Son of man.

[DCHindley]

It is possible that it was first century Jews and Jesus who first referred to the heavenly being like a son of man as “the son of man” and not Christians. How far away is “that son of man” of the Similitudes of Enoch from “the son of man”?

There is an industry among some critics of the Christian persuasion to make the Similitudes representative of oppressed Judeans and/or Galileans under Herod's rule pining away for a savior sent by God on a special mission to "break the teeth" of the rich and powerfull. There are problems with this, especially of one reads Fabian Udoh's book on Taxation policies of Herod's time (exact name escapes me), as Herod's rule actually greatly expanded the kingdoms economic health, not destroyed it. He had shifted taxation away from agricultural produce paid in-kind (although n ot entirely) to toll taxes on luxury goods that crossed his kingdom, which he promoted and expanded heavily. The guy was a financial genius, really, so I do not buy the belief that his building & gifts was entirely on the backs of the poor.

Certainly this figure is exalted by God but I am not at all convinced that he was supposed to be a pre-existant being (in other words, a prototype of the early Christian Jesus).

There was a set of posts I did in the Judaism section on the subject, but due to zero interest I deleted them as fruitless, as it seems that everybody including non-Christian critics prefer to think that everything must revolve around Jesus and only Jesus.

Then there was a series of (undeleted) posts in the Christian section in which I summarized a 100 year old proposal that the original Son of man was actually Simon Bar "Giora" who was the last king of the Jews executed in Rome at Titus' triumph.

Now it occurred to me in those posts that this might explain the origin of the Similitudes of Enoch - as propaganda put out by Simon Bar "Giora" to promote himself as God's approved agent to shake things up and redistribute wealth and power.

DCH (lunch over)

[Michael BG]

It is possible that it was first century Jews and Jesus who first referred to the heavenly being like a son of man as “the son of man” and not Christians. How far away is “that son of man” of the Similitudes of Enoch from “the son of man”?

There is an industry among some critics of the Christian persuasion to make the Similitudes representative of oppressed Judeans and/or Galileans under Herod's rule pining away for a savior sent by God on a special mission to "break the teeth" of the rich and powerfull. There are problems with this, especially of one reads Fabian Udoh's book on Taxation policies of Herod's time (exact name escapes me), as Herod's rule actually greatly expanded the kingdoms economic health, not destroyed it. He had shifted taxation away from agricultural produce paid in-kind (although n ot entirely) to toll taxes on luxury goods that crossed his kingdom, which he promoted and expanded heavily. The guy was a financial genius, really, so I do not buy the belief that his building & gifts was entirely on the backs of the poor.

Certainly this figure is exalted by God but I am not at all convinced that he was supposed to be a pre-existant being (in other words, a prototype of the early Christian Jesus).

There was a set of posts I did in the Judaism section on the subject, but due to zero interest I deleted them as fruitless, as it seems that everybody including non-Christian critics prefer to think that everything must revolve around Jesus and only Jesus.

Then there was a series of (undeleted) posts in the Christian section in which I summarized a 100 year old proposal that the original Son of man was actually Simon Bar "Giora" who was the last king of the Jews executed in Rome at Titus' triumph.

Now it occurred to me in those posts that this might explain the origin of the Similitudes of Enoch - as propaganda put out by Simon Bar "Giora" to promote himself as God's approved agent to shake things up and redistribute wealth and power.

DCH (lunch over)

I find it strange that you deleted your posts due to zero interest rather than just letting them be there in case interest ever picked up!

I have a vague impression that I read your posts linking Simon Bar "Giora" to something, and linking it to an old book whose methodology was unusual, but I do not remember being convinced.

I think the Similitudes of Enoch does not need to have been written during the time of Herod the Great, but there are some references that imply it was written either during his reign or afterwards. If we assume it is Jewish and not Christian then I think a date after 36 CE becomes more difficult to support, especially the further in time from 36 CE we are trying to date it. The reason could be because the earliest Christians were using the title son of man for Jesus, but which later usage declined following the deaths of the “disciples” and James the brother of Jesus.

I was demonstrating the kind of evidence I like to see for propositions that such-and-such happened or did not happen in early Christianity. You seem to be claiming that Jesus uttered certain "son of man" sayings. On this very thread, just as one example, Bernard denies that Jesus ever did so. (And, even if he did not, it is certainly denied by some.) So I am asking you for your evidence that Jesus himself uttered certain "son of man" sayings. Which ones did he utter? And what makes you think he uttered them?

I am aware that others reject all eschatological son of man sayings.

If we accept that Jesus spoke of a coming end of time event and linked this to the son of man....

I do not accept that without evidence. I am not saying it is not true; I am frankly not sure either way, and want to know why you think it is true.

