The "Son of Man" and Simon Bar Giora

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2048
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

The "Son of Man" and Simon Bar Giora

Post by DCHindley » Sun Oct 25, 2015 6:10 pm

In some of my (not so) recent posts on Hegesippus' fantastic story about Jacob the Just in his five volume "Note-Books", I had suggested that the story seems like a political show-trial. Searching the works of Josephus for a Jacob who might have served as a model, I came up with the Idumean general Jacob the son of Sosas as the most likely candidate.

This Jacob the son of Sosas was one of the Idumean generals who responded to the Zealot plea for help against the Provisional Revolutionary Government (PRG) of former HP Ananus son of Ananas & his second in command Jesus, also of High Priestly lineage.

First Ananus had closed the gates of the city to shut them out, speaking down to them insultingly from the top of the city wall, and then Jesus made a speech from the wall telling them they would only be let in as spectators to judge for themselves the "truth" of Zealot claims, but only of they laid down their arms first. The Idumeans, stung by their reception, of course did not agree, and stewed about this "disrespect" directed towards them by the PRG, as a torrential rainstorm pounded them accompanied by tremendous thunder and lightening.

As Ananus, Jesus and the PRG thought they had put the Idumeans firmly in their place, during the storm the Zealots had moved fighters into position and secretly opened the gates to let the Idumeans in. They moved in and promptly arrested, and summarily executed, Ananus and Jesus as well as any of the HP lineage they could lay their hands on. Their corpses were thrown over the city wall and guards were apparently posted at the base of it to prevent anyone from burying them. This seems overly dramatic, but might suggest a "show-trial", the kind of which Josephus described the Zealots and Idumeans conducting immediately after the executions of Ananus and Jesus.*

After a period of co-rule with the Zealots, the Idumeans, realizing the Zealots had used them as pawns to overthrow the PRG, withdrew from the city after releasing all the political prisoners they could, and appear to have allied themselves with Simon bar Giora, who was then fighting in the countryside. Jacob son of Sosas was by far the most prominent of Simon's Idumean supporters, and even helped him subdue Idumea for Simon's cause.

This situation continued until the Romans parked about the city and started to lay siege to it. Simon was by now master of much of the city. At this point the Idumean generals seem to have lost faith in Simon's ability to defeat the Romans, and consulted with one another about how they could extricate themselves from the mess and preserve their lives. They decided to offer to surrender the city to Titus on terms, but Simon somehow discovered their intention before the Romans had decided on their response, and promptly arrested the Idumean generals, including Jacob son of Sosas, and put to death those who had approached the Romans about the matter. See War 4:235-6, 238, 315-318, 5:248-249; 6:92, 148, 378-80.

At this point Jacob son of Sosas disappears from the narrative. However, given the Judean rebels love for show trials, I suggested that there was some document produced that gave a running transcript of Jacob's trial for treason before Simon bar Gioras. This trial transcript mocked Jacob son of Sosas by asking him "what is the wall of Jesus?" This referred to Jesus' speech to the Idumeans, where he had predicted that the Idumeans could become the reason for a Roman victory. The implication is that the chief-priest Jesus had been right about Idumeans all along, and by extension Jacob son of Sosas, that they should not have been trusted.

In the (bogus?) trial transcript, Jacob had apparently responded to Simon's charge, "I see the "son of man" sitting on the right hand of (god's) power!" This might be an allusion to the exalted "son of man" described in the Parables of Enoch, but how did Jacob mean "son of man" in this context. I was baffled at first.

Now it is unlikely that such documents got out of Jerusalem, considering the Roman circumvallation of the city, but copies would surely have fallen into the hands of the Romans upon the city's capture. Hell, Simon himself may have had it drawn up and sent to the Roman camp to show what he thought of them and their abortive "allies". In any event, like almost all documents "captured" in all wars, the account came to be circulated among some after the conflict, probably the non-Judean population of the region, until a copy fell into the hands of Hegesippus.

Hegesippus, traveling to Rome as part of his duties for his human master, created an amusing narrative of stories about the early pre-proto-orthodox Christians, and the members of Jesus' wild and wooly family, jotting in his note-book for the trip details from conversations he had had with other proto-orthodox Christians of similar employment he met on the journey. Think of The Canterbury Tales in England much later. In the process, I proposed that he used the "trial transcript" to frame his narrative about Jacob the Just.

As I mentioned, at first I was not so sure what Jacob son of Sosas would have meant by "son of man". Then I ran across a book, Simon Son of Man: A Cognomen of Undoubted Historicity, Obscured by Translation and Lost In The Resplendence Of A Dual Appellative, by John I Riegel and John H Jordan, dated 1917, which claims that Simon Bar Giora was in fact the original Son of Man. This would have definitely made the "trial transcript" propaganda for Simon bar Giora.

