Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 10-06-2005, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dharma

I would have to disagree -- here is someone arguing it is closer to the Babylonian myth of Enuma Elish:

http://prophetess.lstc.edu/~rklein/Doctwo/gardner.htm

http://www.jcu.edu/Bible/200/Readings/EnumaElish.htm

Neither of these two articles impact on the usage of "son of man" in Dan 7:13, so your disagreement must be centred around the side-issue that it wasn't Baal but Marduk; now I don't particularly care as they are both based on the same mythic tropes of the great young god fighting the forces of chaos in the form of dangerous waters and after overcoming them taking their rightful place in heaven. Whatever the case, we are not dealing with 'some immortal "heavenly King"'.

We are left with the fact that "one like a son of man" in itself had no special significance, not reflecting anything from the sources, but simply reflecting the literary context of beings likened to various forms, with the one in Dan 7:13 likened to human progeny. This is only natural for the writer to portray the one representing his protecting being in human form while those of other cultures as animals.

The reference to "son of man" in "one like a son of man" is the same biblical usage as Ezekiel and psalms and DSS. We need to look for a reason for it jumping ship from a "simple" simile to being used as a title, ie from "one like a son of man" to "the Son of Man" and I have argued that it comes from a decontextualization of the phrase, ripped out of Daniel. This is the same sort of event as what happened with the young woman who is already with child in Isa 7:14, via a questionable Greek translation, "a virgin shall give bith to a child...", and the original context is totally lost, no more a significance to the state of Jerusalem in the era of Ahaz. "[O]ne like a son of man" went the same way.

spin

Dharma · 10-07-2005, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Neither of these two articles impact on the usage of "son of man" in Dan 7:13, so your disagreement must be centred around the side-issue that it wasn't Baal but Marduk; now I don't particularly care as they are both based on the same mythic tropes of the great young god fighting the forces of chaos in the form of dangerous waters and after overcoming them taking their rightful place in heaven. Whatever the case, we are not dealing with 'some immortal "heavenly King"'.

We are left with the fact that "one like a son of man" in itself had no special significance, not reflecting anything from the sources, but simply reflecting the literary context of beings likened to various forms, with the one in Dan 7:13 likened to human progeny. This is only natural for the writer to portray the one representing his protecting being in human form while those of other cultures as animals.

The reference to "son of man" in "one like a son of man" is the same biblical usage as Ezekiel and psalms and DSS. We need to look for a reason for it jumping ship from a "simple" simile to being used as a title, ie from "one like a son of man" to "the Son of Man" and I have argued that it comes from a decontextualization of the phrase, ripped out of Daniel. This is the same sort of event as what happened with the young woman who is already with child in Isa 7:14, via a questionable Greek translation, "a virgin shall give bith to a child...", and the original context is totally lost, no more a significance to the state of Jerusalem in the era of Ahaz. "[O]ne like a son of man" went the same way.

spin

No we are not left with this fact. We are left with the fact that all the stories that the "LIKE the son of Man" is connected to is about some Godlike person - who like heroes are given "kingship" or authority - this then becomes used in later Christianity.

spin · 10-07-2005, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dharma

No we are not left with this fact. We are left with the fact that all the stories that the "LIKE the son of Man"

There is no "the". You need to use an indefinite article, otherwise you misrepresent the text.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dharma

...is connected to is about some Godlike person - who like heroes are given "kingship" or authority - this then becomes used in later Christianity.

And this is irrelevant. Was the figure that was like a lion really a lion?

spin

cass256 · 10-07-2005, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

There is no "the". You need to use an indefinite article, otherwise you misrepresent the text.

And this is irrelevant. Was the figure that was like a lion really a lion?

spin

No he was the "like" pet of the "like" son of man. It was "like" going to the "like zoo".

Chris Weimer · 10-07-2005, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cass256

No he was the "like" pet of the "like" son of man. It was "like" going to the "like zoo".

#1 rule of bad scholarship - if you are defeated, act dumb.

spin · 10-07-2005, 07:08 PM

Did that want a response?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-07-2005, 07:08 PM	#126
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Did that want a response?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.