Celsus

Yes Yuri, I'm quite aware that Similitudes is not found at Qumran. This is an argument from silence, which can be useful. However, given the other problems raised so far, as well as competing explanations, "silence" will not cut it. Unfortunately, all I get in return is someone repeating the mantra that it was not found at Qumran. I look forward to more evidence than this that Enoch is late.

Joel

spin

Repeat to Bernard:

Get a better translation.


spin

spin

Joel,

I tried to indicate to you that the fallacy is trying to project the Parables back to a period which suits you without any justification whatsoever.

You only have the combined book from Ethiopic which is obviously centuries after the period we are interested in. Just because a text like Barnabus appears in one of the big codices (Sinaiticus? can't remember), you cannot argue that Barnabus is the same age as the other texts. So, how do you relate the Parables in Ethiopic Enoch to the time of the emergence of xianity?

It's not sufficient that you would like it to be earlier.



spin

spin

This is simple:

"Jesus, not the son of man"

------ either B. is denying Jesus words or didn't know about the title

------ I go for the latter

"but the Son of God,

"a type made manifest in the flesh."

------ Jesus was "a type made manifest in the flesh",

------ not the son of man. Being such a type he could perform

------ human actions


OK?

Reading around the text shouldn't be your first action. And reading the Greek should be both our first actions, but I don't have the text.


spin

Bernard Muller

Yuri wrote:
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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Dear Yuri,

My argument was not on "the son of man" against "son of man". Just that the "man" and "son of man" are set in a context here in Heb2:5-9 where it does not mean just a regular mortal (or mankind generally). Here they are attributed to Jesus himself. By way of parallelism, actually some features of Ps8:6-8 are used to "demonstrate" the "man"/"son of man" is Jesus (Heb2:8-9) (and vice versa), who died, by then resurrected gloriously in heaven and the great ruler to come, as I have shown in two previous posts.
De facto, "son of man" becomes uniquely Jesus, an extraordinary entity (that is Christ/Son of God). And from there, "Mark" did not have to go too far into having Jesus as the son of man (with or without being influenced by the beliefs of Jews or Jewish Christians then).
More so after the events of 70, 'Daniel' was getting popular, because it could be interpreted as predicting the destruction of Jerusalem (again), "proving" it was part of a God's plan.
"Mark" knew about 'Daniel' (Mk13:14). GMatthew and 'Barnabas' spelled out "Daniel". Josephus, in 'Antiquities', is very fond of Daniel.
Furthermore, in my study of 'Revelation', I concluded the author, as a Jew then, wrote the most part right after 70. In this, what I called the "Jewish" Revelation, not only 'Daniel' is alluded to, but also an angelic "like a son of man" (14:14) is featured in an important unique apocalyptic role (to do the harvest of the good ones) before the coming of the worst of God's wrath.
I know you are going to disagree with that, but for the ones interested, I post my page here, where I explain that in great details:
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/rjohn.shtml

Yuri wrote:
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.

I was not the one who introduced Enoch's parables. Actually I think Ch37-71 may very well be late additions, redacted when Jesus as the Son of Man & Christ was being propagated by Christians. That would put the dating from 50 at the earliest, but more likely after 70.

Yuri wrote:
Because in the Magdalene Gospel SOM is not used at all.

Did you check how popular the "Son of Man" title was in medieval times? Or even in late antiquity?
That might provide the explanation for the absence of SOM in that gospel. BTW, I know "sweet Jesus" was very popular in medieval times and that expression shows several times in your gospel.

I might do some studies on that tomorrow.

Best regards, Bernard

spin

Mark clearly shows its author didn't know about Daniel, at least directly. It smacks of a predigested secondhand rehash.


spin

CJD

For the sake of clarity, I should put forth what I thought we would all know re: the "son of man."

In the Gospels, the phrase can be subsumed under three classes:

1. The Future Glorious Son of Man

2. The Son of Man on Earth in the Present

3. The Suffering Son of Man


1. In keeping with the apocalyptic texts (alluded to by Bernard), the Gospels also describe the coming of the Glorious Eschatological son of man. For example (and mentioned throughout this thread), Mark 8:38/Matt. 16:27/Luke 9:26: "For whoever is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the son of man be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." Remember my point about Jesus' using this ambiguous phrase and shaping it, narrowing it down to suit his purposes. Besides, whether this pericope has historical merit or not, the author is clearly saying more than "of him will the [human being] be ashamed when he comes in glory," & co.


2. The son of man texts in which Jesus referred to his earthly work have at least two emphases. 1) the focus upon his role as a human being among other human beings. Matt. 11:19/Luke 7:34. In contrast to the Baptist, "the son of man came eating and drinking" and was called a glutton and drunkard, a friend of sinners. This use is most probably related to the non-technical use of the phrase SOM (cf. Ps. 144:3). Lexically the phrase was bound to focus on the humanity of Jesus. 2) the other group of texts, however, focus on something quite different. In Mark 2:10/Matt. 9:6/Luke 5:24 it is the son of man who has authority (exousia) to forgive sins. In Daniel 7 the son of man receives dominion. In Mark 2 the son of man is exercising dominion and authority "upon the earth" precisely because of who he is. Consider Mark 1:22–27, where Jesus' teaching is viewed as having exousia. In Mk 2:27/Matt. 12:8/Lk 6:5 that exousia is expressed in the words, "The son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath." (I mentioned this earlier; note the intensifier). GJohn also depicts the son of man as a redemptive, eshatological [i.e., messianic] figure (e.g., 6:27).

