Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 11-17-2003, 07:01 AM

When do people think that the early xians turned the Hebrew phrase meaning "son of man" (ben adam) into the title "Son of Man"?

Hebrews 2:6 knows of no such title:

"What is man that you are mindful of him, or the son of man that you care for him?"

(This is straight Hebrew usage of the term.)

Revelation (1:13 and 14:14) was not in the know either. It simply cites the "one like a son of man" from Daniel 7:13.

The gospels of course are full of it... I mean the Son of Man title stuff.

Paul knows nothing about it, nor do any of the other NT works. In fact, we have to look a very long way to find any reference to the SoM title in extra-biblical sources.

Interestingly, in Barnabas ch12, we find

"Behold again: Jesus who was manifested, both by type and in the flesh, is not the Son of man, but the Son of God."

This text flatly rules out the SoM stuff.

Unless someone wants to give a convincing dating to Ignatius's authentic works, I think the first church father to show knowledge of SoM is Justin Martyr.

If this logic is correct and the gospels can be dated by the integral use of the title "Son of Man", is this not a valid dating benchmark for the gospels?

spin

Mike(ATL) · 11-17-2003, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by spin
Interestingly, in Barnabas ch12, we find

"Behold again: Jesus who was manifested, both by type and in the flesh, is not the Son of man, but the Son of God."

This text flatly rules out the SoM stuff.

Barnabas ch12? What book are you reading?

Bernard Muller · 11-17-2003, 09:03 AM

Spin wrote:
When do people think that the early xians turned the Hebrew phrase meaning "son of man" (ben adam) into the title "Son of Man"?

Note: there is no clear boundary between "son of man" and "Son of Man" as a title, because the Hebrew and Greek texts do not come with capital letters.

Likely very early, by proto-Christians, due to 'Daniel' and their apocalyptic beliefs.
Here is a clue:
>> Stephen got stoned to death by a Jewish mob right after he would have claimed "I see ... [Jesus as] the Son of Man ... at the right hand of God.
[this is the only occurrence of "Son of Man" in 'Acts' (compared with "Christ" = 24, "Lord" (as Jesus) = around 60). <<

Furthermore, in the Psalms, the "son of man" shows up as more than a regular human:

Psalm80:17-19: "Let your hand rest on the man of your right hand, the son of man you have raised [brought] up for yourself . Then we will not turn from you; revive us, and we will call on your name. Restore us, O Lord God Almighty; make your face shine upon us, that we may be saved.

Spin wrote:
Hebrews 2:6 knows of no such title:
"What is man that you are mindful of him, or the son of man that you care for him?"

But the overall context (Heb2:5-9) strongly suggests this "son of man" is Jesus.

Spin wrote:
Revelation (1:13 and 14:14) was not in the know either. It simply cites the "one like a son of man" from Daniel 7:13.

Ya, but in 'Daniel', this "son of man" is not a regular human either:

Daniel7:13b-14: "... one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. ... his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed."

Spin wrote:
The gospels of course are full of it... I mean the Son of Man title stuff.

Ya, that started with GMark, probably in order to connect Jesus as the "Son of Man" with the one of 'Daniel'. Also, "Mark" might have taken in account beliefs from Jewish Christians, who were fond of 'Son of Man".
And for the ones who consider Q early, we have eight "son of man" in it. For me, a dating of 80 will do.

a) "king": Mk = 11, (Q = 0), Mt = 20, Lk = 8, Jn = 16
b) "Son of David": Mk = 3, (Q = 0), Mt = 10, Lk = 4, Jn = 0
c) "Son of Man": Mk = 14, (Q = 8), Mt-Q = 24, Lk-Q = 16, Jn = 12

Spin wrote:
Paul knows nothing about it, nor do any of the other NT works. In fact, we have to look a very long way to find any reference to the SoM title in extra-biblical sources.

Paul tried to keep away from Jewish Christian beliefs.

Spin wrote:
Interestingly, in Barnabas ch12, we find
"Behold again: Jesus who was manifested, both by type and in the flesh, is not the Son of man, but the Son of God."

