Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Malachi151 · 02-26-2007, 08:17 AM

People are always talking about what type of "Messiah" the Jews were expecting before Jesus came along. I find all of these claim to be spurious. I have yet to have anyone point out to me any clear description of "the Messiah" in pre-Christian writings. Does such a description exist?

Was "the Messiah" the same thing as "Son of man"?

It seems to me that there was no clear cut idea of any "Messiah", or savior of any kind, just a huge array of a variety of different and conflicting stories none of which fit cleanly together.

Far from some well defined concept, there seems to have been a virtual stew of savior ideas none of which were clear, none of which had well defined roles, none of which were universally believed in, and most Jews probably didn't literally beleive in any of them.

So, what is all this talk of "the Jews were expecting an earthly king to lead them in battle." This just seems to be bunk to me.

robto · 02-26-2007, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

People are always talking about what type of "Messiah" the Jews were expecting before Jesus came along. I find all of these claim to be spurious. I have yet to have anyone point out to me any clear description of "the Messiah" in pre-Christian writings. Does such a description exist?

Was "the Messiah" the same thing as "Son of man"?

It seems to me that there was no clear cut idea of any "Messiah", or savior of any kind, just a huge array of a variety of different and conflicting stories none of which fit cleanly together.

Far from some well defined concept, there seems to have been a virtual stew of savior ideas none of which were clear, none of which had well defined roles, none of which were universally believed in, and most Jews probably didn't literally beleive in any of them.

Modern scholarship mostly agrees with you on this. See Jacob Neusner's Judaisms and Their Messiahs (or via: amazon.co.uk) - the title says it all.

Probably the closest parallel to the christian Messiah is in 1 Enoch. Here the Messiah is called "Righteous One" and "Son of Man", is pre-existent and involved in the creation of the world, and will return in the end times. However, the date of this section of 1 Enoch is probably too late for it to have influenced christian ideas directly.

Quote:

So, what is all this talk of "the Jews were expecting an earthly king to lead them in battle." This just seems to be bunk to me.

Well, SOME Jews WERE expecting an earthly king. Just not all of them.

spin · 02-26-2007, 08:56 AM

The Hebrew expression "son of man" was a circumlocution for "mere mortal", someone born of flesh and blood. It's used very frequently in the Hebrew bible, especially in the book of Ezekiel. So, as "messiah" material it's a bad start.

However, a figure in Daniel 7:13 is described as "one like a son of man", ie he had the appearance of a human being. This is after a list of four beasts, one like a lion but with eagle's wings, one like a bear with tusks, one like a leopard with four wings and one too terrible to be likened. The one like a lion represented Babylon, while the one like a son of man strangely enough represented the Hebrews.

Christians perceived this one like a son of man as a messianic figure. And the descriptive "one like a son of man" was transformed into a title, "the Son of Man". It's an obvious misunderstanding, but that's how we end up with the Son of Man. Jews didn't use the term as a messianic title, "mere human being". Doesn't seem like a title that would catch on in Jewish circles. But I guess "Son of Man" sounded somewhat mysterious to non-Jews.

To understand the Davidic messiah, check out Psalms of Solomon 17:21-25.

spin

spin · 02-26-2007, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robto

Probably the closest parallel to the christian Messiah is in 1 Enoch. Here the Messiah is called "Righteous One" and "Son of Man", is pre-existent and involved in the creation of the world, and will return in the end times. However, the date of this section of 1 Enoch is probably too late for it to have influenced christian ideas directly.

The section of Enoch which mentions the Son of Man is called the Similitudes or the Parables and it was not among the Enochic texts found at Qumran. Numerous fragments of the other sections were found, so Enoch must be considered a popular book by Qumran standards, which the Parables are completely missing suggesting they were not as yet written. Josef Milik dates the Parables quite late, meaning that it would be hard to imagine them not at least influenced by christian thought, if not simply written by christians.

