Son of man.

[John T]

Just to be clear, I am not trying to trace beliefs so much as terminology. The question is not: Why do early Christians think Jesus was mentioned in the OT, including Daniel? (Though that is a worthy question.) The question is: why do the gospels call Jesus "the Son of Man"?...Ben C. Smith

Likely because the leader of the church, i.e., James the Just (brother of Jesus) proclaimed Jesus as the Son of Man.

Hegesippus via Eusebius writes that just before being murdered; James the just was asked what is the Gate to Jesus? James the Just replied;...'Why do you ask me concerning the Son of Man? He is now sitting in Heaven at the right hand of the Great Power and is about to come on the clouds of Heaven.'...Eusebius Book2 chapter 23 (13).

Okay, then, why did James think to call Jesus by a title which essentially means "human being"?

The name 'Son of Man' comes from the Book of Parables, i.e. Book of Enoch not the Old Testament. It means the 'appearance of a man'.

" And there I saw One who had a head of days, And His head was white like wool, And with Him was another being whose countenance had the appearance of a man, And his face was full of graciousness, like one of the holy angels. And I asked the angel who went with me and showed me all the hidden things, concerning that Son of Man, who he was, and whence he was, (and) why he went with the Head of Days? And he answered and said unto me: This is the son of Man who hath righteousness, With whom dwelleth righteousness, And who revealeth all the treasures of that which is hidden, Because the Lord of Spirits hath chosen him, And whose lot hath the pre-eminence before the Lord of Spirits in uprightness for ever."...Book of Enoch XLVI.3

http://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudep ... NOCH_2.HTM

This all makes better sense if you allow James the Just to be an Essene and read the Dead Sea Scrolls.

[Ben C. Smith]

This all makes better sense if you allow James the Just to be an Essene and read the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Well, while I am happy to entertain your suggested trajectory, I happen to know that reading the DSS will not specifically help here, since the Similitudes (chapters 37-71) are famously missing from the Qumran texts. Or did you have something else in mind?

[John T]

This all makes better sense if you allow James the Just to be an Essene and read the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Well, while I am happy to entertain your suggested trajectory, I happen to know that reading the DSS will not specifically help here, since the Similitudes (chapters 37-71) are famously missing from the Qumran texts. Or did you have something else in mind?

No. I don't want to waste any of your time trying to convince you that parts of the Parables are found as unreadable fragments from Cave 2 and Cave 4 nor would I care to waste time arguing against Milik suggesting the Parables were actually written around the 3 century. Instead, my point is the origin/meaning of the title of Son of Man as found in the Parables is very similar with the eschatology found at Qumran. If you allow James the Just to be an Essene and Parables to be part of the library at Qumran then it makes better sense.

If you believe the Essenes did not know about the Parables because there is no surviving copy, I would point out that the Book of Esther wasn't found at Qumran either but I suspect the Essenes knew about it. In my opinion it is just a matter of time before new technology comes along and fragments of Parables and Esther are confirmed.

I'm not looking for a debate on Essenes/Qumran (been there done that) I just thought I would cite a source that might shed some light to the answer to your question.

Sorry if I didn't help.

John T

[Ben C. Smith]

No. I don't want to waste any of your time trying to convince you that parts of the Parables are found as unreadable fragments from Cave 2 and Cave 4 nor would I care to waste time arguing against Milik suggesting the Parables were actually written around the 3 century.

The bit about reading unreadable fragments was amusing. Thanks.

Instead, my point is the origin/meaning of the title of Son of Man as found in the Parables is very similar with the eschatology found at Qumran. If you allow James the Just to be an Essene and Parables to be part of the library at Qumran then it makes better sense.

I admit the trajectory is not impossible. I have no current opinion on whether James can be classified as an Essene.

If you believe the Essenes did not know about the Parables because there is no surviving copy....

I would not use the lack of a copy of the Parables at Qumran as proof that Qumran did not know them. I would just leave it as an open question, at least until I become more convinced of their date by other means.

...I would point out that the Book of Esther wasn't found at Qumran either but I suspect the Essenes knew about it.

I believe Esther may a different matter. There may well be reasons for the Qumran group(s) not to like it very much, whereas we already know that they preserved Enoch literature. There may be an analogy there, but it is not perfect.

I'm not looking for a debate on Essenes/Qumran (been there done that) I just thought I would cite a source that might shed some light to the answer to your question.

No, I appreciate the reference. Thanks. I was just briefly concerned to make certain that unsupportable claims were not being made.