I was not literally asking you to accept it, I meant if we assume that it was true so could the next proposition be true. Please do not assume that I have considered the sayings and come to a definite conclusion, because I have not. But I have not either accepted the position that all eschatological sayings were creations of the early church. I find convincing the proposition that the early church attached titles such as son of God and Christ to Jesus, but they were less enthusiastic about the son of man title. In the synoptic gospels it is the son of man title which is put on the lips of Jesus more than any other title and this has to be considered as strong evidence that Jesus used the term. It is the coming son of man that the gospels have Jesus talk about, not his second coming which we would expect if the early church were creating sayings to support their beliefs.

What I am asking for is which sayings, in your judgment, are most likely to actually go back to Jesus, and why you think they do. The text saying that Jesus said something does not make it so, since we all agree that sayings were artificially put on Jesus' lips.

I think I have made a case for Lk 12:8 and Mt 10:23 in this thread on August 21st 5.11 BST. (Hopefully this will link to it viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2580&start=40)

I think what we are disagreeing on is what we are trying to demonstrate. Your points often seem to have the assumption lurking behind them that Jesus actually said some of the "son of man" sayings. I just want you to defend that assumption before I can adopt it as my own in my reconstruction of how "son of man" became a title.

Ben.

While behind your position it often seems lies the assumption that the eschatological son of man sayings do not go back to Jesus and you have not set out why you think this for each such saying. We have both set out a possible general theory without considering each saying to provide the evidence why our possible general theory is likely to be probable. I am happy for us both to talk about it at the general level, while it seems that you wish to talk about it at the general level but wish me to examine the sayings to provide support for my possible general theory. Which I am finding difficult to do.

[Ben C. Smith]

While behind your position it often seems lies the assumption that the eschatological son of man sayings do not go back to Jesus and you have not set out why you think this for each such saying.

The reason for the second assertion, which is true (that is, I have not laid out why I think each individual saying does not go back to Jesus), lies in realizing that the first assertion (that my position assumes that such sayings do not go back to Jesus) is not entirely accurate. I have striven not to assume one way or another on that matter. From your perspective, maybe that looks like I actually assume the opposite of your view, because it probably feels like I am not giving it due credence. But, from my perspective, it is simply a matter of trying to stick to the development of the title without distraction.

I am happy for us both to talk about it at the general level, while it seems that you wish to talk about it at the general level but wish me to examine the sayings to provide support for my possible general theory.

That is because it seemed (seems) to me that the specifics were more important to you for your hypothesis than they are to me for mine.

When I asked you for evidence for your view that at least some of the sayings go back to Jesus, I did so because it seemed to me that you deemed such a position important for your understanding of the development of the title, that Jesus actually having uttered some of them changed things for you. From my point of view, if Jesus spoke of a future Son of Man figure, then he simply becomes the first known person to take the indefinite "son of man" in Daniel and turn him into the definite "son of man" who will receive the kingdom. IOW, my proposed trajectory of development remains pretty much the same, to my mind; now we just happen to know the name of (one of) the first tradent(s) who played a role in that development: Jesus.

If you still (?) deem the position that some of the sayings are genuinely Jesuine (see? not "dominical", but Jesuine ) important to the development of the sayings, then it would seem to still be important to defend that position. If, on the other hand, you think (as I currently do) that the trajectory would remain pretty much the same in either case, then of course there is no need to defend it.

[Ben C. Smith]

What I am asking for is which sayings, in your judgment, are most likely to actually go back to Jesus, and why you think they do. The text saying that Jesus said something does not make it so, since we all agree that sayings were artificially put on Jesus' lips.

I think I have made a case for Lk 12:8 and Mt 10:23 in this thread on August 21st 5.11 BST. (Hopefully this will link to it viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2580&start=40)

I will try to take a closer look at that; thanks.

[DCHindley]

... There was a set of posts I did in the Judaism section on the subject [of the Parables/Similitudes of Enoch in Ethiopic Enoch], but due to zero interest I deleted them as fruitless, as it seems that everybody including non-Christian critics prefer to think that everything must revolve around Jesus and only Jesus.

Then there was a series of (undeleted) posts in the Christian section in which I summarized a 100 year old proposal that the original Son of man was actually Simon Bar "Giora" who was the last king of the Jews executed in Rome at Titus' triumph.

Now it occurred to me in those posts that this might explain the origin of the Similitudes of Enoch - as propaganda put out by Simon Bar "Giora" to promote himself as God's approved agent to shake things up and redistribute wealth and power.

I find it strange that you deleted your posts due to zero interest rather than just letting them be there in case interest ever picked up!

I have a vague impression that I read your posts linking Simon Bar "Giora" to something, and linking it to an old book whose methodology was unusual, but I do not remember being convinced.

