Evolutionist

I’ve found this in a column about a historical Jesus, and would be very interested in finding out just how accurate the following is- so if someone like Heathen Dawn, who seems to know a lot about Hebrew etc could help, it would be greatly appreciated:

The quote is from the following site: did jesus exist? so what?

Any help would be appreciated, it’s sparked my interest now.

premjan

I believe the Son of God was an adopted theology, that could have well been from Mithraism (Mithras was the son of Ahura Mazda and virgin mother Anahita from the Zoroastrian tradition which was very popular in pagan Rome).

And God-like was a popular way to describe many ancient philosophers/prophets.

CX

I don't wish to be a pill, but could I see some references on that?

Heathen Dawn

Both Hebrew ben and Aramaic bar mean, literally, “son”, and, by extension, one who partakes of characteristics. For example, ben maweth in Hebrew, literally “son of death”, means “he who is permitted to be killed”; ben tarbuth, literally “son of culture”, means “a civilised person”.

Aramaic bar nasha does mean “son of a man”, or just “person”. “Person” is also the meaning of Hebrew ben adam, literally “son of Adam”.

It is the context that determines whether the ben- (or bar-) construction literally means “son of...” or symbolically means “a partaker of the characteristics of...”. Ben elohim and bar d'elaha could equally mean “son of God” or “God-like”, depending on the context.

Rick Sumner

It is my understanding that the gospel authors were aware there might be some confusion. Thus they wrote, literally, "the son of the man," (ho huios tou anthropou forgive my laziness in transliterating according to pronunciation) when referring to the Danielic Son of Man to make the distinction.

Regards,
Rick

CJD

I feel as though I am pointing out the obvious, but why, if we would read "son of God" as "God-like," should we not read "son of man" as "man-like"?

The can you have opened is large. Here's the skinny on it:

The phrase "son of man" is a translation of the Aramaic bar-‘enash or the Hebrew ben-‘adam. This Hebrew phrase is found in the second half of Numbers 23:19. “God is not a man, that he should lie, or a son of man that he should repent.” This is the quintessential example of “identical parallelism” so common in ANE pedagogy. The pericope is saying “God is not a man . . . or a human being . . . .” This and other texts (Ps. 144:3; cf. 8:4) make it quite clear that the phrase sometimes means nothing more than “human being.” On this count the above quoted author is correct.

As Rick Sumner pointed out, the gospel writers did indeed have an eye on the Danielic “son of man” (7:13–14). But even in Daniel, one came like a son of man, not as “the son of man” (though the figure in question is undoubtedly the Messiah). However, Daniel 7 does form the basis for the later use of “son of man” as a messianic title in the gospels, not to mention the Similitudes of Enoch (46:48; 62:6–16; 69:26–29). Interestingly, the son of man in the Similitudes is a pre-existent heavenly figure who is hidden in heaven but will descend to earth to rule in an everlasting kingdom of righteousness and glory. Some writers, of course, have questioned the pre-Christian origin of the Similitudes (i.e., the 5th of five fragments of Enoch) because no copy has been found among the Qumran community while the other four parts were. I tend to think that the Similitudes can be used to shed light on the background of the gospel writers’ use of the phrase.

The above quote, however, failed to deal with the “son of man” phrases that do not quite fit in to the older meaning (“human being”). For example, in Mark 2:10 (Matt. 9:6; Luke 5:24) it is the “son of man” who has authority to actually forgive sins. In Daniel 7 one like a son of man receives dominion. In Mark 2 the son of man is exercising dominion and authority “upon the earth” (cf. Mk. 2:27—“The son of man is Lord even [kai as intensifier, not copulative] of the Sabbath.”).

So, there are seemingly two senses. Jesus was this human among human beings, eating and drinking (being called a glutton by some!), and yet was also seen as a forgiver of sin, healer, great teacher, etc.—with authority and within the Danielic redemptive framework of the eschatological son of man.

The “son of man” phrase was also connected in the gospels to the idea of suffering, but that is beyond the scope of this thread for now.

The “son of God” phrase, contrary to the assertions of one poster, are not rooted primarily in Hellenism. There is no doubt at all that the “son of God” phrase was popular in the syncretistic culture of Mediterranean. Olympian gods fathered human offspring all the time. The Roman emperor was literally called “the son of God.” In the mystery cults and the Hermetic groups the worshippers were all called the sons of God by virtue of their union with the deity. Many “wonder-working” people supposedly existed at that time, and each one of them had “son of God” power. It was a popular notion indeed. But the concept “son of God” is anything but foreign to the Tanak or to later Jewish literature.

The context in which sonship arises, however, is almost always amidst redemption. The proto-typical example would be Isaiah 63:16, “You, O Lord, are our Father, our Redeemer from old is your name.” The Father is the redeemer, the one who formed Israel and delivered her from Egypt. It is this latter point (deliverance from Egypt) that is consistently related to YHWH’s “Fatherhood.” Who was the son? Israel, for starters, and by virtue of the Exodus. Also, the king of Israel is portrayed as God’s son (2 Sam. 7:14; cf. 1 Chron. 17:13). Deification is not seen (as was common in Egypt), but it was a small step from calling Israel the son to calling Israel’s king the son.

