spin

I am.

Looking at all the second temple Jewish literature there is no example of anything but the "mere mortal" understanding of som.

You are not reading the text. It simple talks of the one being like a human being, whereas the others were like lions, bears, etc. At this stage there is no designation in som as anything but mortal. The one looked human -- which is naturally more acceptable than what the others looked like to the Jews.


This is unsupported conjecture and not worth wasting time over. Just show an example of titular (or eschatological) som, huh? Eisegesis of Daniel 7:13 doesn't cut it because som os transparently human in the phrase "one like a son of man". You seem to want to forget that the context is "(one) like" a son of man. All the standard scholarly analyses conclude this as well, ie there is nothing strange here.

More unfounded conjecture.


You'll note of course that I don't. I just say that titular som is a lateness marker.


spin

spin

I think you need to use a modern translation. You are turning a passage about the human being into one about Jesus.


spin

Celsus

I see I am dealing with a minimalist of sorts. Evidence of absence = absence of evidence, spin?
I'm not an expert on 1 Enoch, but Peter's site says this:
Further down he quotes McNamara:

• However, contemporary scholarship tends to reckon the parables Jewish, and to assign their composition to the first century of the Christian era.

And Knibb:

• Some scholars have thought that the Parables are Christian, but this is very unlikely because the Parables lack any reference to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus; here the difference from the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, a work Jewish in origin but clearly Christian in its present form, is particularly significant. In fact the Parables are a Jewish work and are rooted firmly in traditions stemming from the Old Testament; they build upon what is said about the 'one like a man' of Dan. 7, but also draw upon traditions relating to the Davidic Messiah (cp. Isa. 11) and to God's servant (cp. Isa. 49). It is a matter of debate whether the Parables, a Jewish work, might have exercised some limited influence on the gospel traditions; but their real importance?in the writer's opinion from towards the end of that century. It should be noted that for this section of Enoch we have available only an Ethiopic text.

The Jewish Encyclopaedia and the Catholic Encyclopaedia also affirm a 1st century BCE/1st century CE date, even if they are extremely dated. You are the one making the positive claim (that the Son of Man is purely a Christian title, so you need to show how the Similitudes/Parallels in 1 Enoch are late enough to be solely Christian. Like the book of Daniel, it doesn't make sense for a book to have been circulating for 2 to 3 centuries before a sudden and significant interpolation is made without any fuss from anyone. So far you have only argued from silence with regards to 1 Enoch, and given the scholarly consensus, that won't cut it (especially not if you are arguing from Milik's authority).

Joel

spin

The Enochic books were separate works at Qumran. By the time they were put together they had the Parables.

This sort of thing is not uncommon. How long before 2/4 Esdras was compiled was the apocalypse written? The xians merely put stuff at the beginning and end to make it more useful.

I've looked closely at the evidence for the dating for the Parables. The major indication are the Qumran fragments -- no Parables. No som outside the Parables. Get the problem?

You need to start with some definite evidence. Conjecture from Knibb and McNamara is interesting but nothing more.


spin

Celsus

spin,

Your out of hand dismissals and refusal to engage any problems brought up (other than more silence) indicate that you are not truly interested in a discussion, or perhaps trying to disguise your inability to grapple with points being raised. So be it.

To the rest who are interested:

Isaiah 31:8 is quoted by Eisenman as "by the sword of no man, the sword of no mere Adam"--clearly some distinction is being alluded to here. Eisenman of course makes a big deal out of the "Primal Adam" and "Son of Man" motifs and alludes to parallels in the War Rule (1QM 17:5-8?) and other sections. He's of course leading up to his grand "Star Prophecy." Particularly, he writes (after quoting 1 Cor 15:45-47),

• The quotation, attributed above by Hegesippus to James, which we compared to throwing a lighted match into an excited mix of pilgrims, in the Temple at Passover, is both immediate and intense. When one grasps its aggressively Messianic character, it becomes the central proclamation of one of the most amazing episodes ever recorded in religious history. Particularly in the twentieth century, as the Dead Sea Scrolls ... come to light, not only are the words attributed to James by Hegesippus paralleled almost word for wrod in that famous War Scroll, they come precisely at the point where the Messianic 'Star Prophecy' is being elucidated.

What's wrong with the picture?

Joel

Edit: reference to the quote is Eisenman, 2002, James the brother of Jesus, London: Watkins Publishing, pp. 427-8

Bernard Muller

spin wrote (bolding is mine):
>> 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. <<

BM:
The author was reacting to other Christians considering Jesus as the Son of Man and Son of David, most likely Jewish Christians.

The author is against the title of "Son of Man", against the title of "Son of David" but in favor of the title of "Son of God" for Jesus. As far as excluding Jesus' humanity, "made manifest in the flesh" goes a long way against that.

