Aspirin99

The Son of Man:

I know that it was first used in Daniel and became in popular use in the 2nd century BCE (imagine that). I think that it is a term synonymous with "messiah", but I can't nail it down. Any help pointing me in the right direction?

spin

Firstly, let me strip the "the" from the beginning of the phrase and start with "son of man" -- the Daniel passage has no "the". We are left with a rather frequent expression used in te Hebrew bible, especially in the prophet Ezekiel, who god put in his place by calling him "son of man", which is a literally understandable phrase for one who is born of humans, ordinary, mortal. It is used in parallel with "man" as a different means of expressing the same idea. Num 23:19, says "god is not a man that he should lie, nor a son of man that he should repent for what he said."

The Hebrew notion was simply of a human being. Dan 7:13, carries on this tradition. The text of the chapter deals with nations represented by various figures mainly like animals, though the figure which represented Israel was "like a son of man", just as Babylon was "like a lion and had eagles wings". We are told that the divine figure for Israel had the appearance of a human being. Then Dan 8:17 uses "son of man" in exactly the same way as Ezekiel, with an angel referring to Daniel. This usage is the one found in the texts written later and found at Qumran. Down to the reputed time of Jesus the Hebrew usage was static, "son of man" indicated a human, progeny of humans, mere mortal.

In the book of 1 Enoch, really a collection of works, we find the mention of "the son of man" with an apocalyptic overtone in a section referred to as the Parables (or Similitudes). The whole section is missing from the Dead Sea Scrolls and the other parts of 1 Enoch circulated individually as the manuscripts indicate. Our copy of 1 Enoch which includes the Parables is actually a very late text in Ethiopic. The editor of the Qumran Enoch texts, Josef Milik, argues that the Parables was quite a late writing.

We are left in the 1st c. CE with no messianic understanding of the term "son of man", yet when we come to Mk 13:26,

"Then they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory."

we have a clear reference to Dan 7:13, no longer "one like a son of man", but "the son of man", turning the reference from a simple descriptive term in Daniel to a messianic title, showing a complete lack of understanding of the initial context.

The "the son of man" messianic terminology doesn't appear in the Pauline writings or any other nt material beside the gospels and once in Acts (though the Hebrew usage is found in Hebrews and Revelation) and only appears in patristic writing late in the 2nd c. CE. Mk clearly shows that it was based on a contemplation on Dan 7:13, though perhaps already removed from its context long before it was used by Mk.

It is the decontextualised figure that was Israel in Dan 7:13, seen not rising to heaven on the clouds as in Daniel, but coming down to earth on judgment day. Although it is a reference to Jesus, it is more the apocalyptic rather than messianic vision that is created.


spin

motorhead

As far as I know, the Son of Man sayings in the NT Gospels are very much open for debate. There are questions like, did Jesus even call himself the Son of Man or was this title given to him by the early church? If Jesus called himself this, what did he mean by it? If the early church gave him this name, what did they mean by it? Is Son of Man the same as the expected Jewish Messiah?

There's also the question of if the Son of Man sayings came from Jesus, did he think of himself as the Son of Man, or was he expecting another person to come as the Son of Man? An argument could certainly be made for this point of view. If the early church applied the Son of Man title to Jesus, it seems they thought of Jesus as the Son of Man who was to soon usher in the Kingdom of God.

I think the term Son of Man is also used in Ezekiel and it simply means man or human. In Daniel, the term is used as a designation for an apocalyptic figure who would usher in the last days.

CJD

<sigh>

When are you going to get it? The first-century writer absolutely understood the original meaning and context of the pertinent passages and quite deliberately and knowingly allows this Jesus guy to be the penultimate type of the Danielic "son of man." You don't have to like it, but let's not play the arrogant cur and accuse the author of ignorance …

spin

If that'll make you feel a little more in control of yourself...

When are you going to get it that you can't assume that it's a 1st c. writer??

Have you read Dan 7:13?? I mean, sat down and contemplated it, what it actually says, how it fits into its context?? how Mk has it cocked up, and going down to earth rather than up into heaven?? That makes two errors in the one clause and confirms the decontextualised source for Mk 13:26. You happily omit the "the" that is not in the Daniel text but inserted by Mk, which totally changes the implication of the citation.