Don't get me wrong, Riegel & Jordan were kooks, but they do manage to show how many Aramaic words probably used to describe Simon and his commanders mentioned in Josephus' works can be linked to the accounts of Jesus in the Christian gospels. Josephus purposely omits any mention of Simon being "the Son of Man", and the NT attributes the title Son of Man to Jesus Christ.

https://ia800503.us.archive.org/1/items ... 023mbp.pdf

See where this might be leading? :eek:

DCH

*(JOE Jwr 4:326-343) 326 Now after these were slain, the Zealots and the multitude of the Idumeans attacked the people as upon a flock of profane animals, and cut their throats;
327 and, for the ordinary sort, they were killed in whatever place they caught them. But for the noblemen and the youth, they first caught them and bound them, and shut them up in prison, and put off their slaughter, in hopes that some of them would come over to their party;
328 but not one of them would comply with their desires, but all of them preferred death before being enrolled among such wicked wretches as acted against their own country.
329 But this refusal of theirs brought upon them terrible torments; for they were so scourged and tortured, that their bodies were not able to sustain their torments, till at length, and with difficulty, they had the favour to be slain.
330 Those whom they caught in the daytime were slain in the night, and then their bodies were carried out and thrown away, that there might be room for other prisoners;
331 and the terror that was upon the people was so great, that no one had courage enough either to weep openly for the dead man that was related to him, or to bury him; but those who were shut up in their own houses could only shed tears in secret, and dared not even groan without great caution, lest any of their enemies should hear them;
332 for if they did, those who mourned for others soon underwent the same death with those whom they mourned for. Only in the night time they would take up a little dust, and throw it upon their bodies; and even some that were the most ready to expose themselves to danger, would do it in the day time:
333 and there were twelve thousand of the better sort who perished in this manner.
334 And now these Zealots and Idumeans were quite weary of barely killing men, so they had the impudence of setting up fictitious tribunals and judicatures for that purpose;
335 and as they intended to have Zacharias, the son of Baruch, one of the most eminent of the citizens, slain,--so what provoked them against him was, that hatred of wickedness and love of liberty which were so eminent in him: he was also a rich man, so that by killing him, they did not only hope to seize his effects, but also to get rid of a man that had great power to kill them.
336 So they called together, by a public proclamation, seventy of the principal men of the populace, for a show as if they were real judges, while they had no proper authority. Before these was Zacharias accused of a design to betray their government to the Romans, and having traitorously sent to Vespasian for that purpose.
337 Now there appeared no proof or sign of what he was accused; but they affirmed themselves that they were well persuaded that so it was, and desired that their affirmation might he taken for sufficient evidence.
338 Now when Zacharias clearly saw that there was no way remaining for his escape from them, as having been treacherously called before them, and then put in prison, but not with any intention of a legal trial, he took great liberty of speech in that despair of his life he was under. Accordingly he stood up, and laughed at their pretended accusation, and in a few words confuted the crimes laid to his charge;
339 after which he turned his speech to his accusers, and went over distinctly all their transgressions of the law, and made heavy lamentation upon the confusion they had brought public affairs to:
340 in the meantime, the Zealots grew tumultuous, and had much ado to abstain from drawing their swords, although they designed to preserve the appearance and show of judicature to the end. They were also desirous, on other accounts, to try the judges, whether they would be mindful of what was just at their own peril.
341 Now the seventy judges brought in their verdict, that the person accused was not guilty, -- as choosing rather to die themselves with him, than to have his death laid at their doors:
342 hereupon there arose a great clamour of the Zealots upon his acquittal, and they all had indignation at the judges, for not understanding that the authority that was given them was but in jest.
343 So two of the boldest of them attacked Zacharias in the middle of the temple, and slew him [see Mat 23:35 RSV: "35 that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar"]; and as he fell down dead, they bantered him, and said, "You have also our verdict, and this will prove a more sure acquittal to you than the other.'' They also threw him down from the temple immediately into the valley beneath it.

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2048
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: The "Son of Man" and Simon Bar Giora

Post by DCHindley » Tue Oct 27, 2015 7:25 pm

In my recent incarnation of Charles Wilson, I suggested that Hegesippus, gawd bless his soul, was better at literary pretension than as a historian. He took stories that he had heard from fellow travelers, such as "I heard that James the brother of Jesus was a real character!" He hears rumor that James was quite observant of his native Judean customs, and that he may have been the same as the James who Josephus says was tried and executed by HP Ananus son of Ananus.

Well, being the literary man that he obviously was, he knew he needed a frame upon which he could project his story about James. One of his friends or acquaintances may have offered this sage advice: "There's this really weird trial transcript that I heard about, for sale in a bookseller's stall on Main Street by the baths. It talks about this "son of man" as if he was really exalted by God. I think it was about Jesus Christ, but I didn't have enough cash to buy it".

Hegesippus finds this intriguing, and since his master had provided him with a little extra allowance for "amenities" during his travel to Rome, he hustled to the bookseller's stall and inquired about it. "Oh, that little scroll! Ha! It was some kind of propaganda put out by one of the Judean generals in their first revolt. What was his name again ... Oh yeah, 'Simon the son of Gehenna' or something like that. Heggisippus pulled a handful of Denarii from his purse and handed them to the man, who wrapped it in a brown papyrus bag.

It so happens, I have been told on good authority, that he set sail on the last stage of his journey to Rome the very next day. With not so much to do, and not too susceptible to sea sickness, he read through the scroll, fascinated. The talk in it, of judging the elites and getting even with them, and the "son of man" talk, sounds kinda "Christian-y." Then it occurred to him: "Woo-hoo! This is the perfect frame to hang my James story around!" The rest is history.