Enoch's Parables are the only major source for the titular Son of Man outside clearly christian sources.

spin

gstafleu · 02-26-2007, 09:06 AM

I did a search for the phrase "son of man." In the OT it occurs frequently--the majority of cases coming from Ezekiel--but always in the meaning of "human being." Even in Daniel we see someone "like a son of man" descending on a cloud, but that just means that the descending being looked human. In Daniel 8 we see it quite clearly:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel 8:15-17

15 While I, Daniel, was watching the vision and trying to understand it, there before me stood one who looked like a man. 16 And I heard a man's voice from the Ulai calling, "Gabriel, tell this man the meaning of the vision."

17 As he came near the place where I was standing, I was terrified and fell prostrate. "Son of man," he said to me, "understand that the vision concerns the time of the end."

So the being looks like a human being, Daniel is addressed as a human being.

In the NT we see "Son of Man" used in its "capitalized" meaning, i.e. referring to Jesus, only in the gospels and once in Acts. Nowhere else. There is a "son of man" in Hebrews 2:6 ""What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?" But that is again in its meaning of human being. It is twice in Revelations, again meaning "human being."

So what is up with the gospels that there, and only there, it means something different? Lots of things in the gospels come from the OT, but this meaning of Son of Man obviously does not. Is it a way to emphasize that God took on a human form, like: we have lots of sons of man, but then we have the Son of Man?

Paul does not have Son of Man at all: he clearly missed out on an important part of the tradition depicted in the gospels. Yet another point for Doherty: Paul doesn't have an important element from the gospels, one that might be intended to emphasize Jesus' humanity?

How about the various apocrypha and other early writings, and Son of Man there?

Gerard Stafleu

RareBird · 02-26-2007, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

People are always talking about what type of "Messiah" the Jews were expecting before Jesus came along. I find all of these claim to be spurious. I have yet to have anyone point out to me any clear description of "the Messiah" in pre-Christian writings. Does such a description exist?

Was "the Messiah" the same thing as "Son of man"?

It seems to me that there was no clear cut idea of any "Messiah", or savior of any kind, just a huge array of a variety of different and conflicting stories none of which fit cleanly together.

Far from some well defined concept, there seems to have been a virtual stew of savior ideas none of which were clear, none of which had well defined roles, none of which were universally believed in, and most Jews probably didn't literally beleive in any of them.

So, what is all this talk of "the Jews were expecting an earthly king to lead them in battle." This just seems to be bunk to me.

Moses II.

gstafleu · 02-26-2007, 09:17 AM

Oops, I wasn't paying attention and just posted a similar thread. Maybe a helpful moderator can merge the two? <Done>

Anyway:

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Christians perceived this one like a son of man as a messianic figure. And the descriptive "one like a son of man" was transformed into a title, "the Son of Man". It's an obvious misunderstanding, but that's how we end up with the Son of Man.

I don't know. As I say in the other thread, it is only in the gospels that we see this use of Son of Man. Paul doesn't have it at all. So it was at best only some Christians that came up with the misunderstanding.

It is hard to see it as a misunderstanding. Even the most atomic reading of the passages makes it clear that "son of man" everywhere in the OT means "human being," so I suspect more is going on. It may be that whoever was behind the gospel tradition wanted to emphasize that in Jesus God had taken human form and in that form was the Son of Man, as opposed to any son of man. If so, it is telling (Doherty-wise) that Paul doesn't have it.

Gerard Stafleu

RareBird · 02-26-2007, 09:19 AM

My personal feeling is that the "Son of Man" is a typically masculine and patriarchical analogy for the entire future of humanity--not a single literal person or personification of god as it has come to be taken. This applies to the "trinity" as well. The trinity in my view is a sort of poetic analogy for the past which is called "the father", the future characterized as "the son" and the present where the spirit which must do honor to both past and future lives called "holy spirit". That makes sense to me as a solmen invocation that persons might make in times of critical decisions. But if ZI am correct in my assuptions of the origin of the notion, it became erroneously taken as literal personifications of god along the way. "The father" is not god, the son is not Jesus or the messiah and the holy spirit is not a flaming pigeon that defies logic. It's just a characterization of past, future and present dressed in male-dominated figurative language. IMO of course.