Those posts were more of a series of rants about a couple of the critics contributing to Parables of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift (2013), particularly Darrell Bock and James Charlesworth, two especially influential scholars in the world of Historical-Critical investigation of texts from this period. Whenever Bock described the work of others, and I could also find online versions of the papers Bock claims to be describing the contents of, Bock's descriptions didn't come very close to describing what I thought the authors had actually said. It described what Bock wanted them to say, which coincidentally supported his own POV (basically the same one I kind of parodied below).

FWIW, the "Paradigm Shift" being referred to in the title goes back to Thomas Kuhn's 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, meaning they of such mind think they are finally winning the day for their POV after years of resistance. Kuhn's book was still rather influential in the late 1970s when I read it in college.

There is an industry among some critics of the Christian persuasion to make the Similitudes representative of oppressed Judeans and/or Galileans under Herod's rule pining away for a savior sent by God on a special mission to "break the teeth" of the rich and powerful. There are problems with this, especially of one reads Fabian Udoh's book on Taxation policies of Herod's time (exact name escapes me), as Herod's rule actually greatly expanded the kingdoms economic health, not destroyed it. He had shifted taxation away from agricultural produce paid in-kind (although not entirely) to toll taxes on luxury goods that crossed his kingdom, which he promoted and expanded heavily. The guy was a financial genius, really, so I do not buy the belief that his building & gifts was entirely on the backs of the poor.

I think the Similitudes of Enoch does not need to have been written during the time of Herod the Great, but there are some references that imply it was written either during his reign or afterwards. If we assume it is Jewish and not Christian then I think a date after 36 CE becomes more difficult to support, especially the further in time from 36 CE we are trying to date it. The reason could be because the earliest Christians were using the title son of man for Jesus, but which later usage declined following the deaths of the “disciples” and James the brother of Jesus.

Just like you didn't find my comments about Simon Bar Giora being the original Son of Man very convincing, I don't find the reasoning used by many critics, or their heavily spun interpretations of evidence stated as pure fact, to be convincing either. I'd love to discuss the finer points, with anyone listening.

I bought the book, which should have been better than it was considering it was the product of an Enoch seminar, directly from Amazon, so it should be available even still. An extra copy sent in error was forwarded to Peter Kirby, but he seems to have lost interest in it, or had other demands on his time, so maybe someone could approach Peter to see if he could forward it to them or someone else.

There is a predecessor volume from an earlier Enoch seminar available, Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, edited by G Boccaccini (2007), which I really should get if fate drops US $50 in my lap (yes, I know it can be bought remaindered for $9, so I'll probably get it).

DCH

[Michael BG]

On a general point Peter C Hodgson in “The Son of Man and the Problem of Historical Knowledge” in The Journal of Religion (Apr 1961 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1199616?seq ... b_contents) states “the ‘Earthy Son of Man Sayings’ seem peculiarly Q, and the sayings concerning suffering are almost exclusively Markan, while the apocalyptic sayings are scattered throughout all the strata” (p. 92). (He does accept that Mk 2:10 and 2:28 are similar to the Q usage.)

Hodgson present’s Knox’s conclusion, “on the one hand, Jesus could not have referred to himself as either the exalted, the earthly or the suffering Son of Man. On the other hand, the extensive Synoptic testimony to the fact that Jesus actually did speak about the Son of Man leads to the ‘strong presumption’ (in Knox’s words) ‘that Jesus was actually remembered to have used the phrase’ on some occasions and in some serious and impressive sense” (p. 95).

It seems to me that it is possible to make a case that each the three types of son of man sayings were created by early Christians. I think it has been argued that once Jesus has been equated with the coming son of man, those sayings where Jesus as a prophet claims authority can be turned into son of man sayings. I think Todt believes these sayings were created early, which I assume is why they ended up mostly in Q. I think Todt then links the state of a homeless Jesus as being a reason for him then to be seen as suffering and hence the suffering son of man. I think it is possible to conclude that Mark has developed the concept of the suffering son of man, which I don’t think is present in Q.

It seems to me to be difficult to provide strong cases why a particular eschatological son of man saying was said by Jesus rather than created by early Christians. It seems all we can do is provide the best case for those sayings where Jesus and the son of man are spoken of as separate beings and then look at the other eschatological son of man sayings in the light of that usage and if it conforms to the idea that the son of man and Jesus are separate beings then that particular saying could have been spoken by Jesus.

Luke 17:24, 37,

For as the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other, so will the Son of man be in his day.
And they said to him, "Where, Lord?" He said to them, "Where the body is, there the vultures will be gathered together."

Matthew 24:27-28, 37-38

For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of man.
Wherever the body is, there the vultures will be gathered together.

The probable Q version:

For as the lightning lights up one side of the sky and shines to the other side of the sky, thus will be the day of the Son of man.
Where-so-ever the corpse may be there shall be gathered the vultures.