All joking aside, I think that the similarity of the subject matter that might be found in a trial transcript of a political revolutionary (Jacob son of Sosas) before an even crazier social revolutionary (Simon bar Giora), who claimed to be a kind of king or judge over the Judeans, sounds a little like the "son of man" in the Parables of Enoch, which has a strong social justice theme in which the poor judge the rich and watch in glee as they writhe in torment from the same kinds of punishments the elite used to inflict on them.

Simon was a radical, freeing slaves, political prisoners, and burning tax records. That kind of sounds like what the "son of man" does in the Parables of Enoch. Could the Parables of Enoch have influenced Simon's self conception, or could the Parables of Enoch have been Simonian propaganda as well?

Interesting ... what?

DCH :scratch:

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2048
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: The "Son of Man" and Simon Bar Giora

Post by DCHindley » Wed Oct 28, 2015 5:45 pm

So nobody can say "Ah! Mr. DCH only posts what is favorable to his wild cockeyed fantasies!" I have found a rather detailed Review of the Book mentioned in the Opening Post, which, in the authors' mind and perhaps the minds of a number of others, fully refutes the premises stated in the book in question:

Agide Pirazzini, Review of Simon Son of Man, by John I. Riegel and John H. Jordan. Boston, 1917. Pp. 269

Biblical Review, Vol III, No 2, April 1918
[311] LITERARY REVIEWS

AN EXAMPLE OF FUTILE INGENUITY

This book is a collaboration by two men who at one time studied with the Christian ministry in view — one, at least, is now a consulting engineer. It represents some years of labor, as is very evident, but it may be said at the outset that its processes of reasoning and its conclusions are so fanciful and preposterous as hardly to claim a reviewer's time. However, it is a type of argument to catch readers of superficial scholarship and radical inclinations respecting the Christian faith, and so may be given some attention. A circular describes it as "the most astounding book of this generation." In a sense this may be true, when the evident sincerity of the authors is seen to be combined with their complacent faith in the credulity of "every candid mind courageously seeking the truth concerning the identification of the Son of Man" and with the hope that this grotesque attempt at scientific investigation can overturn the faith, knowledge, and scholarship of the ages.

The stated purpose is to prove the historical existence of Christ. This is attempted by trying to identify Him with the Jewish patriot of the first century A.D., Simon Bar Giora. The chief points of argument are that the historian Josephus has blackened and slandered the character of this notable leader of his race, while the New Testament writers recognize his noble and patriotic character, yet conceal his identity by cryptic names and devices, for fear of the Romans, so that he is known therein as the Son of Man, as well as by other familiar names traditionally applied to Christ. After the fall of Jerusalem the scattering of the disciples over the world, we are told, led to confused impressions of the great Jewish hero, so that he appears in historical literature as Jesus, St. Stephen, Simon Magus, Valentinus, Appollonius of Tyana, Simon Zelotes, Simon the Tanner, Simon the Leper, and others. Paul turns out to have been the same as Justus of Tiberias, otherwise James the Little, otherwise the brother of the hero of the book. The authors discover that "the writings of 'Paul' are deliberate cryptic history." Some of the other startling pieces of information are, that Calvary was the [312] Capitoline Hill in Rome, "the demons of the Gospels were the Romans of profane history," Peter was the son of this Simon Bar Giora who led the Jews in their futile struggle against Titus, and Joseph of Arimathaea and Josephus the historian are one and the same.

The argument rests largely upon the supposed cryptic writings, upon the alleged unreliability of Josephus, upon the confusion of homophones — words of similar sound but of dissimilar meaning, and upon the presumed errors of copyists. Opposed utterly to the church's interpretation of the New Testament, the volume opens its preface with the naïve remark: "This book is in no sense a polemical work."

At the time when Jerusalem was besieged by the Romans under Vespasian and Titus there existed within the unfortunate city three rival factions, struggling against each other for supremacy. These internal enemies were destroying not only the lives but also the food that had been accumulated in prevision of a siege, as each hoped to deprive the rival faction of its sustenance, thus greatly increasing the sufferings of the people who had not known "the time of their visitation."

The only historian whose writings are left to inform us at length of those terrible events is Flavius Josephus, himself a witness and participant in many of the happenings which he relates. It is generally conceded that Josephus is, in the main, pretty accurate, and that his better qualities emerge particularly in his Jewish Wars. Indeed, he made a special effort to be fair-minded, for contrasting himself with other historians he says: "They have a mind to demonstrate the greatness of the Romans, while they still diminish and lessen the actions of the Jews: as not discerning how it cannot be that those must appear to be great who have only conquered those who were little. * * * However, I will not go to the other extreme, out of opposition to those men who extol the Romans, nor will I determine to raise the actions of my countrymen too high, but I will prosecute the actions of both parties with accuracy" (Wars of the Jews, Preface, 8, 4).

Any one who has read the Wars knows that Josephus has kept his promise fairly well. He often blames the Romans and their commanders when they are worthy of blame, but he praises [313] them when praise is due. And he does exactly the same, in the description of his own countrymen. This appears especially in the case of the three principal leaders of the factions that were contending for pre-eminence amidst the ruin of their own country. Perhaps Josephus might have been inclined to paint a little blacker the figure of John of Giscala, a political adversary against whom Josephus had fought when he was himself one of the Jewish leaders. He certainly had no particular reason for grudge against the other two chiefs. Indeed, the authors of the work we are endeavoring to review say: "Josephus has hardly a single good word to say of either John, Eleazar, or Simon Bar Giora who commanded the Jewish forces during the long siege of Jerusalem" (p. 33f.). If their deeds were such as Josephus describes (he is the only witness left, as we have noticed) he could hardly do otherwise. But what the authors add to that statement does not correspond to the facts in the case.

