On the original meaning of "Son of Panthera" as "Son of David"

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

On the original meaning of "Son of Panthera" as "Son of David"

Post by Giuseppe »

In his book on the orthodox faith, De fide orthodoxa , John Damascene (eighth century) reports that one of David's children was Levi, who begot two sons, Melchi and Panther.

'Ho Panthèr egennèse ton Barpanthèra'"

The Panther begat the Panther's son."


In his Panarion lxxx, , Epiphanius (4th century) knows that

"Joseph was the brother of Cleophas, and both the sons of Jacob, whose other name was Panther."



Hence "son of Panthera" meant both:
  • Son of David
  • Son of Joseph
When Celsus's Jew attacked Jesus as Son of Panthera, very probably he used against Jesus a davidic title claimed by early Christians for their Jesus.

Originally, then, at least for outsiders, the davidic title connected with Jesus was ipso facto connected with sedition. This may explain why in Mark Jesus rejects the davidic title (for example, when he calls "Satan" Peter).

Out of embarrassment.

This removes marcionite influence as the reason for Mark having Jesus who rejects the davidic title.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: On the original meaning of "Son of Panthera" as "Son of David"

Post by Giuseppe »


Born then of the line of Nathan, the son of David, Levi begot Melchi and Panther: Panther begot Barpanther, so called. This Barpanther begot Joachim: Joachim begot the holy Mother of God .

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33044.htm

It is evident that Levi == son of David = Panther.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: On the original meaning of "Son of Panthera" as "Son of David"

Post by Giuseppe »

Independently from me, this author reached the my same conclusion:

The Gospel of Mark goes to great lengths to show that during his lifetime Jesus distanced himself from any public statements about being a populist leader, messianic claimant or miracle worker (Mark 1:23-25, 1:34, 1:40-45, 5:43, 7:36, 8:26, 8:29-30). William Wrede proposed that the “Messianic Secret” was a myth created to explain why those close to him did not know of his miraculous deeds, or that he was the Messiah. William Wrede, The Messianic Secret, James Clark 1917 (original edition 1901).

On the other hand, the author of Mark may have felt it necessary to create the “Messianic Secret”, because he was responding to competing traditions or texts that presented Jesus as an aggressive messianic claimant. This would have placed Jesus in direct conflict with the Roman system that claimed only the Emperor wielded imperial power, and that the only legitimate kings where those the Emperor had appointed as his local representatives. “The Messianic Secret” was a device created to present a Greek speaking audience with an otherworldly modest and apolitical Jesus who had no intention of recruiting followers for a temporal army.

https://rogerviklund.wordpress.com/2011 ... inal-text/


Celsus's Jew's accusation against Jesus as "son of Panthera" (=i.e."son of David"), is strong independent evidence of "competing traditions or texts that presented Jesus as an aggressive messianic claimant".
Post Reply