CJD

Amaleq, I don't think it's that clear. But in Daniel's time, I would concede that it is not an official title. Soon after that, however, I think it took on significant eschatological baggage. Pre-Christian. Organically Jewish. Nothing takes place in a vacuum, of course. So it's okay to throw a little Greekish pixie dust in there, too.

CJD

Bernard Muller

spin wrote:
Barnabus also negates the "son of man" title.

I do not think "negates" is the right word, but in order to oppose "Son of Man", this title had to be well accepted in some circles.

Best regards, Bernard

Yuri Kuchinsky

Well, it's up to you to cite here even one case of the use of this title in the common NT form, i.e. as hO hUIOS TOU ANQRWPOU, in any Jewish literature. Absent this, you're just engaging in speculation.

So I think Amaleq is right.

Yuri.

CJD

It's called an educated guess, something upon which even your premises rest. At least I have the Similitudes, as the argument from absence is anything but conclusive, and you know it.

I am not saying that the 'son of man' phrase is unambiguous. I am saying that in its Jewish context it meant both human being and (esp. b/c of Daniel) a designation for the one who is granted universal authority by the Ancient of Days. Say whatever you want about speculation; the fact is, this Danielic pericope did not go unnoticed in pre-Christian Jewish writings.

Jesus used it precisely because it was ambiguous and not attached to any particular person. His foremost reason for using it, however, was to temper the political messianism of his own day. It is a title (according to the text) he shaped and designated for himself by himself. Indeed, the burden lies with the one who would even suggest the preposterous notion that "all the instances where "son of man" is used in the canonical gospels are later interpolations." Show me just one. Please.

CJD

Celsus

A number of oblique comments here... I'm pretty much certain of the son of man designation as being firmly rooted in Jewish eschatology. Ehrman points out in The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings that Mark 8:38 (and others) gives no indication that Jesus is speaking about himself, and in Matthew 25:31-46, the parable Jesus relates to is hardly uniquely Christian in that the son of man judges based on works, and says nothing about Jesus' death and resurrection playing any role in the judgement (in other words, it could be an equally Jewish eschatological tale). The Christian reading of the son of man backwards into Mark and Matthew is what seems to be the confusion here. As CJD has already pointed out, terms do not operate in a vacuum--they evolve.

Secondly, LXX isn't the only source of the Hebrew Bible for diaspora Jews by the 2nd century. There are a number of others, most famously Origen's Hexapla being a compilation of these translations by Aquila, Symmachus, LXX, and Theodotion.

I also do not see how Enoch can be so late as to be Christian/Gentile influenced. Perhaps someone can make a case for this, but I wouldn't raise my hopes. 1 Enoch 46:1-6 :
That sounds like the Son of Man taking an eschatological title to me.

Joel

Bernard Muller

Celsus wrote:
Mark 8:38 (and others) gives no indication that Jesus is speaking about himself, and in Matthew 25:31-46, the parable Jesus relates to is hardly uniquely Christian in that the son of man judges based on works, and says nothing about Jesus' death and resurrection playing any role in the judgement (in other words, it could be an equally Jewish eschatological tale).

Humm, I think in GMark the author clearly identified Jesus as the "Son of Man", starting at Mk2:1-12. It is most obvious in:

Mark 8:31 "He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again."

Mark 9:31 "because he was teaching his disciples. He said to them, "The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise.""

Mark 10:33 ""We are going up to Jerusalem," he said, "and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles,""

So the readers woud automatically equate all the other "son of man" to Christ/Jesus himself all over the gospel, including the one of the mini apocalypse (13:26).

Same comment goes for GMatthew.

Best regards, Bernard

Celsus

As I said, those are a Christian retrojection of the title into the event. If Jesus said those words (and why not?), then he'd obviously have no clue as to what was about to happen (cf. Ehrman). If we accept that Jesus is talking about himself, then we also accept that Jesus made a prophecy that was fulfilled. If the authors of Mark and Matthew put the title in Jesus' mouth, then it doesn't help the case either way. I'd much rather someone dealt with dating Enoch to post-Christian influence since the evidence there is explicit.

Joel

spin

This is not correct. The use of (Heb) ben 'adam and then (Aram) bar 'enosh are very simple terms when used throughout the Hebrew bible. You might care to do a search and look at many of the examples. Not one of them is overtly eschatological. Even Daniel 7:13 doesn't use the term that way. There it is a simple simile, one like a son of man. This is black and white, as the context makes clear, despite the layers of wrongheaded xian eisegesis.

Just try to provide one Jewish example of a titular use of som before the destruction of the temple by the Romans. Please, try.

I don't think Ehrman is justified in this assertion. som is in all gospels, so why isn't it at the foundation level?

Some terms can be quite stable over centuries. But don't let me stop you from producing a counter-example.

The other three later than the LXX's hodge-podge.

Joel, you need to date the Enochic Parables and you should remember that they were not found amongst the Enochic material from Qumran. There is no doubt that the Parables' use of the terms similar to som (they aren't exactly the same) is eschatological and titular. It's just that the indications are that it was written in the xian ethos and therefore irrelevant to use.


spin

spin

Barnabus is not using som as a title. This is what the text says:

12:10 Behold, therefore, again Jesus, not the son of man but the Son of God, and by a type made manifest in the flesh. Since, therefore, they should one day say that Christ is the son of David, David himself prophesieth, being in fear and understanding the deceitfulness of sinners, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit on my right hand until I make thy enemies thy footstool.

12:11 And again Esaias speaketh in this wise, The Lord said unto Christ, my Lord, whose right hand I have held, that the Gentiles should hearken before him, and I will break the strength of kings. Behold how David calleth him Lord, and doth not call him son.

Note how the writer excludes Jesus's humanity, saying that even David doesn't call him son. Jesus is simply not the son of man.


spin

spin

All you need is one pre-Christian example of titular som. But there isn't one. You therefore cannot talk about "soon after" Daniel. This is unfounded speculation, isn't it?

We need some solid basis for making arguments. I can date the early church fathers and I use that to reflect on the gospel material. This seems coherent to me.


spin