We will have to consider the matter somewhat carefully, since one of the main contentions upon which the book is based depends upon this point. "Joseph Bar Matthias, otherwise Josephus, as might be expected from such a traitor or apostate, does all he can to whitewash the black record of the sanguinary Romans, as he displays equal zeal in besmirching the poor, distracted, disorganized, but brave and passionately patriotic Jews who fought with desperation for their altars and their firesides, * * *. According to Josephus, all the Romans were noble and brave, while all the Jews, excepting himself, were rapacious and cruel cowards" (p. 34).

With respect to such affirmations, it may be noted that one has only to read the account of the barbarities of the Roman procurator, Gessius Florus, which are described by Josephus, in the fourteenth chapter of the second book of the Wars, to persuade himself that he does not represent "all the Romans as noble and brave."

We quote only the last sentences of Josephus' account: "The citizens fled along the narrow lanes, and the soldiers slew those that they caught, and no method of plunder was omitted; they also brought them to Florus, whom he first chastised with stripes and then crucified. Accordingly, the whole number of those that were destroyed that day, with their wives and children (for they [314] did not spare even the infants themselves) was about three thousand and six hundred. And what made this calamity the heavier, was this new method of Roman barbarity," etc. (book II, ch. 15, sec. 9). Josephus, indeed, tries to show that it was the ferocity of such a government which forced the Jews into the war.

Now, as to Josephus describing "all the Jews, excepting himself" as "rapacious and cruel cowards," this is no more accurate than the previous statement. Josephus does not spare praise to his fellow countrymen, whenever he can do so in harmony with the truth. Thus he praises very highly the virtues of Ananus, son of Ananus, and Jesus, the son of Gamala, whom he calls with the endearing epithet of "the best esteemed of the High Priests" (book IV, ch. 3, sec. 9). Indeed, one cannot read, without emotion, the discourse of Ananus to the people, reported at length in section 10 of the same chapter. Far from describing him as "a coward" Josephus makes him say: "Certainly it had been good for me to die before I had seen the house of God full of so many abominations * * *," and he ends his discourse by saying: "It is a right thing * * * to die before these holy gates, and to spend our very lives, if not for the sake of our children and wives, yet for God's sake, and for the sake of the sanctuary."

And this is the effect of his words upon the people: "So the multitude cried out to him, to lead them on against those whom he had described in his exhortation to them, and every one of them was most readily disposed to run any hazard whatsoever on that account." A strange kind of "cowards" they certainly were! And such instances might be easily multiplied by appropriate quotations. Suffice it to state that Josephus far from describing his personal enemy John of Giscala as a "coward" says of him: "It was known to everybody that he was fond of war;" and of the inhabitants of Jerusalem he says that Titus himself "esteemed the men that were in it so courageous and bold, that even without the consideration of the walls it should be hard to subdue them; for which reason he took care of, and exercised his soldiers beforehand for the work, as they do wrestlers before they begin their undertaking" (book IV, ch. 2, sec. 1).

From this it appears very clearly that the authors of the book under review are starting from absolutely mistaken premises. [315] These being destroyed we might as well rest here. But it may be asked, What is the authors' contention? Briefly this: Granting that Josephus, the "traitor or apostate," represents all the Jews, excepting himself, as "rapacious and cruel cowards," he has especially done so in the case of one, "Simon Bar Giora." But here again we must call the reader's attention to the fact that this affirmation is no more correct than the previous ones we have examined. Josephus represents him everywhere as a very courageous man, though cruel and violent (book II, ch. 19, sec. 2, etc.). The first mention he makes of him is as having defeated the Romans themselves: "The Jews retired into the city; but still Simon the Son of Giora, fell upon the backs of the Romans, as they were ascending up Beth-horon, and put the hindermost of the army into disorder," etc. (book II, ch. 19, sec. 2). But why should Josephus particularly vent his wrath against Simon Bar Giora rather than against John of Giscala, for instance? Here lies the great secret of the book — Simon Bar Giora happens to have a name which, by proper manipulation and sundry exegesis, may be made to be equivalent to the title "Son of Man." But this title is the one given to the Messiah in the Old Testament, and to "Jesus" in the New. Hence it follows that Simon Bar Giora is the true historical Christ of the Gospels! This is so extraordinary that the authors say:

"It will be difficult for many whose minds have become prejudiced against the great general of the Jews by the scurrility of that arch-traitor, Josephus, to recognize at first glance as the divine hero of the Gospels the caricature silhouetted in the pages of his Jewish Wars * * *. But, nevertheless, here and there a phrase or a sentence stands out which indicates that the Son of Man was not in reality the wan and pallid creature we see in the gray light of the Gospels. The real military character of his mission flashes forth in such sentences as that in Matthew 10:34, in which he is quoted as saying, 'I came not to send peace but the sword.' His real mission is indicated in Luke 22:36, in which with ardor he exclaims, 'He that hath not, let him sell his coat and buy a sword' " (p. 10f.).