'Barnabas' is very much pro-Gentile Christianity and against Jews and Jewish Christians. "Son of God", resisted by Jewish Christians (more so in his pre-existent form), defines Gentile Christianity for the author. "Son of Man" is typical for the other.

Spin wrote:
Unless someone wants to give a convincing dating to Ignatius's authentic works, I think the first church father to show knowledge of SoM is Justin Martyr.

None of the stuff about Ignatius is authentic, but still datable before Justin Martyr, that is around 135.

Spin wrote:
If this logic is correct and the gospels can be dated by the integral use of the title "Son of Man", is this not a valid dating benchmark for the gospels?

I am certain the gospels came before the Ignatian letters and Justin Martyr. I date 'Barnabas" at around 97CE.
It took a long time for the gospels to be authoritative.

I go about the earliest Christian beliefs on that page of mine, from the top:
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/hjes3x.shtml
And about the dating of the gospels:
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/gospels.shtml

Best regards, Bernard

Yuri Kuchinsky · 11-17-2003, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by spin
When do people think that the early xians turned the Hebrew phrase meaning "son of man" (ben adam) into the title "Son of Man"?

[snip]

Unless someone wants to give a convincing dating to Ignatius's authentic works, I think the first church father to show knowledge of SoM is Justin Martyr.

If this logic is correct and the gospels can be dated by the integral use of the title "Son of Man", is this not a valid dating benchmark for the gospels?

spin

You're quite right, spin!

The dating of Ignatius is highly disputed. IMHO, Justin is really the first solid attestation of the "son of man" title, used as a title, and Justin only uses it once, AFAIK.

Please take a look at some articles I wrote on this subject. The links are at the end of this file; there are 4 articles there,

http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/mg.htm

I argue that the widespread use of "son of man" as a title of Jesus only came after Justin's time. Also, that all the instances where "son of man" is used in the canonical gospels are later interpolations.

I disagree with Bernard above where he says that "son of man" is a Jewish-Christian title. I see no evidence for this at all. Seems like a Gentile title to me.

All the best,

Yuri.

CJD · 11-17-2003, 12:22 PM

This was posted elsewhere, and while it doesn't answer your question directly, it does give some pertinent information about the idiom "son of man." BTW, heed Bernard's comment about there being no caps in biblical languages. Also note that it is more likely that the second-century church knew the idiom because of its use in the gospel texts of the first century, not the other way around.

Quote:

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. [Disregard. Ed.] 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 [And again. Ed.], 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.

**edited to show my disdain for Yuri's thesis:

(He/she is right about one thing: "son of man" is not a "Jewish-Christian" title; it is a thoroughly Jewish title! Also note that every time the phrase "son of man" is used in the gospel texts, it is recorded as being used by Jesus himself. Never do the authors refer to him as such.)

Regards,

CJD

MortalWombat · 11-17-2003, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike(ATL)
Barnabas ch12? What book are you reading?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say... umm.. Barnabas.

You are aware that there are dozens, if not hundreds, of early Christian works that did not make it into the New Testament, aren't you?

Epistle of Barnabas

Bernard Muller · 11-17-2003, 01:18 PM

Two quick notes:
For Daniel, the Septuagint has no "like a son of man" but "the Son of man":
"I beheld in the night vision, and, lo, one coming with the clouds of heaven as the Son of man"
That's according to:
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/P.../spDn7-13.html

Jews and Jewish Christians? The first generations of Jewish Christians considered themselves 100% Jews and were circumcised.

Best regards, Bernard

Amaleq13 · 11-17-2003, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bernard Muller
Two quick notes:
For Daniel, the Septuagint has no "like a son of man" but "the Son of man":
"I beheld in the night vision, and, lo, one coming with the clouds of heaven as the Son of man"

Whether it reads "as the son of man" or "like a son of man" isn't the best reading as a generic reference to a human appearance for this Heavenly Messiah? It isn't used as a title for the Messiah here but in the original sense of a roundabout way of referring to humans.

Bernard Muller · 11-17-2003, 05:52 PM

Amaleq13 wrote:
Whether it reads "as the son of man" or "like a son of man" isn't the best reading as a generic reference to a human appearance for this Heavenly Messiah? It isn't used as a title for the Messiah here but in the original sense of a roundabout way of referring to humans.

