CJD

I guess we are done. Thanks for your time. (Can I least get credit for being a reasonably coherent windbag?)

spin

Reasonably coherent? Sure.


spin

Pilate

The sheep is asking the approval of the Shepherd:
<edit>
<edit>
5. Targums. Over a period of several centuries beginning already in pre-70 c.e. Temple days, Aramaic paraphrases of the Hebrew text were made for Aramaic-speaking Jews of the synagogues who no longer understood classical Hebrew. Eventually, under the direction of the Rabbis, these were set down in writing.
Freedman, D. N. (1996, c1992). The Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday.
<edit>
Pilate,

As you have been told before, comments about moderation belong in Problems & Complaints. What was removed from your post serves no purpose in a rational discussion except to inflame.

Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

spin

As you won't leave things alone that you don't know anything about, yes, there were two examples of targums in the DSS. This is the only evidence for targums. One of these is a miniscule piece of text, so one cannot tell what it really was, but let's assume for argument's sake that it was part of a full targum. Out of the 222 biblical texts found at Qumran two were targums. Hell, that's underwhelming. Beyond those two, there is not a skerrick of evidence for targums before 70 CE. (When ideas become so diffused, they are accepted by many without any justification other than the wide diffusion.)

<edit>
When are you going to justify your opinions about Golgotha?
<edit>

guru

Dharma

returning to the topic on hand, again the "son of Man" as a heroic figure is not a part of Judaism but obviates a foreign influence from the "Vedic" religion where people are referred to as "Manushya Putras" which literally translates as" sons of Man" who had heroic sons. Humanity in Sanskrit is referred to as "Manushyas", and in English "Man".

The Hebrew equivalent "Ben Adam" is ridiculous as it would mean Cain or Abel...Cain was the "ben Adam" of Judaism, or Abel the guy who got murdered.:huh:

In Jewish spiritual history, it is Abraham "the father" who guides them to redemption through his eldest son "Yitzaak", so it should've been "Ben Abraham".

spin

I find it strange that you are apparently attacking the Jewish religion, saying "The Hebrew equivalent "Ben Adam" is ridiculous...", despite the fact that the phrase was used generically through the HB as the progeny of humans, going on to say that "Ben Adam"..."would mean Cain or Abel...Cain was the "ben Adam" of Judaism, or Abel the guy who got murdered", not regarding the fact that in the HB )dm always bears the possibility of two meanings, Adam, the first man in Gen 2, and man as in the species in Gen 1. This second meaning found throughout the HB is what gets translated into English as "man" and bn )dm as "son of man". (One also often finds the term )n$, "enosh" used to mean man.)

The reason why the term "son of man" is so diffusely spread outside Jewish circles is specifically for the fact that it is derived from a Greek translation, uios anQrwpou, of the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew term, br )n$, "bar enosh", taken in Dan 7:13 and used in Mk 13 and elsewhere.

I see no reason to attempt to separate the term "son of man" from its cultural heritage.


spin

CJD

I'll just add my 2¢ worth here: Dharma, you've missed the entire concept of "first adam" / "second adam" so prevalent in, for example, the writings of Paul. It was indeed through Abe's family that the return from exile was accomplished, but the exile reached beyond the mere national exile (Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Rome); it was the problem of adam (man, if not the first man) that ultimately needed to be dealth with.

CJD

Dharma

I have never attacked Judaism, I have attacked the concept of the HEROIC concept of the "son of Man" as used by Daniel/Ezekiel as being NOT from the Judaic tradition.

I have NEVER denied that "Ben Adam" was used in the Torah -- however, you must agree it never was used to allude to any form of immortality or greatness -- NEVER to mean some person having some throne in heaven.

And I am not attacking Judaism if I simply talk about the concept of "Ben Adam" in Judaism to mean the literal sons of Adam as mentioned in the Torah -- we have evil Cain killing good Abel -- Adam falls because he was tempted and lied...etc...in this sense from the myths of the Torah we can NEVER get the idea that "SON OF MAN" COMES RIDING IN CLOUDS WITH POWER AND GLORY on a THRONE -- which is what Daniel and Ezekiel allude to.

In other words, we have a definitive change from the Torah "Ben Adam" to mean some mere human mortal to Daniel and Ezekiel's "Ben Adam" riding on chariots to heaven, on a mighty throne with power and glory.

This transition of the meaning of "ben Adam" to mean frail human from the Torah to the HERO in the books of Daniel and Ezekiel is not sufficiently discussed.

Dharma

There is no notion of a "1st Adam" vs. "2nd Adam" -- Atleast not in the Torah.


Now how this heroic "son of Adam" was born and how and why he is sitting on a throne riding chariots and from which Adam and how this concept got created in Judaism is the argument I'm trying to make. :huh:

spin

Umm, ben adam is "ridiculous"? That is an attack, especially with the misaimed comments about the significance of ben adam.

What has this got to do with the term ben adam though? bn )dm gets used to mean human progeny, not literally the sons of Adam.

One like a son of man.

Neither Daniel nor Ezekiel usethe term any differently fromany other HB text.

It still meant human progeny in the DSS, so we are dealing with yet a later development.


spin