dost

Hi.

A question about the historical Jesus. I have browsed through a few books on this topic, if I understand correctly, there is a general agreement among NT scholars that Jesus did not claim to be the Son of God, as in "more than a man". Such an understanding is the later Christian addition to the meaning of the term "son of God".

In short, it is said that "son of God" is a very common term in Judaism, which simply means someone who is a prophet of God, or someone who is a godly person and close to God. But it certainly did not mean "more than a man", as in divine. Hence, keeping the Jewish context in mind, if the historical Jesus did claim to be the son of God, he would have meant nothing more than to be a prophet of God etc. "the Son of God", as in "more than a man", is a later Christian understanding and there is no reason to suppose that the historical Jesus had this meaning/understanding in mind when he used the term "son of God".

Some scholars dispute the above and insist that Jesus did claim to be "the Son of God" - thus a divine figure and not just a mere man. Four gospel passages are used here. They are:

1. Parable of the wicked husbandmen (Mark 12:1-12=Matt 21:33-46= Luke 20:20-26=Thomas 65).

2. No one knows the Son except the Father..." Matt 11:27 and Luke 10:22

3. "of that day or the hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." Mark 13:32

I took the above examples from, "An Introduction to New Testament Christology" by Raymond E. Brown, pp. 88-89.

Brown concludes that it is likely that Jesus spoke and thought of himself as "the Son" which implies a very close and special relationship to God, although Brown acknowledges at the same time that Jesus never indisputably uses "the Son of God" title for himself.

Some comments on the above passages: (basically my own thoughts and concerns)

1 - Brown acknowledges that the parable may have undergone developments, so why should we suppose that the "Son" is not part of this development and could not have been added by later Christian communities? Also, if Jesus did use the term "son" in reference to himself, why should we suppose he meant anything more or different from the traditional Jewish understanding of it i.e., claiming to be a Prophet in line with other prophets who were killed? Brown says that the son stands in line of martyred and rejected prophets, but has an identity that goes beyond theirs. I presume he means by this that Jesus here claimed to be in some way more than a man?

2. Brown says that the saying contains many semetic features and "could well" reflect an original saying of Jesus, which implies there are at least some doubts surrounding its authenticity. Geza Vermes, who I understand is a well respected and authoritative scholar in the field of the historical Jesus research, says that the extant formulation of Matt. 11:25-27 and Lk. 11:25-27 has been declared by most NT critics as foreign to the idealogy of Jesus and is classified as the product of Gentile Hellenistic Christianity. (The authentic gospel of Jesus p. 229). Unfortunately, Vermes does not present the reasoning of the scholars so I do not understand why most NT scholars doubt the authenticity of these passages.

3. The problem here is that the passage indicates Jesus's limited knowledge, hence his unequality to God/Father. If "the Son" here means "more than a man", then we would have to suppose that Jesus claimed to be a mini-god like figure, someone kinda divine but not entirely, certainly less than the Father. But if Jesus did refer to himself as "the son" - should we suppose he had the same meaning in mind as in Judaism (thus claiming to be a prophet), or he had the new added meaning in mind which was later concieved by the Christians?

Can someone add some comments here regarding the above passages since I would like to know how most critics explain them. If most critics believe that Jesus did not claim to be "the Son of God" - a divine figure - then how do they explain the above passages, particularly the parable of the wicked husbandmen? Any books/online articles which discuss these passages and the question of Jesus's own view of himself? Is it likely that the historical Jesus actually used the term "son of God" irrespective of its meaning??

Thanks..

Steven Avery

A couple of quick points. The New Testament actually gives a definition of "son of God" in Luke 1, essentially the virgin-born Messiah, as per Gabriel. However, there are reams and papers and thesis right and left as to the historic Judaic understandings of the term.

Also there really are two issues. If we allow that to a certain extent the divine identity of Jesus was masked while he walked through the Galilee (and on the Sea of Galilee :-) then (1) is how Jesus expressed his identity, and then, (2) how the early believers understood his identity, especially post-resurrection. I would recommend for consideration the article by Richard Bauckham --
http://www.sbl-site2.org/Congresses/...d_Bauckham.pdf
Paul's Christology of Divine Identity

Shabbat shalom,
Praxeas

Loomis

Gosh, I’m no expert, but that isn’t how I see it at all. Look at Psalm 82. It tells a story of how El (the most high god of the Hebrew pantheon) got pissed off at his sons (called the Divine Council) and condemned them to die as humans.

According to this verse (and several others like it) the “sons of God� certainly were more than men; they were divine. They were gods.

