Adam

Someone in this forum recently declared that the term "Son of Man" is never used in Q. This got me into intense study of the term. I found out that the term is used in Q, but only in Q1, which may be all the poster here meant. "Son of Man" appears in more gospel sources than not.

The best study of "Son of man" is by Maurice Casey in

Solution to the "Son of man" Problem in 2009
This link to Amazon displays the first 80 pages of his book, including the entire first chapter that reviews 2000 years of the literature. Casey also reviews himself and the scholars who reviewed his work. He shows conclusively there that traditional views are wrong, especially the German Lutheran view that the apocalyptic judge of Daniel 7:13 is in view or the Roman Catholic retrograde view that "Son of man" simply means "son of Adam". The rest of the book is to detail his more general solution that it often means "I" or "Man" in general, but occasionally means specifically Jesus's special role.

LegionOnomaMoi

Well, according to him anyway. But as much as I admit that there are semiticisms underlying the Greek of the NT in places, that doesn't mean we can reconstruct the underlying "aramaic" as readily as Casey would have us think (both in the monograph you refer to and in his An Aramaic Approach to Q. His chapter "Six Authentic Sayings" in the work you refer to is especially problematic.

EarlDoherty

I'm sure you are confusing "Son of Man" with "Messiah". It is the latter that never appears in Q. The former is all over the place.

And where did you "learn" that Son of Man appears only in Q1? In its apocalyptic meaning (which is the chief and most important one) it does not appear in Q1, but only in Q2. The only appearance of the phrase in Q1 is in the sense of a self-reference or euphemism for a human being.

As for Casey's book on the Son of Man, it is long out of date (I think it was in the early 80s). The theories he put forward haven't won over the field. From the sound of it, the 2009 publication you refer to presents the same theories the older one did.

Earl Doherty

Adam

We don't really disagree, Earl. I misstated my third sentence. Substitute "Q2" for "Q1".

I agree that the apocalyptic meaning appears only in Q2, at Luke 7:34 (perhaps) and 18:8. We agree that 9:58 is merely the idiomatic "I" about foxes having dens, but I don't agree that it is Q1. It is exactly duplicated in Mt 8:18, so by my more objective analysis that makes it Q2. (I regard Kloppenborg and Mack as letting their subjective ideology rule. It surely "sounds" like a Q1 saying.) I don't agree, however, that "Son of Man" is "all over the place" even in Q2.