our gospel whether Christ is a literal descendant of David or a "euphemistic" descendant of David, as in the way a lot of us are adopted into Abraham's lineage? In other words, what is the difference between someone who is a literal descendant of the house of Israel versus an adopted descendant in the grand scheme of things? Does not the "adopted" son have a a right to the throne as well? Will the designation of literal (genetic link) versus adopted have some eternal significance? All three gospels (Matthew, Mark & Luke) show someone calling Jesus "Son of David" in these scenes where Jesus is healing someone (whether physical or exorcism). The question would be what is the significance of Jesus being called "Son of David"? What did the people asking for healing mean when they called Jesus "Son of David"? The NET Bible's note (a Josephus text) suggests that the people thought of Jesus as a type of Solomon, since Solomon had the power to heal. The problem with using the Josephus text is that, no where in the text does it say that Solomon is known as "Son of David". The NET Bible possibly came to that conclusion since in other texts/manuscripts (like Proverbs 1:1) these descriptions are together. But are Solomon and Son of David, appositions? Does Son of David explain or modify the name Solomon, so that when we read the words "Son of David" is it safe to say that means Solomon? I don't think a person can come to a firm conclusion that Son of David always means Solomon (or a type of Solomon) based on the Josephus text. And I doubt that the term Son of David was pointing to a genelogical meaning.M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volgadon Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 All three gospels (Matthew, Mark & Luke) show someone calling Jesus "Son of David" in these scenes where Jesus is healing someone (whether physical or exorcism). The question would be what is the significance of Jesus being called "Son of David"? What did the people asking for healing mean when they called Jesus "Son of David"? The NET Bible's note (a Josephus text) suggests that the people thought of Jesus as a type of Solomon, since Solomon had the power to heal. The problem with using the Josephus text is that, no where in the text does it say that Solomon is known as "Son of David". The NET Bible possibly came to that conclusion since in other texts/manuscripts (like Proverbs 1:1) these descriptions are together. But are Solomon and Son of David, appositions? Does Son of David explain or modify the name Solomon, so that when we read the words "Son of David" is it safe to say that means Solomon? I don't think a person can come to a firm conclusion that Son of David always means Solomon (or a type of Solomon) based on the Josephus text. And I doubt that the term Son of David was pointing to a genelogical meaning.M.In the texts where Solomon is refered to as son of David, it is never alone and never used a title. It is an additional description, an identifier of Solomon. Accuracy was crucial in ancient magic.Nor do the gospels depict Jesus as employing any Solomonic methods for healings/excorcisms. When Son of David is used alone, especially at such a remove from the historical David, it usually refers to the Messiah. His reign would provide miraculous healings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seminarysnoozer Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 another old post on the lineage of Jesusin any event, both Mary and Joseph (both lineages) were from David - Joseph was not really Jesus' real father of coarse, but he was a son of David through his mother - Mary. Interesting that this prophecy was fulfilled through the mother's line of the family, rather than the father's line.As you point out in those quotes "The cool thing is, we all share some common ancestry with Jesus... we are all sons and daughters of Adam too, and that makes us grandsons and granddaughters of... that's right ... We are all children of God - and His grandchildren too... "Then, actual lineage means very little as we are all of the same lineage in that respect. There is no actual value (at least nowadays) to point out any specific lineage. Even for us now, would it make a difference to us, more than the historical interesting fact that He had a right to the priesthood, that He was of a certain lineage? ... to fulfill the prophecy, I suppose. But it has no other value? In other words, what difference does it make in the grand scheme of things who begat who 10 to 20 generations ago if we are all sons and daughters of Adam? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrShorty Posted January 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 But are Solomon and Son of David, appositions? Does Son of David explain or modify the name Solomon, so that when we read the words "Son of David" is it safe to say that means Solomon? I don't think a person can come to a firm conclusion that Son of David always means Solomon (or a type of Solomon) based on the Josephus text. And I doubt that the term Son of David was pointing to a genelogical meaning.When Son of David is used alone, especially at such a remove from the historical David, it usually refers to the Messiah. His reign would provide miraculous healings.So would it be safe to say that, even when used by Jesus's contemporaries, calling Him "Son of David" was equivalent to stating that they believed/accepted that He was the promised Messiah? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volgadon Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 So would it be safe to say that, even when used by Jesus's contemporaries, calling Him "Son of David" was equivalent to stating that they believed/accepted that He was the promised Messiah?Or at least a messiah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.