Hence the Jewish context you are referring to does not appear to be supported by the Bible.

Also, I would like to introduce a third possibility regarding Jesus claiming / not claiming to be the Son of God. Which is that the Bible is fiction. And that the authors who invented the Jesus stories did not agree on whether their Jesus character was a Son of God - or not.

It looks to me like some authors pretended he was, and some pretended he wasn’t.

Diogenes the Cynic

The phrase "son of God" was also used particularly to refer to kings and was an elliptical way to refer to the heir to the throne of David. It was known to be used in reference to all humanity as well. One thing it was not used for in pre-Christian, Jewish tradition was to refer to a literal descendant of God. If any hypothetical HJ made such a personal claim at all (which is dubious to say the least) it was a claim to the throne, not to personal godhood.

Loomis

I disagree. It apparently was used in pre-Christian/ Jewish tradition to refer to a literal descendant of God. Specifically a god named El.

Watch carefully as I support my position with facts:

Deuteronomy 32:7-9 says Yahweh (the elohim of the nation of Jacob) was a son of El (the most high god). It says Yahweh was assigned to watch over the nation of Jacob as part of an inheritance from his father who (according to the author) was El.

Like I said in my post above, the idea that El had sons who were gods; and that he gave each of them a nation to guard over as part of an inheritance, is also supported by Psalm 82.

Read 1 Kings 11. It looks to me like Yahweh had a brother named Milcom (the elohim of the Ammonites), and another brother named Chemosh (the elohim of Moab). They are all portrayed as gods of specific nations. It looks to me like El gave the Ammonites to Milcom, and the Moabites to Chemosh, as part of the same inheritance package.

This agrees with everything we know about El from outside the Bible.

And like I said in this thread, even Eusebius understood this reading of Deut 32, because he was asking his readers to believe that Jesus was Yahweh is sheep’s clothing.

Gosh. How about that! In some circles the phrase "son of God" meant literally "a divine son of El."

It looks to me like "son of God" didn’t come to mean “king� or “all humanity� until Believers reshaped the Bible to fit their own superstitious mental image of one big monotheistic "God."

Loomis

Here’s an example. Check out the evolution of Deuteronomy 32:43 in chronological order. Notice how phrases like divinities, and His sons, and sons of the Divine have been removed from modern translations.

From the Dead Sea Scrolls (4Qdeut-q):
O heavens, rejoice with Him
Bow to Him, all divinities.
For He’ll avenge the blood of His sons,
And wreak vengeance on His foes,
Requite those who reject Him,
And will cleanse His people’s land.

From the LXX:
O heavens, rejoice with Him
Bow to Him, all sons of the Divine.
O nations, rejoice with His People
And let all angels of the divine
Strengthen themselves in Him.
For He’ll avenge the blood of His sons,
Be vengeful and wreak vengeance
And recompense justice on His foes,
Requite those who reject Him,
And the Lord will cleanse His people’s land.

From the MT (NIV):
Rejoice, O nations, with his people,
for he will avenge the blood of his servants;
he will take vengeance on his enemies
and make atonement for his land and people.

Gosh, where’d the sons of the Divine go?

Aren’t they important anymore? :rolling:

John Kesler

As you have probably discovered in your studies, the meaning of "son of God," like "son of man," is dependent upon context and time of composition. I would recommend that you look at this Web site which contains an excerpt from Andrew Benson's The Origins of Christianity and the Bible. Also useful to you will be The Anchor Bible Dictionary's entry for "Son of God," found in volume 6, pp 128-136.

Wallener

The stuff is all over the place. Psalm 97: "all divine beings bow down to Him". No way to know whether the poet was being literal or taking creative license. Perhaps one day the Qumran variant of Deut 32:43 will be corroborated, and the MT etc adjusted accordingly.

:huh:

Loomis

The word translated as “divine beings� is just another instance of “elohim.�

It looks to me like the author of Psalm 97:7 is on the same wavelength as the author of Psalm 82:5; and if so it appears to be literal.

I can’t prove it; but I suspect that these Psalms were originally attributed to El, and that a Yahwist "did God a favor" and "put His name back in."

Diogenes the Cynic

Whatever the remnants of proto-Judaic, Canaanite pantheism may still be found in some of the Tanakh, in the first century, Judaism was firmly monotheistic and the phrase, "son of God," was a figurative term for individuals who were believed to have some special favor with God, be they prophets or kings. In the case of Mark, there seems to be a clear indication of an "adoptionist" view of Jesus as the "son," meaning that Mark implies Jesus was chosen as a "son" by God after the baptism by John, rather than being any sort of literal, physical descendant.