Jesus is not the Son of Man

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Jesus is not the Son of Man

Post by neilgodfrey »

spin wrote:
neilgodfrey wrote:You may not be aware of your habit of setting up and attacking straw men when you address my posts.
I'm sorry you feel victimized. Again it was not my intention. . . . .
:roll: nice try! So you turn your own flagrant straw man into my own "psychological problem"....
spin wrote:
neilgodfrey wrote:You are certainly aware of your propensity for sarcasm and insults.
I'm certainly aware of such a propensity, but it certainly was not being manifested here.
So disingenuous. And you (say you) wonder why I don't take you seriously.
Last edited by neilgodfrey on Sat Mar 25, 2017 5:31 pm, edited 3 times in total.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Jesus is not the Son of Man

Post by Michael BG »

neilgodfrey wrote:Some of us might find points of interest in the following. They are Lester Grabbe's conclusions in an article ""Son of Man: Its Origin and Meaning in Second Temple Judaism" in Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels: Reminiscences, Allusions, Intertextuality ed by Stuckenbruck and Boccaccini, 2016 -- pp 196-97
I am not sure what you are implying from this article regarding the Son of Man sayings in the gospels.

neilgodfrey wrote:
7. … In addition, the argument that there is direct Influence of the Parables of Enoch on the Gospel of Matthew seems to be well based and indicates that the figure of the Son of Man is not just a borrowing from Daniel.
Is he talking about Mt 19:28 (part par Lk 22:30) and 25:31?
[28] Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
[31] "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.
1 Enoch 62:4ff
Then shall pain come upon them as on a woman in travail, [And she has pain in bringing forth] When her child enters the mouth of the womb, And she has pain in bringing forth.
And one portion of them shall look on the other, And they shall be terrified, And they shall be downcast of countenance, And pain shall seize them, When they see that Son of Man Sitting on the throne of his glory.
1 Enoch 69:27 and 29
And he sat on the throne of his glory, And the sum of judgement was given unto the Son of Man, And he caused the sinners to pass away and be destroyed from off the face of the earth, And those who have led the world astray.

And from henceforth there shall be nothing corruptible; For that Son of Man has appeared, And has seated himself on the throne of his glory, And all evil shall pass away before his face, And the word of that Son of Man shall go forth
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Jesus is not the Son of Man

Post by neilgodfrey »

Michael BG wrote:
neilgodfrey wrote:Some of us might find points of interest in the following. They are Lester Grabbe's conclusions in an article ""Son of Man: Its Origin and Meaning in Second Temple Judaism" in Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels: Reminiscences, Allusions, Intertextuality ed by Stuckenbruck and Boccaccini, 2016 -- pp 196-97
I am not sure what you are implying from this article regarding the Son of Man sayings in the gospels.
I was thinking of the earlier comment focusing on Daniel as the source of the SoM idea. There is more than Daniel in the development of the idea.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Jesus is not the Son of Man

Post by spin »

neilgodfrey wrote:
spin wrote:
neilgodfrey wrote:You may not be aware of your habit of setting up and attacking straw men when you address my posts.
I'm sorry you feel victimized. Again it was not my intention. I was dealing with an issue, one which you may not have had a position on, but one which your comment had bearing on.
:-) nice try! So you turn your flagrant straw man into my own "psychological problem"....
spin wrote:
neilgodfrey wrote:You are certainly aware of your propensity for sarcasm and insults.
I'm certainly aware of such a propensity, but it certainly was not being manifested here.
So disingenuous. And you wonder why I don't take you seriously.
So little content and so much bristling. You've given me no reason to care that you don't take me seriously: you are too busy lashing out against perceived slights to entertain subjects relevant for forum discussion. And yet ironically you do have something to say on this particular topic.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Jesus is not the Son of Man

Post by MrMacSon »

spin wrote:
You've given me no reason to care that you don't take me seriously
  • you are too busy lashing out against perceived slights to entertain subjects relevant for forum discussion
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Jesus is not the Son of Man

Post by spin »

neilgodfrey wrote:Nah, I only enjoy having the odd shot at you when I see you acting like an intellectual snob or bully, not in jumping to your agenda. I don't see you as a serious interlocutor. Too manifestly ego driven. Pity. You have written and argued some good stuff in the past.
OK, Neil, since you insist on breaking Wheaton's law with such zeal, what besides your own poor rhetoric is my "agenda"?

You seem to get very prickly at times when there is no reason to. You have been pouring unprovoked insults in my direction, not just here but in the thread dealing with the Danielic visions—where you decided you knew better how things should proceed—, and other threads. Here I commented on a topic you deal with and so rather than respond on the topic—other than to make a few false accusations—you attack me, then get all uppity. It's amusing to the observer
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Jesus is not the Son of Man

Post by spin »

MrMacSon wrote:
spin wrote:
You've given me no reason to care that you don't take me seriously
  • you are too busy lashing out against perceived slights to entertain subjects relevant for forum discussion
Cute, but no star.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Jesus is not the Son of Man

Post by neilgodfrey »

spin wrote: OK, Neil, since you insist on breaking Wheaton's law with such zeal, what besides your own poor rhetoric is my "agenda"?
The "agenda" to which I was specifically referring was the one you were setting out as a suggestion in the last couple of paragraphs of the comment of yours to which I was replying. Freudian slip on your part to assume I meant something less obvious?

