Sheshbazzar

OK, for the well known "SON of man", we now in this one 'version', get "the Human One" rather than "The SON of man" _footnoted at each instance as 'Son of Man'
So then 'humanity' or 'mortal' is really not the preferred 'translation'......or it is only when you want it to be.:banghead:

Except all of these variants are interpretations. The Hebrew, the Aramaic, the Greek, the Latin, etc. all accurately and correctly translate 'ha ben-adam' as 'The SON of man' into each of the respective languages, and do not presume to impose any 'interpretation' upon a phrase that has always been considered ambiguous, and therefore sacrosanct.

As I stated in my initial post in this thread;
It might make for 'easier' reading, but the further it moves away from the peculiarities of the original phrasing, the more unrecognised and uncomprehended detail becomes lost in translation.
It becomes nothing more than a watered down 'children's version' of the original texts.
One which any real Bible student or any truly devout believer has to compare every single verse against older manuscripts (or search footnotes) to determine what details have been omitted or compromised in the interest of easier readability and furthering sectarian predilections.

Of course it serves the interest of the clergy to 'dumb down' the laity through provision of such 'simple' texts, that can easily be over-ridden by clergical 'knowledge' and authority. It serves as a mechanism of maintaining control.
Basically it is a 'version' especially composed for lazy and ignorant mouth-breather sheeple groupies with little concern or love for the textual integrity of their Bibles,
by a collective 'worldly' clergy pleased to keep them in a state of ignorance so they can more effectively spoon-feed them on selected contrived theological bullshit and manipulate and employ their collective ignorance for the advancement special interest political purposes.
That is to say, for the advancement and propagation of Christian ignorance.

sweetpea7

on second thought, nevermind.

Sheshbazzar

"The Human One"? Why would an itinerant Galilean rabbi with a known human family, consisting of a human mother, human brothers and sisters, and at least one human aunt and uncle, (Elisabeth and Zacharias) go around reptitively announcing that he was 'The Human One' to a people who would have had no reason to think otherwise?
And whose entire religious upbringing was based upon the monotheistic conviction that there was only ONE God, the only God, and that He was alone God (Elohim) and that there was NONE beside Him.- Deut 4:35, 2 Sam 2:22, Isa. 45:5-6 & 21 ???

Everyone around him were also 'human ones', no one was recognised as being non-human. A repetitive announcement that he was 'The Human One' would have been utterly senseless in any normal context of communications.

It simply dosen't make any sense that he would have used any such phrase as 'The Human One' as means of denying being God or a god, to a people who would not have so much as entertained the idea of any such thing even being possible, and whom, if they were to understand that any such claim was being suggested by him, were under strict commandment of The Law to put him to death. (Deut 13:6-11)

The only acceptable contemporary interpretation of his oft repeated announcement, would have been that he was identifying himself with or as that "SON of man" written about by the prophet Daniel. (Dan. 7:13) who is not identified as being God or a god.

Changing the phrase from "The SON of man" into 'The Human One' has some misleading implications. Perhaps that was the intent of this latest modification of the long standing texts?
As all the former would imply was that he was claiming to be the promised Messiah, whereas the latter can be stretched into a claim to be God, which while it might serve latter inflated Christian theological claims, is simply not supported by any honest readings of the TaNaKa texts.

spin

What utter rubbish, Shesh. The son of man in Dan 7:13 gives a shape. Of the four beasts, one was like a lion, another was like a bear, a third was like a leopard and the four was so strange it was beyond compare. Then came one like a son of man (כבר אנש, k:br-)n$, being Aramaic). This was not the son of man or a son of man, but one like a son of man. Given the context of the four beasts, this fifth figure had the form of a son of man as the others had their likenesses with animals. It is a later christian theory that connects Jesus to Dan 7:13. Jesus is portrayed as using the term in the traditional sense of the word, as for example one sees throughout Ezekiel.

Isaiah 56:2 makes rather clear what the expression means, when it parallels it with man, "happy is the man that does this and the son of man who holds fast to it" (אשרי אנוש יעשה זאת ובן אדם יחזיק בה). There are similar parallels in Num 23:19, Job 25:6, 35:8, Ps. 8:4, 80:17 and 144:3. Such parallels force one to see that the expression "son of man" is semantically close to "man", so that first can be used instead of the second. What is different about "son of man" is that it expresses having been produced by humans, ie there can be no claim of any higher peerage or source of being, born and squealed at birth, a helpless thing. This is the state of man and why it is referred to as "son of man".

There is nothing in the Hebrew bible to suggest anything special in the significance of the term 'son of man", a term which captures the human predicament.

And while we're here, ha-ben-adam (הבן אדם) is certainly rare in the Hebrew bible and it's not generally translated "the son of man" by anyone. And again it's paralleled with "man". Found it?

Iskander

Sheshbazzar

I have nothing more to say on the meaning of ‘son of man’ in the Hebrew bible, but as an interesting point not related to the Hebrew bible I would like to offer you an interpretation of the ‘human one’ in the GT as translated by the Common bible.