Ben.

[John T]

"The question is: why do the gospels call Jesus "the Son of Man"?...Ben C. Smith

So, did you find Hegesippus credible in his story regarding James, the brother of the Lord?

Did you find it useful in understanding why the gospels call Jesus the Son of Man?

[Michael BG]

"The question is: why do the gospels call Jesus "the Son of Man"?...Ben C. Smith

So, did you find Hegesippus credible in his story regarding James, the brother of the Lord?

Did you find it useful in understanding why the gospels call Jesus the Son of Man?

John T, I wonder if you are aware of this? - http://www.textexcavation.com/hegesippus.html written by Ben, so I expect he is familiar with “Hegesippus via Eusebius”.

We know that by the time the gospels were written, Christians and the authors were creating sayings about Jesus, therefore it seems likely that by 175 there were loads of traditions within Christianity which were false. A particular good one is that churches had bishops from the time of the disciples, which is false, but Hegesippus tells us it is true and even provides names of these fictitious bishops. When reading what Eusebius gives us (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ippus.html) to me it reads like fiction.

“He is now sitting in Heaven at the right hand of the Great Power and is about to come on the clouds of Heaven.”
This is quite likely based on Mk 14:62b “and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven” influenced by the Septuagint version of Dan 7:13 which has ἐπὶ “on” rather than the Jewish version “with”.

[Ben C. Smith]

"The question is: why do the gospels call Jesus "the Son of Man"?...Ben C. Smith

So, did you find Hegesippus credible in his story regarding James, the brother of the Lord?

Did you find it useful in understanding why the gospels call Jesus the Son of Man?

John T, I wonder if you are aware of this? - http://www.textexcavation.com/hegesippus.html written by Ben, so I expect he is familiar with “Hegesippus via Eusebius”.

We know that by the time the gospels were written, Christians and the authors were creating sayings about Jesus, therefore it seems likely that by 175 there were loads of traditions within Christianity which were false. A particular good one is that churches had bishops from the time of the disciples, which is false, but Hegesippus tells us it is true and even provides names of these fictitious bishops. When reading what Eusebius gives us (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ippus.html) to me it reads like fiction.

“He is now sitting in Heaven at the right hand of the Great Power and is about to come on the clouds of Heaven.”
This is quite likely based on Mk 14:62b “and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven” influenced by the Septuagint version of Dan 7:13 which has ἐπὶ “on” rather than the Jewish version “with”.

There are at least these three Christian martyrdom accounts (Jesus, Stephen, James) in which the martyr makes claims about the Son of Man in heaven. It stands to reason that there is a relationship between these accounts, and it would be profitable to trace its development and determine which one came first (and so forth).

John T., Michael seems to think that the Hegesippan account is posterior at least to the synoptic account. What is your argument to the contrary?

[John T]

John T., Michael seems to think that the Hegesippan account is posterior at least to the synoptic account. What is your argument to the contrary?...Ben C. Smith

Josephus account of the murder of James the Just (62 A.D.) by Ananus is credible by most scholars (Book 20, chapter 9, -1). Although Hegesippan adds historical details about James the Just I do not see any justification to think he simply made it all up. How much of Hegesippan's account was based on legend after a roughly a hundred years, is not something I can answer. However, Eusebius considers it "the most accurate account". I would suggest the "Son of Man" of Mark 2:10 was not inserted later but was always part of the gospel and is in keeping with the eschatology of the time.

With that I would maintain my position that the Book of Parables was known by James the Just and was not written after his murder.

V/R
John T

[Michael BG]

There are at least these three Christian martyrdom accounts (Jesus, Stephen, James) in which the martyr makes claims about the Son of Man in heaven. It stands to reason that there is a relationship between these accounts, and it would be profitable to trace its development and determine which one came first (and so forth).

I think I have started such a debate. Perhaps I was not clear.

1. It is possible that Jesus said “you will see the Son of man coming with the clouds of heaven” but the where and when has not survived.
2. It is possible that someone called Stephen after having a vision said “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God”. As I have already stated – this could be an interpretation Daniel 7:13 where the one like a son of man is presented to the Ancient of Days and so the son of man is standing next to him (God). The important word regarding development is “standing”.
3. Only later does Ps 110:1 affect the saying with Mark having “you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven”.
4. Hegesippus has used this for his death saying of James “He is now sitting in Heaven at the right hand of the Great Power and is about to come on the clouds of Heaven”, which includes the Ps 110:1 linkage of Mk 14:62b, the addition of “Great” and the word ἐπὶ which I have earlier suggested came from the Septuagint version of Dan. 7:13, but is possible to have come from Mt 26:64 where Matthew changes μετα to επι.