You don't have to like it, but let's not play the blinkered apologist and defend blatant errors. :wave:


spin

Aspirin99

Thanks, spin. That helped a lot. I would be interested in knowing how the phrase is used in other apocryphal writings around the turn of the century BCE/CE.

CJD

My assumption, which is equally valid (nay, more so) than yours, is irrelevant.

I disagree with nothing you wrote about the Danielic son of man (and it's entirely not original with you, let it be known); I take issue with your ignorance in accusing Mark of his ignorance. First, the author doesn't have the son of man coming down; he too has him going up. Erchomenon can either mean "coming" or "going."

If you want to press it as "coming," then you do so because you are the blinkered apologist, for clearly the Danielic son of man conceives of the scene from the perspective of heaven, not earth (and of course the Markan pericope is clearly referring to Daniel). Your unfortunate assumption is that the author errs in ignorance. Mine is that the author knew exactly what he was quoting and why, and the text shows it. Nothing in Daniel, first-century readings of Daniel, the teachings of Jesus, the later apostolic writings, etc., push us in the direction of seeing an actual figure coming down to earth on actual clouds.

The Markan pericope, just like the Danielic one, is about vindication and exaltation, not about some kind of Tim LaHaye-style end-times fandango. It is about a human figure (not 'super' human) being justified.

And what, pray tell, would this Jesus in Mark 13 be justified for? Well, what is the pericope about? The destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. If they don't go his way to bring in the kingdom, then destruction will follow, so Jesus; and if and when that destruction comes, he will be justified, just like the "son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory."

Finally, I simply do not see how the definite article changes the implication. A little clarification is in order. If the author (and indeed, Jesus himself) sees this guy as the penultimate Israel, why not employ, in typological fashion, the definite article? Maybe it gives the instance a fuller weight, but to say it was "cocked up" is way too much. Talk about blinkered.

What you don't get, spin, is that your latent chronological snobbery (and in response to the anti-intellectual West's crass literalism) leads you to straight-jacket the ancient text with popular notions of a 'parousia'. Let's not allow modern idiocy to detract from ancient brilliance.

CJD

Chili

*The* son of man makes reference to Jesus Christ but *a* son of man is anybody who is born of God. Son of man is the God identity born unto us (or reborn in us), to make us the God-man that Jesus was, also with a human nature but no longer human as a new creation (or so the story goes). Our humanity is identified (Gal.2:17) to become our cross which makes the son of man sinless in nature and therefore beyond the conviction of sin. This would be where the victory lies for the ex believer who's church days are over when he/she finds freedom in Christ as Christian. ie. no longer a Jew or Catholic.

freigeister

Constantin Brunner, Our Christ, p. 205.

spin

If just the saying could make it so.

Too bad you couldn't make your sad point a little more eloquently. You attribute "ignorance" to me without evidence, which I didn't do with Mk. Try again.

The only examples, and very few there are of "going", are the work of the translators, not the verb. (600 times as "come", less than 10 as go. Oh, why does the apologist always have to cling to the longshot in order that their understanding works??)

You are now imagining that the writer isn't imagining Jesus coming at all, but going in power and glory. Impressive logic. But I must admit the "coming" is not my idea, it is the status quo approach to the text, with all translations that I know of using "coming". The word is consistently used in the nt as "come".

But you know and I that I don't and that you are just using empty rhetoric.

As I have indicated, although the writer is using Dainel, the evidence suggests that he didn't use the text itself.

Now, as Jesus is telling his disciples that they will see the son of man coming, they will obviously be on the earth. This is not provocative, CJD. YOU are just being perverse.

Unfounded conjecture on your part.

Now, why do you insist on inflicting this "first-century" stuff on me when you know you can't justify it??

You are making a mockery of what Jesus is saying to whom.

Very interesting.

The preceding passage is overtly apocalyptic. There is nothing here about the disciples going away, but about being ready for the cutting short of days. It is in the context of the appearance of false messiahs and being astute that we come to the coming of the son of man.

In Daniel we have a simple description, "one like a son of man". In Mk we have an apocalyptic title.

Why do you insinuate this "penultimate" stuff?

If it were not a clear reference to Dan 7:13 then there is no problem inventing new terminology. Here however it is a clear manipulation of a source text.

I'm sorry if the evidence is displeasing.

I like your dissociative skills.


spin