According to these two sayings people will be able to tell when the day of the son of man has arrived in the same way as they see lightening flashing across the sky and how they know where the corpse is because they see vultures gathering. The day of the son of man is in the future and so it is possible for Jesus to talk about a future time when the heavenly figure – son of man will come, without this being a reference to himself. It seems that early Christians could have created sayings that stated that Jesus would come again, but they didn’t, they re-interpreted son of man sayings and coming Lord Old Testament prophecies. I think Mt 24:42 is the closest we get to such a creation.

These are similar to another saying possibly a Q saying but more likely an L saying.

Lk 12:54-56 (maybe Mt 16:2-3)

He also said to the multitudes, "When you see a cloud rising in the west, you say at once, `A shower is coming'; and so it happens.
And when you see the south wind blowing, you say, `There will be scorching heat'; and it happens.
Hypocrites! The appearance of the earth and the sky you know how to interpret, yet this time you do not know how to interpret.

The point is the same they can see when a shower is coming or scorching heat and so they should be able to see “this time”, which could be a future time if we assume that we can’t rely on the context in Q, or “this time” is Christian redaction to apply this to the time of Jesus, when Jesus actually was referring to the coming in the future of the end of time event.

The problem is that Christians accepted that the second coming of Jesus could be likened to a sudden flash of lightening and they sometimes described it in negative terms. However it seems that early Christians did not write much about a coming son of man figure they applied these “visions” to the second coming of Jesus. It seems logical to apply to Jesus these “visions” in the same way they applied Old Testament texts to Jesus which referred to either the Messiah, or David or God or other figures.

[MrMacSon]

I don't know if this has been mentioned in this thread, but Ben's note of Psalm 80:17 on another thread seems pertinent for it's mention of 'the son of man'

I think Bernard is right to call attention to Psalm 80.17 [wrt 'the phrase "the right hand of God" in the NT']:

17 Let Your hand be upon the man of Your right hand, upon the son of man whom You made strong for Yourself.

http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 222#p58222

eta: Ben mentions it here - http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 099#p58099

[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).

[Ben C. Smith]

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"?

[Michael BG]

I don't know if this has been mentioned in this thread, but Ben's note of Psalm 80:17 on another thread seems pertinent for it's mention of 'the son of man'

I think Bernard is right to call attention to Psalm 80.17 [wrt 'the phrase "the right hand of God" in the NT']:

17 Let Your hand be upon the man of Your right hand, upon the son of man whom You made strong for Yourself.

http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 222#p58222

eta: Ben mentions it here - http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 099#p58099

Bernard also posted this:

Jesus as "son of man" first appears in 'Hebrews' (2:6-9) (which I date 54 CE), that certainly described Jesus as having been human on earth (2:14-17, 5:7, 7:14).

And

to Ben,

Hebrews is simply quoting scripture, and does not give Jesus the title,

I do not think so.

Hebrews is quoting Ps 8:5-6 from the Septuagint version Ps 8:5-7 as I pointed out the Greek in Hebrews 2:6b-8 is identical to that in the Septuagint Ps 8:5-6, 7b (Ben later posted the Greek of some of both to emphasis this to Bernard who seemed to deny it).

In the Psalms at both 8:5-7 and 80:17 we have a parallelism first “man” second “son of man”.

Ps 8:5

[4] what is man that you are mindful of him,
and the son of man that you care for him?

It seems unlikely that the son of man was seen at the right hand of God because of Ps 80:17 because it is “man” and not “son of man” who is God’s right hand.

It seems much more likely to be from Ps. 110:1

[1] The LORD says to my lord:
"Sit at my right hand,

This can be interpreted as God having the Messiah sit at his right hand. In Mk 12:35-37 it seems to be used like this.
Acts 2:34-36 has David apply it to Jesus, which Christians often did (e.g. Rom. 8:34, 1 Peter 3:22).

It seems that before these sayings there were earlier sayings regarding the son of man.

Acts 7:56

Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God

Luke has Stephen saying it and he even tells us what it means to him “saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God” (Acts 7:55c-d). The Stephen saying does not have to have this meaning and 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).

Mk 14:61b

you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven

As I have pointed out (http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 9&start=20) it is unlikely that Christians would know what Jesus said before Jewish authorities assuming he was questioned by Jewish authorities. It seems to me likely that Mark or more likely the author of the pre-Marcan source has added “seated at the right hand of Power, and”. If so then the remaining saying may have been said by Jesus at some time – “you will see the Son of man coming with the clouds of heaven”. This is not a direct quote from the Septuagint version of Daniel 7:13 because Mark has μετα (with) not the Septuaginta ἐπὶ (upon) the clouds. Also this saying implies that there are some who hear this saying that will still be alive when the son of man comes. This seems to be evidence that this saying was not created by Mark.