If you seriously wanted a discussion with me then you could begin by cutting the insult and other various personal attack bollocks and sustaining that drought for more than just two comments in a row. I suspect you're too set in your aged ways to change by now, though.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Jesus is not the Son of Man

Post by neilgodfrey »

Back to the OP --- if we are looking at the historicity of the SoM saying then I'd like suggest a post I personally think is brilliant (but I'm biased, I admit it), a post by Tim Widowfield at http://vridar.org/2017/03/18/is-jesus-i ... ve-device/

If the point of this post has merit, what does it do to the argument for the historicity of a SoM saying?
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Jesus is not the Son of Man

Post by MrMacSon »

From a thread titled 'Son of Man': there is a difference b/w a son of man and 'the Son of Man' -
Interpretation of the use of "the Son of man" in the New Testament has remained challenging and after 150 years of debate no consensus on the issue has emerged among scholars.[1][2]

The expression "the Son of man" occurs 81 times in the Greek text of the four Canonical gospels, and is used only in the sayings of Jesus.[3]

The singular Hebrew expression "son of man" (בן–אדם i.e. ben-'adam) also appears in the Hebrew Bible over a hundred times.[4]

The use of the definite article in "the Son of man" in the Koine Greek of the Christian gospels is novel and, before its use there, no records of its use in any of the surviving Greek documents of antiquity exist.[3] Géza Vermès has stated that the use of "the Son of man" in the Christian gospels is unrelated to Hebrew Bible usages - there is no example of "the son of man" in Hebrew texts.[5]

For centuries, the Christological perspective on 'Son of man' has been seen as a possible counterpart to that of 'Son of God' and, just as 'Son of God' affirms the divinity of Jesus, in a number of cases 'Son of man' [supposedly] 'affirms' his humanity.[6] However, while [professing] Jesus as the Son of God has been an essential element of Christian creeds since the Apostolic age, such 'professions' do not apply to 'Son of man' and the proclamation of Jesus as 'the Son of man' has never been an article of faith in Christianity.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_man_(Christianity)
  • 1 James DG Dunn (2003) Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, ISBN 0802839312 pp. 724-725

    2 Delbert Royce Burkett (2000) The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation, Cambridge Univ Press ISBN 0521663067, pp. 3-5

    3 Larry W. Hurtado (2005) Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, ISBN 0-8028-3167-2 Wm B. Eerdmans; pp. 290-293

    4 The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: Q-Z by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (1995) ISBN 0802837840 p. 574

    5 Vermès, Géza (2003) Jesus in his Jewish context Minneapolis: Fortress Press. ISBN 0-8006-3623-6 p. 82

    6 Alister E. McGrath (2010) Christian Theology: An Introduction, ISBN 1-4443-3514-6 p. 270

    7 A J B Higgins (2002) Jesus and the Son of Man, ISBN 0-227-17221-3 pp. 13-15
Géza Vermès "suggests that the term ['Son of man'] originates in Aramaic — ברנש - bar nash/bar nasha.[5] He concludes that in these sources "son of man" is a regular expression for man in general and often serves as an indefinite pronoun: in none of the extant texts does "son of man" figure as a title."


Larry Hurtado has commented on Vermès' commentary -
“The Use of Bar Nasha/Bar Nash in Jewish Aramaic,” in 'An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts', by Matthew Black (3rd ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967), 310-30, was another significant contribution. --Vermès showed that “son of man” (Aramaic Bar enash or Bar nash) was used simply to designate a human being (as the Hebrew equivalent is used [in] the OT). His further contention that the emphatic form, bar (e)nasha, was used in first-century Aramaic* simply to designate oneself, unfortunately still lacks any actual examples in relevant texts. https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2011 ... on-of-man/

* my emphasis
Extant versions of Judaic apocryphal and deuterocanonical works, such as the 'Similitudes of Enoch' and 4 Ezra, imply the term "Son of Man" meant or stood for a Messiah or 'the Messiah'. Yet -
Whether these messianic "Son of Man" references are genuinely Jewish or the result of Christian interpolation is disputed.[4] An example of a disputed section is that of The Similitudes (1 Enoch 37-71) which uses Daniel 7 to produce an unparalleled messianic 'Son of Man' -- pre-existent and hidden yet ultimately revealed, functioning as judge, vindicator of righteousness, and universal ruler.[5] The Enochic messianic figure is an individual representing a group, (the "Righteous One" who represents "the righteous", the 'Elect One' representing 'the elect'); but in 4 Ezra 13 (also called 2 Esdras) he becomes an individual man.[6][7][8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_ma ... depigrapha

4 G. Nickelsburg, "Son of Man" in Anchor Bible Dictionary 6.138.
Delbert Burkett says that Rudolf Bultmann saw the phrase's use by Jesus as being inserted by the early Church -
  • Burkett, Delbert (2000). The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation. Cambridge University Press. pp. 121, 124
Alister E. McGrath, in Christian Theology: An Introduction, also refers to Bultman saying this -
"Bultman suggested that the early church thus merged "Jesus" and the 'Son of Man', understanding them to be one and the same. The early church thus invented the application of the term ["the son of man"] to Jesus" --p.270
  • (It seems a pity that McGrath put 'the' in front of his reference to the OT term 'Son of Man' there (as it does not accurately represent pre-Christian terminology cf. Christian terminology))
Post Reply