Could Christians Have Used the Title 'Son of Man' in a Way Independent of Daniel's Expectation?

[Secret Alias]

This idea came up in the course of Giuseppe's usual idiocy. Stuart argued that yes the Marcionite gospel had Jesus make reference to 'the Son of Man' but that Marcion denied the association with Daniel. I find this ridiculous. If Christianity was a Greek speaking movement the allusion to a 'generic' Semitic terminology is wholly unlikely. Secondly Jesus's use of the terminology implies a specific rather than a generic figure and someone known to the community already (i.e. since he doesn't explain the terminology it is reasonable to expect they've already read Daniel). Furthermore the gospel (whether Mark or Marcion) makes reference to the Daniel 7:13 - 14 prophesy. Moreover the terminology was absolutely essential to early 'two powers' theology which is clearly related to Justin Martyr, one of the earliest Christian authorities. Since 'two powers' theology is closely related to Marcion (so Segal) it is difficult to argue that Marcion would have arrived at his idea of a 'second power' independently of Daniel. Moreover there is Marcionite exegesis of Daniel in De Recta in Deum Fide among other sources. Daniel was a eunuch and Marcionites extolled castration. It would seem that from every possible angle that Marcionites knew and used Daniel as their source for the 'Son of Man' concept. What stands in our way of accepting this and changing our view of Marcionism is that we WANT Marcionism to be anti-Semitic and anti- Jewish.

[Secret Alias]

BTW the clincher on Marcionite acceptance of the 'Son of Man' is found in De Recta in Deum Fide - https://books.google.com/books?id=KI6Bu ... 22&f=false

[Secret Alias]

BTW for those keeping score at home - Megethius is referencing John 8:28 and not a synoptic gospel (despite Pretty's best efforts to maintain bullshit):

'When you lift up the son of man, you will know that I do not speak of myself' (John 8:28).

On the Marcionite use of 'Son of Man' being rooted in Johannine rather than Synoptic 'Son of Man' references see https://books.google.com/books?id=qibko ... on&f=false Interestingly (when you actually stop and think about it again) the Marcionite/gnostic use of 'Son of Man' is wholly Jewish or at least 'two power' Jewish theology. The orthodox response is absolutely silly and contrived and reactionary. They go back to a wholly artificial point - 'Son of Man' must mean that Jewish was human which is absolutely against the earliest rabbinic reports about how the two powers theologians used Daniel. They said that there was a god who was an old man and a god who was a young man in the Daniel passage. Nothing about 'Son of Man' meaning the god was human. He is a god called or referred to by Daniel as 'Son of Man' wholly independent of any consideration of 'humanness.'

[Giuseppe]

Nothing about 'Son of Man' meaning the god was human

as to say that "born by woman" doesn't imply prima facie a human birth.

The term is danielic but is used in an anti-Jewish sense: the Son of Man is an exalted man in Enoch and Daniel. While in Marcion the Son of Man is a debased god.

[Secret Alias]

But the Jews cited in various source - or 'heretics' - used the term in this exact way. The second god of the two powers heresy is known or manifest or predicted by Daniel 7:14

[Secret Alias]

The term is danielic but is used in an anti-Jewish sense

And where has it been determined that 'the Jewish interpretation' of 'Son of Man' Daniel chapter 7 = 'human being.' That hasn't been shown by you. You've just assumed that owing to your 'antithetical' understanding of history and early Christianity (i.e. where 'if it is Christian' it must necessarily be opposed to Christianity)'. But that isn't always true (despite your ignoring that evidence) nor is it necessarily true here.

[Secret Alias]

https://books.google.com/books?id=LRzCB ... od&f=false

[Secret Alias]

You see you might not like Jews and Judaism. Perhaps that is part of your motivation to embrace gnosticism and Marcion. Nevertheless you have to at least be familiar with what the Jewish exegesis or what 'a' Jewish exegetical interpretation of a given passage is before you fall into the trap of bias confirmation. Within the context of Daniel passages, the use of son of man is explained by Rashi to denote: "one like a man was coming" - in other words an interpretation of Daniel 7:13 which at least opens the door to the anthropomorphic 'god' of the Christian tradition.

Remember Daniel reads:

In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man kebar 'enash

[Secret Alias]

And Casey's study makes clear that 'the Jews' DID NOT interpret the passage to mean 'a man' but often 'Israel' or some other more elastic concept. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1560560?se ... b_contents

[Secret Alias]

So the point here is that:

1. that Daniel says 'like a Son of Man' not simply a human being. This obviously allows for a 'Marcionite' interpretation of an anthropomorphic god.
2. that Jews report certain sectarians (obviously Jewish sectarians) use Daniel 7:13 to apply to the second god of Israel
and finally and most importantly
3. in what sense were the Marcionites 'anti-Jewish' or 'anti-nomian'?

Daniel is not part of the Law. Neither is Isaiah. The messiah is not mentioned explicitly in the Torah. Daniel is made a subordinate scripture in rabbinic Judaism (which by your antithetical logical could mean that they 'didn't like' Daniel because it was important to the Christians). If Daniel 'saw' that there was another god beside God, perhaps this might account for (a) the reason why there is so much Jewish discomfort with Daniel and (b) why there is always Marcionite interest in Daniel.