The numerous Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek words occurring in these pages are very apt to produce upon the "layman" the impression of profound scholarship. But the explanations of [316] the words are marvelously original and unique. "Gi'ora is the equivalent of the Aramaic Gibhora, a word which means 'man,' 'power,' 'might.' The aspirated or undageshed b being equivalent to our w, and having no equivalent in Greek, was doubtless omitted in Greek transliteration, as well as it might be, without materially affecting the phonetic value of the word, as compensation for the elided letter was made by the lengthening of the succeeding vowel, in this instance o" (p. 9f.).

Any one who has the least acquaintance with Hebrew and Greek will understand at once the absolute futility of the above affirmation. But since the whole book is based upon such foundations, we will have to consider this matter briefly. It is not true that the "undageshed b" has no equivalent in Greek. We have only to look at the Septuagint to see that the contrary is the case. Whenever an "undageshed b" is found in the Hebrew it is constantly transliterated by β in the Septuagint (and by b in the Latin Vulgate) while the b with "dagesh forte" is constantly transliterated by double b in the Latin Vulgate and by the same β in the Septuagint. This may be seen by the following parallels, which might be multiplied:

Nehemiah 7:25, Bne Gibh'dn=Υἱοὶ Γαβαων (LXX) ; Filii Gabaon (Vulgate). Joshua, 15:57, Gibh'ah=Γαβαὰ (LXX); Gabaa (Vulgate). (Cf. Ezra 2:10; 1 Kings 15:27; Neh. 11:8, in the Hebrew, Septuagint, and Vulgate.)

We notice also that, according to the excellent system of transliteration introduced by Professor C. P. Fagnani of Union Theological Seminary in his Hebrew Primer, the "undageshed b" is conveniently transliterated by the Greek β which indeed it resembles in pronunciation.

The attempt, therefore, to identify the name Giora with the Aramaic Gibhora is perfectly absurd. Furthermore all scholars, both Jewish and Christian, agree that the name indicates "the son of a proselite," and has therefore an entirely different origin from Gibhora. The same convenient method of "accommodation" of words is prevalent all through the book.

Let us take a few illustrations at random, as they abound everywhere. On pages 93, 94 we read: "A close study of the text will show that 'Barabbas' is but another name for the Son of Man. The personality of Barabbas grew out of the indistinct [317] penmanship of a scribe. In Hebrew the k and the b are very much alike, as there is but a small difference in the formation of the base lines of these letters," etc. And on pages 95, 96: " 'Cyrenian' in Hebrew is 'Kurini.' This is easily mistaken for 'Kirinu' — 'our fortress,' a title not unbefitting the brave defender of the Holy City. Attention should again be called to the fact that the i and the u in Hebrew are similar in form and differ only in length," etc.

But this wonderful system is equally applied to other languages as well. Thus we read on page 98: "Simon Megas would be the Greek equivalent of Simon Gi'ora. Careless orthography coupled with a primitive weakness for the marvellous [the lesson comes from a worthy pulpit!], easily turned the 'Megas' into 'Magos,'" etc.

On page 120: "The phrase usually translated 'Joseph, husband of Mary,' is in Syriac 'Joseph Gi'ora damaria.' The d in Syriac is almost circular while the s is formed by a small circle tangential with a larger one; but changing time or careless copyists could easily alter the letter to a d. In the genealogical table in the Syriac of Luke 3:23, the lengthening of a single line, the prolongation of an l below the base makes of it a g," etc.

Finally we must add that such arguments and explanations as those above outlined run through nearly three hundred pages, while the volume contains also maps and illustrations.

Agide Pirazzini.
Mr. Pirazzini seems only a bit less conceited than Riegel and Jordan, the authors of the book in question. However, I think that the language issues that he brings up have also been addressed by authors such as S G F Brandon Jesus and the Zealots (1967) and John Allegro, The Sacred Mushroom & the Cross (1970), Hugh Schonfield and perhaps Robert Eisler. The latter two have somewhat of a reputation as mavericks, and in the case of Eisler the reputation of being a kook himself, but they may add something to the discussion.

And then there is Stephan Huller ...

DCH :popcorn:

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2048
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: The "Son of Man" and Simon Bar Giora

Post by DCHindley » Sun Nov 01, 2015 8:14 pm

I started to look a little deeper into this one. I could swear I have seen much of this before, but for some reason I was thinking Hugh Schonfield (Passover Plot or Pentecost Revolution/The Jesus Party, 1965 & 1974-5 respectively), or maybe Robert Eisler's Messiah Jesus & John the Baptist (early 1930s). The style of using etymology almost indiscriminately to prove just about anything is mirrored by John Allegro in Sacred Mushroom & the Cross (1970).

At least they are not trying to go back to Akkadian or Sumerian roots, but restrained themselves, only going as far as Hebrew & Aramaic sources. Basically, the are making the assumption that all of the Gospels reflect Aramaic roots that were subsequently translated into Greek, generally fairly badly in order to hide the true roots of Christianity. Jesus, the founder of Christrianity, was in fact the revolutionary Simon Bar Giora during the Judean War. The man faught his way up the food chain in the power struggles that were going on in the background. He would for a time control the countryside, and eventually he took control of most of the city from the Zealots. On the way he would burn tax and debt records, freed numerous political prisoners, and generally acted like a brilliant anarchist who is doing his best to bring down the powerful cartels of the ruling classes, and based on his coins he seems to have claimed to be the anointed ruler of Judea, if only by proclamation by a significant segment of the people in Jerusalem. This is exactly how the Hasmonean dynasty was established years before. In any event, he exercised control in one way or another for 3 & 1/2 years. I am not sure he considered himself an "end times" type of messiah, more of a "changing times" type messiah, ready to help shape the new society that he hoped would rise from the ashes of the power structures he loved to destroy.