First, Diaspora Greek-speaking Jews would know about the book of Daniel through the LXX. So they would read "as the son of man" rather than "like a son of man".
Second, it seems this passage of LXX Daniel suggests this son of man is not already known first hand by God, because this "son" is presented to him (Da7:13 "was led in his presence"). So I think hellenistic Jews would not see here a pre-existent heavenly Messiah, but someone coming from earth, as a man (as Enoch or Elijah).
BTW, the pre-existence for Jesus came late (as I exposed in one of my page, HJ-3b). At first, it was believed Jesus was an adopted "son", (not the incarnation of the Word), starting his life as a human on earth.
Please note there is no mention of pre-existence in GMark, GMatthew & GLuke. Pre-existence was far from being universally accepted in early Christianity, despite the earlier efforts of Paul & the author of 'Hebrews'.

Best regards, Bernard

CJD · 11-17-2003, 06:52 PM

Quote:

First, Diaspora Greek-speaking Jews would know about the book of Daniel through the LXX. So they would read "as the son of man" rather than "like a son of man".

I'm not sure, Bernard, if this is a point worth emphasizing; especially since the LXX rendering is even more poignantly referring to a personal Messiah. Besides, it is not a far gone conclusion that the gospel writers knew only the LXX.

Quote:

Second, it seems this passage of LXX Daniel suggests this son of man is not already known first hand by God, because this "son" is presented to him (Da7:13 "was led in his presence").

Well, typically at coronations, one is "presented" to the king. Why miss the obvious?

As for the rest of your post, I do think adoptionism was the majority view from the 2nd century onward. However, I think the earliest church community thought otherwise precisely because of the teachings of Paul (and let us not forget all those who traveled with him and taught what he taught) and the author of Hebrews.

What is more, Jesus is recorded in the gospel texts chastising others for their under-developed Christology. Since this is off-topic, I'll let it stand for now--unless someone thinks this is absolutely not the case.

Regards,

CJD

11-17-2003, 07:01 AM	#1
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Son of Man When do people think that the early xians turned the Hebrew phrase meaning "son of man" (ben adam) into the title "Son of Man"? Hebrews 2:6 knows of no such title: "What is man that you are mindful of him, or the son of man that you care for him?" (This is straight Hebrew usage of the term.) Revelation (1:13 and 14:14) was not in the know either. It simply cites the "one like a son of man" from Daniel 7:13. The gospels of course are full of it... I mean the Son of Man title stuff. Paul knows nothing about it, nor do any of the other NT works. In fact, we have to look a very long way to find any reference to the SoM title in extra-biblical sources. Interestingly, in Barnabas ch12, we find "Behold again: Jesus who was manifested, both by type and in the flesh, is not the Son of man, but the Son of God." This text flatly rules out the SoM stuff. Unless someone wants to give a convincing dating to Ignatius's authentic works, I think the first church father to show knowledge of SoM is Justin Martyr. If this logic is correct and the gospels can be dated by the integral use of the title "Son of Man", is this not a valid dating benchmark for the gospels? spin