Seeing these references (in #1 and #2 above) as organic outgrowths of both Daniel and the Similitudes is, in my opinion, more plausible than seeing them all as later interpolations.

3. Jesus is recorded speaking many times as the "suffering son of man." See Mark 8:31/Luke 9:22. Peter rebukes the son of man for his seemingly contradictory statements about suffering (the Messiah wasn't supposed to suffer!). See also John 3:14 and 12:32–34. Finally, read Mark 10:45 and compare all of these with Isaiah 53:10–12. The suffering servant of the prophet is subsumed under the phrase son of man by Jesus. All of this leads me to posit three main reasons why Jesus used this title: 1) It was not common in connection with messiaship (though we have seen, not unheard of). As such, it had less cultural baggage; 2) The phrase itself has a dual meaning—designating both humanity and something more (divinity?); 3) Finally, it was a Glorious Title, as primarily the Danielic pericope shows (as do the Similitudes, which are just as valid to use as not).

I can see arguing that the "son of God" phrase is a secondary creation of the Hellenistic Christian community (which I do not think it is), but frankly this business that the titular use of the phrase is later than the 1st century is anything but convincing.

Regards,

CJD


p.s. Yuri, your backhandedness smacks of foolishness. Any idiot can do "tons of research" and "detailed studies." The real task is making coherent sense of it all. That, dear poetaster, you have failed miserably to do (despite the ad hominem disclaimer that NT scholars cannot handle it).

spin

I find myself in the weird situation where I basically have to do xian exegesis -- well, I guess, I could call it a little lit-crit. Xians might appreciate the irony.

One position regarding the use of "son of man" in Hebrews 2:6 is obviously not correct. We differ as to which one.

Reading Psalm 8, the source for the Hebrews passage, we find that there is no messianic or eschatological content, but we do find that it expresses the tutelage of the world given to human beings. An eschatological content is drawn out however in Hebrews.

Looking at the context of Heb 2:6-8, we find at 1:14, "Are not the angels the ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?"

Can we agree that the "those" refers to human beings (as Jesus has no need of inheriting salvation in the future)?

If so, can we agree that those to whom the world will be subjected, as implied by 2:5, will also be, not angels, but human beings?

Can we agree that the purpose of the writer at this stage is to belittle the angels, parallelling them with servants, placing them only just above humans?

It is here that the psalm is brought in to bolster this argument.

6 What is man that you [God] are mindful of him,
or the son of man that you care for him?
7 You made him a little lower than the angels,
you have crowned him with glory and honour,
subjecting all things under his feet.
8 Now in subjecting all things to him,
he [God] left nothing not put under him.

This is basically straight from the psalm, but a little extra is added:

But at this time we don't see everything subject to him.

Here the text tells us what we do see, as we don't see all that is subject to man: we see Jesus. As Jesus was brought down lower than angels for a while (ie made like us to be able to taste death) only to be raised to glory, so will the many be brought to glory.

To attempt to make Jesus the man and son of man in 2:6 we should be able to construct the following:

What is Jesus that you [God] are mindful of him,
or the son of man [Jesus] that you care for him?

This doesn't make much sense, seeing as Jesus is God's son. The answer would be banally obvious. The real, though rhetorical, question is: What makes man something that God bothers about? (The repetition in the verse comes from the art of Hebrew poetry.) We cannot see man as God has planned him, says our writer, but we can see Jesus, and that's how we get our piece of pie.


spin

CJD

And you were doing okay, too, until about the end.

I think you misunderstood Bernard's exegesis. To be sure, the Psalmist was speaking of mere human beings. But he was speaking of them as the crown of God's creation, the heirs, or vice-regents of the earth. One major point of the author's use of the Psalm is to contrast angels and human beings (v. 5) in order to point to the Messiah, who, in assuming a full and complete humanity (vv. 14, 17), restores man's dignity and divinely-intended place in creation. In other words spin, your reading is not quite subtle enough. There is more going here. That is why the author includes an explanation at v. 8.

Since it is obvious that man does not fully enjoy the status described in the psalm, he/she adds a thought or two: that "we see Jesus" is an important point because, as noted in v. 8, this person has received the crown of glory and honor. This person must have received it as a man in order to satisfy the words of the psalm quoted.

The screaming implication is the a priori—this person is divine. What needs to be reinforced, per the author, is that this divine was fully man. As is typical (generally speaking), the exegesis lacked the both/and, and wrongly posited an either/or.

Regards,

CJD

spin

My interest is the use of "son of man" and that's where my post was going. You can keep your subtleties, though I agree with much of what you say, but I don't think it bears on the matter.

This is where you miss the subtleties. Gracefully moving between humanity in general, the author's human reading audience and Jesus, and weaving his parallels and relationships, the author maintains the separation between the entities with finesse. No, not both/and. That's just conflating the Hebrew expression and the title, son of man.


spin