But what really interested me was the possibility that the figure of a "son of man" in the Parables of Enoch (the part of 1 Enoch that has yet to be attested at Qumran) could in fact be propaganda literature put out by Simon Bar Giora, whose name can be ingeniously connected to the phrase "son of man". Now, they go on the assert that just about every figure in the Christian tradition, good and bad alike, are really reflections of Simon, who loved, beside destroying things and slaying people, to use innumerable nick-names.

This itself is not what I find interesting. What I do find interesting is that this is pretty much a match for the type of radical politics attributed to the "son of man" in the Parables of Enoch, who exists pretty much for one thing only, destroy the powerful, break their teeth, make them beg him for mercy, much like the common people had to beg for from them previously and probably rarely ever got, a mercy which he will not extend to them now that the tables are turned. The "son of man" in the Parables is exalted by God, although I am not at all convinced that he was depicted as divine or even least pre-existent. No, I do rather think I can see this "son of God" of the Parables being a caricature of Simon, in a wide ranging propaganda venture. So I think I will look into this angle for a bit.

While I was pondering these wonderful things, I accidentally OCR'd the PDF file I found originally, because it was so badly done that it was unusable, and then I had to edit the OCR text (a fair bit, although the initial quality was MUCH better). I just again accidentally finished doing that about a couple hours ago.

I took some time to ponder whether to upload it as a PDF (about 6 Mb) or as an RTF (800 Kb), but it is a bit harder to read it because the problem of re-OCRing a PDF is that they become smaller in visible width. I think I'll stick with the PDF, I can always change it later.

DCC (must slee...ee..ppppf) :shifty:

I'll just have to leave the 2-3 grammatical errors I spotted, too tired to care ...
Attachments
(Riegel, John I & John H Jordan) Simon Son of Man (1917).pdf
If you know anything about the Parables of Enoch, this is worth reading
(6.03 MiB) Downloaded 58 times

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 3892
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The "Son of Man" and Simon Bar Giora

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sun Nov 01, 2015 8:28 pm

Thanks, David. Have downloaded it, and someday, when I feel in the mood to embrace the weirdness, I may give it a read. :)
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2048
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: The "Son of Man" and Simon Bar Giora

Post by DCHindley » Mon Nov 02, 2015 8:28 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:Thanks, David. Have downloaded it, and someday, when I feel in the mood to embrace the weirdness, I may give it a read. :)
I'm going to make an effort to test their Simon Bar Giora = "son of man" thesis, to see if it is tenable in Aramaic. I have already posted a quite detailed review, and refutation, of the proposal.

The whole idea that the Parables of Enoch could be related somehow to Simon Bar Giora the rebel leader (and according to his coins, a messiah) is intriguing, and would go a long way towards explaining the origin of the Parables -- and perhaps why we do not seem to see the Parables among the DSS. Some of it was "in the air" (such as using "son of man" as a way of referring to an ordinary human being), but his platform was quite radical.

Here is what Cecil Roth said about him in an article, "Simon bar Giora, Ancient Jewish Hero: A Historical Reinterpretation" (Jan 1, 1960), in Commentary Magazine
Simon bar Giora was obviously a radical, with extreme tendencies. Leaving the capital with his followers, he tried to make himself master of the district of Acrabatene, southeast of Samaria, and a well-known center of fierce patriotic sentiment. Here apparently others who shared his views rallied to him. He attacked the wealthy, sacking their houses and molesting their persons, until the provisional government in Jerusalem, headed by the ex-High Priest Hanan ben Hanan (“Ananus” in Josephus), sent an armed force against him. This Spartacist revolt (as we might call it) was put down without much difficulty, but bar Giora was able to escape, with some of his more devoted followers and their womenfolk.

Meanwhile, the survivors of Menahem ben Judah’s sicarii faction had returned after his assassination to the Herodian fortress of Masada, on a cliff overhanging the Dead Sea, where they continued to hold out under Eleazar ben Jair. There were apparently profound differences of outlook between them and the followers of Simon. But they were united by a common antipathy to the Jerusalem government, and were prepared to join hands at least temporarily. To Masada, therefore, Simon led his followers. The two factions did not however coalesce, the newcomers and their womenfolk being allowed only to establish themselves in the lower part of the stronghold and not allowed access to the actual fortress where Eleazar and his sicarii were established.

The two factions did collaborate in a series of raids in which apparently they tried to extend their hold over the territory to the southwest, towards Idumea, where the representatives of the central government found themselves for a time seriously pressed. However, Simon’s plans were more ambitious than those of Eleazar [ben Yair]. The sicarii apparently were content to wait until the central government fell — either from internal dissension or before the Romans — and imagined that then, with the help of God, they would come into their own. Simon, on the other hand, followed an activist policy throughout his known career and hoped to establish his own ascendancy, and that of his ideas, by force of arms.