It is clear that the ‘human one’ means a man, a mortal, a specimen of mankind or Spin’s:
In the GT the human one is the son of man, the son of men and women everywhere on this planet, but in the GT he/she is active, a doer and thinker.
The human one means the common man /woman, a common man as daring as the titan Prometheus who could liberate mankind through action born in hope.

The GT is a very fragmented record of a common man’s dream of hope and success amidst despair and submission to the conqueror.

Sheshbazzar

Thank you for chiming in spin, it has been years since you have directly addressed any posts that I have made within these forums.
Sad that, as admittedly you were the mentor most responsible for the changing and the transforming of all of my views on religion. And are to this day the one person on these Forums whose opinions I respect and cherish the most.

I have said it before, and I am not ashamed to say it again, your knowledge and your persistence 'rocked my boat' and transformed my views, and on a very basic level, have changed my every day, and every thought of my life.
For that I owe you a debt of gratitude that is beyond any possibility of repayment.

If you say that what I wrote was rubbish, then I'll concede that it was naught but rubbish. I'll not argue with nor oppose your learned opinion.
Obviously, in your view, I have yet again failed to correctly comprehend the Scriptural writings. And for that I am truly sorry spin.
You can be sure that I will meditate long and hard over what you have above written.
Is there any other information that you would care to kindly to add, that might ease my internal struggle towards gaining personal conviction regarding that position you are presenting?
As you may detect, personally, I am very favorable to maintaining the long standing translation "the son of man" as being the most accurate and closest to the original texts English rendition.
Is it your opinion then that the Galilean, or the NT writers were not using the phrase in a manner that would suggest it being a title of particular significance to the hearers?
And that this was nothing more than an every day 'figure of speech' commonly employed by everyone, and thus passed unnoticed and unremarkable to the contemporary audiences?
It just doesn't seem to come off that way as it is presented within the NT texts. (Mat 13:41, 16:27, 24:30, 26:64.....????

Most respectfully yours
Sheshbazzar.



.

sweetpea7

FWIW--My opinion is that there is never a need to apologize about an interpretation of text. I understand that what people consider scripture is precious to them, and it may be hard to even consider that there could be different meanings of scripture than what they know. Language and meaning are just not set in stone, and figuring out exactly what ancient people meant centuries ago is challenging. I just think it is important to keep an open mind. Even the most highly trained and objective Bible Scholars can disagree about an interpretation of text, and they often do.

sweetpea7

Interestingly enough, I came across this blog on the website of the Common English Bible. It was written by the Associate Publisher of the translation, Paul Franklin:

(bolding mine)

http://www.commonenglishbible.com/Co...ave-wings.aspx

Just in case anyone is interested, here is a link to a list of the translators who worked on the CEB: http://www.commonenglishbible.com/Ex...7/Default.aspx

spin

What do you understand by the English phrase "son of man" in--for example--KJV Ezekiel or any such reference in the Hebrew bible? I don't think that the phrase imparts much meaning accessible to an English reader. The translator's job is to provide a meaningful representation of the original text, which doesn't necessarily mean a literal translation. If the source behind "son of man" is an idiom, then a literal translation of the words will not represent the idea of the writer in the original language.

If you call someone a "rompescattole" in Italian, that would translate literally as "boxbreaker", but that in no way transmits the idea of the original Italian. It would be better translated as something like "pain in the butt", even though it looks nothing like what the original word indicates.

So the question 'What do you understand by the English phrase "son of man" (as used in the HB)' is a good one to attempt to answer.

You'll note my comments were aimed specifically at what can be seen in the Hebrew tradition.

Changing from a Jewish to a christian context...
We can see that Dan 7:13 has been corrupted by the time we read Mk 13:26. No longer do we talk about "one like a son of man coming", but "the son of man coming". No longer is he returning to heaven, but he is coming to earth. It is no longer the common Hebrew use of "son of man" in Mark's little apocalypse.

Something has happened between the time of the traditions indicated in the HB and those placed in the mouth of Jesus. "The son of man" has become a title of an apocalyptic figure, and given Mk 13:26 that title seems to be derived from a misunderstanding perhaps directly of the Dan 7:13 tradition (notwithstanding the fact that the one like a son of man could be seen as an apocalyptic figure, though I think it is of the same category as the four beasts, angelic-type representations of peoples/nations, with the human figure being the Jews).

Just incidentally, the use of SoM in the NT is thus:

[T2]Mt|29||
Mk|13||
Lk|26||
Jn|12||
Ac| 1||
He| 1||
Re| 2[/T2]
This would suggest to me that it is not a primitive in the NT. It's not in Paul at all or any letters except Hebrews. And where Mk had developed 13 exemplars, a further 16 have been added to Mt, ie these exemplars are additive, or later tradition. I think there is a good case for the titular SoM not being part of the primitive christian tradition at all. At some time before Mk it had entered the tradition and developed from there.

There is no sign of this titular SoM in the HB, so it seems that there are two separate uses of "son of man", one in Hebrew sources and the other in christian literature.

sweetpea7

Thank you, spin, for making this so clear. This is all that I have been trying to say.