More about a human, earthly Jesus in 'Barnabas":

5:8 Yea, further; though he taught Israel and did so
many signs and wonders among them, yet they loved him
not.
5:9 But when he chose out his own Apostles, who were
about to preach his gospel, they were men unrighteous
beyond all sin, that he might show that he came not to
call the righteous but sinners to repentance; then
made he himself manifest that he was the Son of God.
5:10 For if he had not come in the flesh how could
men have looked upon him and have been saved, ..."

That, and many other tidbits in 'Barnabas', dispel "the writer excludes Jesus's humanity".

Furthermore, the argument that "Barnabas" made about Jesus NOT the Son of David is very similar of the one GMark is making (12:35-37). And GMark certainly has an earthly flesh & blood Jesus.

Mk12:35-37:
While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, "How is it that the teachers of the law say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:
" 'The Lord said to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet." 'David himself calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?"
The large crowd listened to him with delight."

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

>> quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Bernard Muller
Heb 2:5-9 "For He has not put the world to come, of which we speak, in subjection to angels. But one testified in a certain place, saying:

"What is man that You are mindful of him,
Or the son of man that You take care of him?
You have made him a little lower than the angels;
You have crowned him with glory and honor,
And set him over the works of Your hands.
You have put all things in subjection under his feet."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spin wrote next:
I think you need to use a modern translation. You are turning a passage about the human being into one about Jesus. <<

BM:
But you cut off what immediately follows, that is Heb2:8-9,
which attributes that "son of man" to Jesus, expected to rule soon also. The son of man here is to rule, "a little lower than the angels", "crowned with glory and honor". So is Jesus:

Heb 2:5-9 "For He has not put the world to come, of which we speak, in subjection to angels. But one testified in a certain place, saying:

"What is man that You are mindful of him,
Or the son of man that You take care of him?
You have made him a little lower than the angels;
You have crowned him with glory and honor,
And set him over the works of Your hands.
You have put all things in subjection under his feet."

For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone."

It is clear that in this passage of 'Hebrews', the "son of man" becomes Jesus. Also this "son of man"/Jesus is not considered here as just a common normal mortal, but someone glorified and destined to rule the creation.
I know the author of Psalm8 never intended that about his "son of man", but regardless, the author of 'Hebrews', through his allegorical process, elevated that "son of man" as an unique, divine, extraordinary figure, a future ruler as for the one in 'Daniel'.
So I do not care about your rejection of the evidence about Heb2:5-9 (I mean the whole of it), nor I think that chopping Heb2:8-9 out of my quote to make your point is a honest tactic.

Best regards, Bernard

Yuri Kuchinsky

Dear Bernard,

You really should know better than to post here an English translation without also giving the Greek text.

The Greek here says /h uioV anqrwpou/. This is not the same as /h uioV tou anqrwpou/, which is the usual SOM title in the NT. We still don't have this _specific_ title attested anywhere before Justin.

As to Enoch's Parables, the dating of these specific passages in Enoch is really not very clear. They may well date after the first century.

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

No, Joel, I don't think that he's really refusing to engage the problems. The big problem for you is that the Similitudes of Enoch are rather problematic as to their dating. As it happens, not a single fragment of the Book Two of 1 Enoch, the Similitudes of Enoch, has been discovered at Qumran. The Similitudes (Chs. 37-71) of 1 Enoch are not there, yet every other chapter in 1 Enoch has been found at Qumran. Which raises the possibility that these parts of Enoch were Christian interpolations, that may have been made in the 2c or even later.

In other words, it would seem to be rather precarious to base any theory about a very early currency of the SOM title on the Similitudes of Enoch. Too much other evidence indicates otherwise. Why, for example, is SOM never used in Paul, if the use of this title was already widespread in his time?

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

I beg to disagree, CJD. I generally don't deal with guesses, educated or otherwise... Everything I say is based on solid textual evidence.

Quote:

At least I have the Similitudes, as the argument from absence is anything but conclusive, and you know it.

See my previous reply to Joel. The exact dating of the Similitudes remains insecure.

Quote:

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.

But I don't think that Jesus used it at all (as hO hUIOS TOU ANQRWPOU)...

Quote:

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

Yes, I'm saying that all the instances where "son of man" is used in the canonical gospels are later interpolations. Every single one of them. And I have textual evidence to this effect. Because in the Magdalene Gospel SOM is not used at all. Also, the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is missing SOM in many instances. So how would you explain these apparent coincidences?

I have tons of research done on this matter, with many detailed studies of particular passages. And I have much other textual evidence to back me up. See some of the articles linked to my webpage, and others in the Loisy-L archives.

But, more recently, I haven't really followed up on this research much. Why? Because this theory about the total absence of the SOM title in the early Christian writings is just _too damn radical_ for your typical NT scholar to even to begin to understand what I'm saying... I found after many years of discussing these things with biblical scholars that these folks really need to be fed new ideas with a tea-spoon, and verrry sloooowly. If you give them too much all at once, they just tend to go bonkers, with their cognitive dissonance taking over in a big way.

Cheers,

Yuri.