In the winter of 67—68, the news of events in the capital persuaded him that his hour had come. The disaster in Galilee, where their priest-colleague Josephus had gone over to the Romans after a shameful military debacle, had completely discredited the priestly junta in Jerusalem who had hitherto been at the head of the provisional government. Their position was further undermined by the influx of war refugees from Galilee bearing detailed reports of what had happened there. As the result of a coalition between them [the refugees from Galilee] and the Zealots, assisted by wild Idumean tribesmen whom they summoned to their assistance, the provisional government was overthrown, and many of its leading members (including the ex-High Priest Hanan) were killed in the reign of terror which now followed.2

Simon now considered that his hour had struck. Leaving Masada (probably not wholly amicably: there is some evidence of a violent breach), he advanced westward, operating at first in the hill country. Hitherto, his social program had not been too prominently enunciated. Now it was, clearly and publicly. We have already seen that from the beginning he had attacked the rich; now, he proclaimed liberty for the slaves. We know of this only from a casual sentence of Josephus, but perhaps there is a wider significance in it: for Isaiah had spoken of the function of the Lord’s anointed who was to bring good tidings to the humble, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and to announce the Day of Vengeance for the Lord. (Jesus too had applied this passage to himself [Luke IV. 18]; possibly it was at the time one of the accepted “Messianic” passages.) Hence, the divine vengeance over the Roman enemy had to be accompanied by the freeing of the captives; and he who freed the captives was the one designated by God to achieve victory. Obviously, bar Giora considered himself as more than a partisan leader.

A considerable force of former slaves and other proletarian sympathizers now flocked to join Simon. At one point they were recruited by some 2,000 persons — in the main probably political malcontents arrested by the Zealots — who were released from the prisons when the main body of Idumeans left Jerusalem. Before long he felt strong enough to descend into the plains, and was able to secure again the province of Acrabatene, from which he had been ejected previously, and a considerable district extending hence to the south towards Idumea. He established his capital in a small place in this district called Nain, which he heavily fortified. His troops and stores were concentrated in a valley known as Pheretai (perhaps the present Khurbet Farah, a gorge about six miles north of Jerusalem), where the hillside was honeycombed with caves which could serve as repositories for grain and other supplies. Here he made ready to attack the capital, now controlled by the Zealot faction.

Bar Giora no doubt imagined that the acceptance of his social-religious doctrine by the Jewish people as a whole was the key to victory, and that it was therefore his duty and his destiny to establish his ascendancy in the capital. The Zealots, too, had the same conviction, and an armed clash became inevitable. To forestall attack, they marched out to attack him, but were repulsed with considerable loss.

Had he followed at their heels, Simon might now have occupied the city without great opposition, but he did not yet feel himself strong enough and determined to isolate it first. The Idumeans, now strongly Jewish in sentiment notwithstanding their relatively recent conversion to Judaism, had already once exerted a preponderant force in central affairs, and Simon attempted to neutralize them first of all: Idumea seems, moreover, to have exercised a powerful attraction on him strategically. His first attempt to establish his control here failed after an indecisive battle. A little later he tried again, with stronger forces. The garrison of the fortress of Herodium refused to adhere to him, and his emissary was killed. But he secured the enthusiastic collaboration of one of the high Idumean officers, named Jacob, who not only surrendered his own command but induced his associates to follow his example, partly by persuasion and partly by treachery. Simon was now in command of the entire south of the country, including Hebron, where he found vast stores of wheat. His forces were now reckoned to amount to some 40,000 men, who for some time lived off the country, according to Josephus ravaging it like a plague of locusts.
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/

This was all before he even became involved with the politics of the city.

Roth, I had been aware, had tried to analyze the Judean War using the model of social revolution developed by Crane Brinton in 1938:
The events in Jerusalem during these years (as a few scholars such as Joseph Salvador, Solomon Zeitlin, and Joseph Klausner realized) are to be considered in the context, not merely of a revolt against the Empire, but of a revolutionary movement which began with the popular rising against the Roman forces in the year 66 — directed first against the occupying power, then against the ruling classes, then against the bourgeoisie as a whole. This sequence of events may be said to follow exactly the normal pattern of revolution, as defined by Crane Brinton in his remarkable work The Anatomy of Revolution. We may with Professor Brinton’s guidance discern in the classical revolution some five successive stages:

1. It begins as a reformist movement, insisting on its loyalty to the regime but agitating for the removal of administrative abuses. The motive force at this stage is generally financial. There is inevitably some initial success — otherwise the revolution is stifled at the outset. Somewhat tardily, the government may try to become conciliatory, make concessions, and accept, however reluctantly, the revolutionary leaders.

2. The movement now becomes truly revolutionary in the political sense; the former government is repudiated and popular leaders assume control (e.g. the Girondins in France, Kerensky in Russia), adopting a mild program of social reform.