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

11-17-2003, 09:03 AM	#3
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	Spin wrote: When do people think that the early xians turned the Hebrew phrase meaning "son of man" (ben adam) into the title "Son of Man"? Note: there is no clear boundary between "son of man" and "Son of Man" as a title, because the Hebrew and Greek texts do not come with capital letters. Likely very early, by proto-Christians, due to 'Daniel' and their apocalyptic beliefs. Here is a clue: >> Stephen got stoned to death by a Jewish mob right after he would have claimed "I see ... [Jesus as] the Son of Man ... at the right hand of God. [this is the only occurrence of "Son of Man" in 'Acts' (compared with "Christ" = 24, "Lord" (as Jesus) = around 60). << Furthermore, in the Psalms, the "son of man" shows up as more than a regular human: Psalm80:17-19: "Let your hand rest on the man of your right hand, the son of man you have raised [brought] up for yourself . Then we will not turn from you; revive us, and we will call on your name. Restore us, O Lord God Almighty; make your face shine upon us, that we may be saved. Spin wrote: Hebrews 2:6 knows of no such title: "What is man that you are mindful of him, or the son of man that you care for him?" But the overall context (Heb2:5-9) strongly suggests this "son of man" is Jesus. Spin wrote: Revelation (1:13 and 14:14) was not in the know either. It simply cites the "one like a son of man" from Daniel 7:13. Ya, but in 'Daniel', this "son of man" is not a regular human either: Daniel7:13b-14: "... one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. ... his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed." Spin wrote: The gospels of course are full of it... I mean the Son of Man title stuff. Ya, that started with GMark, probably in order to connect Jesus as the "Son of Man" with the one of 'Daniel'. Also, "Mark" might have taken in account beliefs from Jewish Christians, who were fond of 'Son of Man". And for the ones who consider Q early, we have eight "son of man" in it. For me, a dating of 80 will do. a) "king": Mk = 11, (Q = 0), Mt = 20, Lk = 8, Jn = 16 b) "Son of David": Mk = 3, (Q = 0), Mt = 10, Lk = 4, Jn = 0 c) "Son of Man": Mk = 14, (Q = 8), Mt-Q = 24, Lk-Q = 16, Jn = 12 Spin wrote: Paul knows nothing about it, nor do any of the other NT works. In fact, we have to look a very long way to find any reference to the SoM title in extra-biblical sources. Paul tried to keep away from Jewish Christian beliefs. Spin wrote: Interestingly, in Barnabas ch12, we find "Behold again: Jesus who was manifested, both by type and in the flesh, is not the Son of man, but the Son of God." 'Barnabas' is very much pro-Gentile Christianity and against Jews and Jewish Christians. "Son of God", resisted by Jewish Christians (more so in his pre-existent form), defines Gentile Christianity for the author. "Son of Man" is typical for the other. Spin wrote: Unless someone wants to give a convincing dating to Ignatius's authentic works, I think the first church father to show knowledge of SoM is Justin Martyr. None of the stuff about Ignatius is authentic, but still datable before Justin Martyr, that is around 135. Spin wrote: If this logic is correct and the gospels can be dated by the integral use of the title "Son of Man", is this not a valid dating benchmark for the gospels? I am certain the gospels came before the Ignatian letters and Justin Martyr. I date 'Barnabas" at around 97CE. It took a long time for the gospels to be authoritative. I go about the earliest Christian beliefs on that page of mine, from the top: http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/hjes3x.shtml And about the dating of the gospels: http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/gospels.shtml Best regards, Bernard

11-17-2003, 01:18 PM	#7
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	Two quick notes: For Daniel, the Septuagint has no "like a son of man" but "the Son of man": "I beheld in the night vision, and, lo, one coming with the clouds of heaven as the Son of man" That's according to: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/P.../spDn7-13.html Jews and Jewish Christians? The first generations of Jewish Christians considered themselves 100% Jews and were circumcised. Best regards, Bernard

11-17-2003, 05:52 PM	#9
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	Amaleq13 wrote: Whether it reads "as the son of man" or "like a son of man" isn't the best reading as a generic reference to a human appearance for this Heavenly Messiah? It isn't used as a title for the Messiah here but in the original sense of a roundabout way of referring to humans. First, Diaspora Greek-speaking Jews would know about the book of Daniel through the LXX. So they would read "as the son of man" rather than "like a son of man". Second, it seems this passage of LXX Daniel suggests this son of man is not already known first hand by God, because this "son" is presented to him (Da7:13 "was led in his presence"). So I think hellenistic Jews would not see here a pre-existent heavenly Messiah, but someone coming from earth, as a man (as Enoch or Elijah). BTW, the pre-existence for Jesus came late (as I exposed in one of my page, HJ-3b). At first, it was believed Jesus was an adopted "son", (not the incarnation of the Word), starting his life as a human on earth. Please note there is no mention of pre-existence in GMark, GMatthew & GLuke. Pre-existence was far from being universally accepted in early Christianity, despite the earlier efforts of Paul & the author of 'Hebrews'. Best regards, Bernard

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.