Without having sources right in front of me to back this up, I have read somewhere that like Ugaritic texts, the OT exhibits a close correlation between the words “servant” and “son” (Ps. 89:20, 26; Mal. 1:16; Isa. 45:1, 11). See also Psalm 2:6–7, which is possibly describing a king’s coronation. Nota bene: In Psalm 68:5, sonship is portrayed as common to all the Israelites, not just the king.

Eschatological sonship was also a common theme. Plagued with exile, the people looked forward to the day when their kingdom would be restored and they would be made children of God. The foundation for this in Jeremiah 31:31 is the fact that YHWH is Israel’s father (31:9, 20). See also 43:6, where the language is cast in familial terms. (cf. Hos. 1:10).

As for later Jewish (rabbinic) literature, the Ahavah Rabbah, or the second of the blessings used to introduce the Shema in the morning and evening services of the synagogue began “Our Father, our king.”

Like the prophets mentioned above, the book of Jubilees (1:22–25) has God revealing to Moses his plans for Israel following there captivity and repentance:

“I will create in them a holy spirit, and I will cleanse them so that they shall not turn away from Me that day unto eternity. And their soul will cleave to Me and to all My commandments, and they will fulfill My commandments, and I will be their Father and they shall be My children. And they shall all be the children of the living God, and every angel and every spirit shall know, yea they shall know that these are My children, and that I am their Father in uprightness and righteousness and that I love them."

The Testament of Judah 24:2 and the Testament of Levi 18:6–8 are similar in this regard, except that the last reference speaks of the Messiah—not Israel—as the son of God. Some scholars have questions about this last text being altered by Christians.

At Qumran, 4 Q Florilegium 1:11–13 exegetes 2 Samuel 7:14, identifying the “son” there with the Messiah. Like many “messianic” texts of the OT, however, the primary reference is indeed to the proximate character (in this case Solomon), and the result is something closely resembling theological ad hoc.

I think we can say two things: 1) Israelites were obviously hesitant to call the Messiah the “son of God,” possibly because of its widespread use among their “pagan” neighbors; 2) It nonetheless appears that “son of God” was just coming into use as a Messianic title in pre-Christian Judaism in the first century BC.


Regards,

CJD

Doctor X

For what it is worth. . . .

In Mk some consider it his "final joke." The Centurian stares up at the cross as the music swell and proclaims, "Truly this was the Son of God!"

Actually . . . no. . . .

Literally: "Truly this the man (a) son of (a) god was." I do not have the Greek infront of me and will not trust my poor translation skills.

I put "a" in parenthesis since Greek lacks indefinite article. According to mentors, "son of god" in this fashion is similar to calling Barry Bonds "a god." The "joke" for Mk is that the hapless disciples never, ever figure out "the Truth"--who Junior is. More "seedy" characters--like the beggar--figure it out and quitely "follow him." Yet, these great leaders, not only do not know who he is, they betray him.

One who gets very close--closer than the disciples--is a Roman centurian. If he--and Mk--wanted to recognize "the Truth"--he would have used the definite article as with "the man"--"this the man the son of (a/the) god was."

Why do I feel like that poster who use to pepper his quotes with {Read In} [Read Out]?

Anyways, should one understand "son of god" or "son of man" as modern Christians would like to now? The problem is we do not really know what the immediate followers of Junior thought he was--if he existed. I tend to feel more evidence suggests "someone" existed without any bloody certain details surviving!

We can "infer," perhaps from the fact the Jerusalem group was not stamp'd out, and from the virulence of the Synoptics against them in general that, perhaps, he was not considered a divine figure . . . and he may not have marketed himself that way.

Be that as it may, the Synoptic writers clearly did. As much as it may warm the cockles of the atheist's heart to find out that Junior really was trying to sell time-shares in a pyramid real estate scheme which threatened the finances of the Temple--and also lost a Roman governor his cosiderable investment--at some point by the composition of the Synoptics some people shifted their understanding.

Which, of course, leaves us with the historical mess we have now.

--J.D.

Doctor X

More on the son of god. . . .

Some of you will recall I had the pleasure to read a book on the tradition of child sacrifice--bring back that "ol' time religion" I always say . . . especially around Christmas when the brats are screaming about the malls and [GET ON WITH IT!--Ed.]

Er . . . right . . . anyways, the basic concept of Levenson's work is giving the first son to the deity--I have [Over--Ed.] quoted the Exodus and other passages in other threads.

Long story short: the concept of the "beloved son" that belongs to a god transforms into various sons like Joseph who are in a sense "sacrificed" by your basic journey motif-filled perils.

Levenson sees a correspondence with the later Christian conception that Junior was a "beloved son" of Big Daddy--there were Jewish traditions that tied the sacrifice of Isaac to a redemption of the land--also there is the tradition of kings sacrificing children to "earn" or "buy" the salvation of their kingdoms.

Anyways, perhaps "son of god" or "son of man" represents this concept? I will look into it.

--J.D.

[Edited to recognize the "worth" of "work."--Ed.]

Amos

But Heathen Dawn "son of man" is not equal to "person" because man has a persona and that persona
is different from the being called man or it would not be his persona.

The name "son of man" is reserved for the reborn identity which is the same identity that after the first (or physical) birth created the persona and now understands that this very persona is the only thing that separates him from God and is determined to have it crucified and raised into heaven in the end.