Ben, do you have an opinion?

John T., Michael seems to think that the Hegesippan account is posterior at least to the synoptic account. What is your argument to the contrary?...Ben C. Smith

Josephus account of the murder of James the Just (62 A.D.) by Ananus is credible by most scholars (Book 20, chapter 9, -1). Although Hegesippan adds historical details about James the Just I do not see any justification to think he simply made it all up. How much of Hegesippan's account was based on legend after a roughly a hundred years, is not something I can answer. However, Eusebius considers it "the most accurate account". I would suggest the "Son of Man" of Mark 2:10 was not inserted later but was always part of the gospel and is in keeping with the eschatology of the time.

With that I would maintain my position that the Book of Parables was known by James the Just and was not written after his murder.

V/R
John T

With regard to Ant. 20.9.1 I like Wells’ suggestion as given by Peter Kirby (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html) “Josephus probably wrote of the death of a Jewish Jerusalem leader called James, and a Christian reader thought the reference must be to James the brother of the Lord who, according to Christian tradition, led the Jerusalem Church about the time in question. This reader accordingly noted in the margin: 'James = the brother of Jesus, him called Christ' (cf. the wording of Mt. 1:16: 'Jesus, him called Christ') and a later copyist took this note as belonging to the text and incorporated it.” This according to Peter is elaborated on by Doherty. It is possible that the marginal note was only made after Origen made the link between the person named James in Josephus and James the brother of Jesus Christ (c 230).

Peter points out “Finally, it has been argued the identification of James by way of mentioning Jesus presupposes that Josephus had previously mentioned Jesus”. If the Testimonium Flavianum was written by Eusebius this explains why Eusebius is the first Christian writer to quote it and weakens the case for the James saying being written by Josephus. The reason why Eusebius might consider Hegesippus more reliable is because he wrote the Josephus one! Also if Eusebius did create the Testimonium Flavianum he is a very unreliable witness indeed!

The conclusion I draw is that until about 175 CE there is no record of how James the brother of Jesus Christ died.

[Ben C. Smith]

There are at least these three Christian martyrdom accounts (Jesus, Stephen, James) in which the martyr makes claims about the Son of Man in heaven. It stands to reason that there is a relationship between these accounts, and it would be profitable to trace its development and determine which one came first (and so forth).

I think I have started such a debate. Perhaps I was not clear.

1. It is possible that Jesus said “you will see the Son of man coming with the clouds of heaven” but the where and when has not survived.
2. It is possible that someone called Stephen after having a vision said “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God”. As I have already stated – this could be an interpretation Daniel 7:13 where the one like a son of man is presented to the Ancient of Days and so the son of man is standing next to him (God). The important word regarding development is “standing”.
3. Only later does Ps 110:1 affect the saying with Mark having “you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven”.
4. Hegesippus has used this for his death saying of James “He is now sitting in Heaven at the right hand of the Great Power and is about to come on the clouds of Heaven”, which includes the Ps 110:1 linkage of Mk 14:62b, the addition of “Great” and the word ἐπὶ which I have earlier suggested came from the Septuagint version of Dan. 7:13, but is possible to have come from Mt 26:64 where Matthew changes μετα to επι.

I think most of that was basically clear to me before, based on your posts, but it is nice to have it laid out like this. Thanks. (I was responding to John T. in my recent post: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2580&start=70#p58276. Your view seemed clear enough to me, but I was asking for his.)

Ben, do you have an opinion?

Well, I have to admit I like the idea of the saying beginning with "standing" and, under the influence of the Psalm, soon ending up with "sitting". I am not sure why your first step, "Jesus said", is necessary, and your wording seems vague enough that perhaps you think it unnecessary, as well. Hegesippus is my wild card right now. Sure, he must have written in the second half of the second century, but he may also have preserved much earlier material. I wish there were a clearer indicator of his information being posterior (or prior, for that matter) to the synoptic record. I like to see arguments from a combination of editorial fatigue, from redactional purpose, and/or from best explanation. Granted, we are never guaranteed that an author or editor will leave such markers for us. The more alert the author, the fewer instances of fatigue; the more astute the editor, the fewer explicit traces of his or her purpose. Sometimes even a best explanation fails to make itself manifest, and very different reconstructions seem equally possible.

Ben.