Steven Avery · 02-26-2007, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi

People are always talking about what type of "Messiah" the Jews were expecting before Jesus came along. I find all of these claim to be spurious. I have yet to have anyone point out to me any clear description of "the Messiah" in pre-Christian writings. Does such a description exist?

Hi Malachi,

Have you looked at the Targum of Isaiah 53 ? The text is at..

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messia...c/message/4057
Targum Jonathon, Isaiah 52:13 - 53, Behold my servant Messiah shall prosper

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Malachi151 · 02-26-2007, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Oops, I wasn't paying attention and just posted a similar thread. Maybe a helpful moderator can merge the two? <Done>

Anyway:

I don't know. As I say in the other thread, it is only in the gospels that we see this use of Son of Man. Paul doesn't have it at all. So it was at best only some Christians that came up with the misunderstanding.

It is hard to see it as a misunderstanding. Even the most atomic reading of the passages makes it clear that "son of man" everywhere in the OT means "human being," so I suspect more is going on. It may be that whoever was behind the gospel tradition wanted to emphasize that in Jesus God had taken human form and in that form was the Son of Man, as opposed to any son of man. If so, it is telling (Doherty-wise) that Paul doesn't have it.

Gerard Stafleu

Except that its not clear that Jesus is God in the Gospels, especially Mark, where in fact he appears not to be God.

02-26-2007, 08:17 AM	#1
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	Messiah / Son of Man, etc.... People are always talking about what type of "Messiah" the Jews were expecting before Jesus came along. I find all of these claim to be spurious. I have yet to have anyone point out to me any clear description of "the Messiah" in pre-Christian writings. Does such a description exist? Was "the Messiah" the same thing as "Son of man"? It seems to me that there was no clear cut idea of any "Messiah", or savior of any kind, just a huge array of a variety of different and conflicting stories none of which fit cleanly together. Far from some well defined concept, there seems to have been a virtual stew of savior ideas none of which were clear, none of which had well defined roles, none of which were universally believed in, and most Jews probably didn't literally beleive in any of them. So, what is all this talk of "the Jews were expecting an earthly king to lead them in battle." This just seems to be bunk to me.

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

02-26-2007, 08:56 AM	#3
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	The Hebrew expression "son of man" was a circumlocution for "mere mortal", someone born of flesh and blood. It's used very frequently in the Hebrew bible, especially in the book of Ezekiel. So, as "messiah" material it's a bad start. However, a figure in Daniel 7:13 is described as "one like a son of man", ie he had the appearance of a human being. This is after a list of four beasts, one like a lion but with eagle's wings, one like a bear with tusks, one like a leopard with four wings and one too terrible to be likened. The one like a lion represented Babylon, while the one like a son of man strangely enough represented the Hebrews. Christians perceived this one like a son of man as a messianic figure. And the descriptive "one like a son of man" was transformed into a title, "the Son of Man". It's an obvious misunderstanding, but that's how we end up with the Son of Man. Jews didn't use the term as a messianic title, "mere human being". Doesn't seem like a title that would catch on in Jewish circles. But I guess "Son of Man" sounded somewhat mysterious to non-Jews. To understand the Davidic messiah, check out Psalms of Solomon 17:21-25. spin

02-26-2007, 09:19 AM	#8
RareBird Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Virginia Beach Posts: 4,607	My personal feeling is that the "Son of Man" is a typically masculine and patriarchical analogy for the entire future of humanity--not a single literal person or personification of god as it has come to be taken. This applies to the "trinity" as well. The trinity in my view is a sort of poetic analogy for the past which is called "the father", the future characterized as "the son" and the present where the spirit which must do honor to both past and future lives called "holy spirit". That makes sense to me as a solmen invocation that persons might make in times of critical decisions. But if ZI am correct in my assuptions of the origin of the notion, it became erroneously taken as literal personifications of god along the way. "The father" is not god, the son is not Jesus or the messiah and the holy spirit is not a flaming pigeon that defies logic. It's just a characterization of past, future and present dressed in male-dominated figurative language. IMO of course.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.