Ben C. Smith wrote: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.
It is rare that I am so clear and I think this might be the first time I have used the “list” function.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
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.
I don’t like to assert something as being true, my preferences are “most likely” and “probable” The use of “possible” allows greater uncertainty. As I have already stated sometimes we are left only with choices between what is possible, when no option seems “most likely” or “more probable” and we can give our reasons for why we think one possible option is more possible to us than others. I think it is most likely that Jesus talked about a coming son of man, therefore it is very possible that he said “you will see the Son of man coming with the clouds of heaven”, however without a context I don’t think I can move it to “most probable”. It seems that I am much happier than you in coming to a decision between “possibles”, which might be based on the need to do so when writing essays. You seem much happier not to commit yourself. We have so little of what Hegesippus wrote which makes it very difficult to identify the three features you would like to see. Also we don’t have any of Hegesippus’ writings, but just attestations from Eusebius who, I think I have made very clear, is a very unreliable witness, even within the usual unreliability of all Christian writers.