3. The social revolutionary stage now follows. The moderate leaders of the revolution are thrust aside, demagogic elements come to the fore, and an extreme social revolutionary program is started. The moderate revolutionaries who oppose this are suspected of conspiring with the supporters of the former legitimate authority and are stigmatized as counter-revolutionaries. This results in

4. The Reign of Terror, since at a period of such extreme danger it is dangerous to show compassion or to allow justice to take a leisurely course. The danger to the state — sometimes at this stage external — makes further desperate measures necessary, such as entrusting the government into the hands of a single person. Hence we arrive at

5. The dictatorship, exemplified in the towering figures of Oliver Cromwell in England and Napoleon Bonaparte in France. Thus, the face of the revolution is entirely changed. The wheel has gone full circle; and from certain points of view the actual position is not dissimilar from that at the outset.
"The Jewish Revolt Against Rome: The War of 66-70 CE" (Commentary Magazine, Jun 1, 1959)
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/arti ... 66-70-c-e/

See the Wiki page about Brinton's book:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anatomy_of_Revolution

At that point (1959) Roth, like many other critics, wasn't differentiating very closely between Zealots (as an organized party), Sicarii, and other Revolutionary parties such as that headed by John of Gischala. He is more careful about it in the 1960 article, but the confusion in general continued, as evidenced by the likes of S. G. F. Brandon, in Jesus and the Zealots: A Study of the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity (1967). Like many secondary works on a subject, Brandon's book was flawed, but was still a quite serious study.

I grew up in the 1960s, so I was there. Lots of heady, though somewhat half-baked, ideas were being tossed about, which you cannot help but be influenced by. Young-'uns today (and I do not necessarily mean you personally, Ben, as I don't really know how old you are) generally just don't have a clue about what was going on, and how it was being discussed, and as a result, are unable to use that insight in their interpretation. Believe me, what passes for penetrating ideas and reviews of past times in the 70s on was not as sharply focused as they were then. <sigh>

DCH (Again, time for "beddie bye" ... :shh: ...)

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2048
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: The "Son of Man" and Simon Bar Giora

Post by DCHindley » Wed Nov 04, 2015 10:06 am

Well,

A restatement of the same premise as that proposed by Riegel & Jordan in 1917 is in the book Barbelo The Story of Jesus Christ, by Riaan Booysen (2014 but the book is now free):
http://www.riaanbooysen.com/images/down ... ooysen.pdf.

While he does not mention Riegel & Jordan's book or mention the authors at all, the striking similarities make it almost certain that the earlier influenced the latter. About the only advantage is that the transliterations are in Unicode.

DCH (back to work)

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2048
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: The "Son of Man" and Simon Bar Giora

Post by DCHindley » Sat Nov 07, 2015 8:22 pm

As I had previously threatened promised, I have researched the matter of the possible origins of the name "bar Giora" in Josephus' description of the war leader Simon, as it relates to several proposals by the authors Riegel & Jordan.

When the term "Son of Man" or "son of man" is encountered in the Judean scriptures, the underlaying words are BEN ADAM, ( בֶן־אָדָ֖ם ) Son of ( בֵּן ) Man/human being ( אָדָם ) (as throughout Ezekiel; Jeremiah 50:40 & 51:43; Isa 51:12; Psa 8:4, 80:17, 144:3 & 146:3; Job 25:6 & 35:8; Num 23:19; & Dan 8:17) and often contrasted with "Mankind" = Enosh ( אֱנוֹשׁ ), or BAR ENASH (Aramaic) Son of ( בַּר ) Man/Mortal ( אֱנָ֖שׁ ) (Daniel 7:13, the "Son of Man" vision). Both of the above statements are translated in the Lxx by some variant of the Greek phrase "υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου" (son of man).

Simon Bar Giora's name is usually explained as Son of a GOI ( גּוֹי ) meaning one of a non-Judean nation. More probably, if this is anywhere near correct, it has to do with Son of a GER ( גֵּר ) meaning either a proselyte or a sojourner (resident alien). This would at least explain the "r" in "Giora".

I suppose it is possible, if Simon was playing with the possible meanings of his nom du guerre, the phrase was actually "Son of GUR ( גּור )", which, besides meaning sojourner, can also mean someone to be afraid of/fear/stand in awe of, or a whelp/young one. Regardless of what Simon may have wanted his stage name to be perceived as, the latter two meanings (someone to fear, and whelp/young one) could be used against him by his enemies, as suggesting he was just too impulsive or unpredictable, or wasn't steeped deeply enough in Judaic tradition. Josephus does make a point of mentioning Simon's youth and awe inspiring (=scary) personality, but strangely enough does NOT specifically say he was a convert.

The authors of the book under discussion (if by that we simply mean "I just blab away and nobody comments") seem to suggest that he actually called himself "Son of GEBAR ( גְּבַר )" both the Hebrew and Aramaic word for Man, or Hebrew GEBER ( גֶּבֶר ), also meaning Man. If he used GEBIR ( גְּבִיר ) he would be saying he was the son of an important man (a "lord"). Then again, he could have called himself the Son of GIBBOR ( גִּבּוֹר ), or a Mighty (man).

The authors keep pointing out that by making puns with words like GEBURAH ( גְּבוּרָה ) Strength, GEBURAH (Aramaic) ( גְּבוּרָה ) Might, GIBBAR (Aramaic) ( גִּבַּר ) Mighty, or GOBAH ( גֹּבַהּ ) Height, pride, Simon could have been suggesting that he was the one leader powerful enough to get the job of subjecting the Romans done. However, that pesky "Bet" ( בּ or ב ) in the middle of these words are not represented in Josephus' version of his name at War 2.521 & 4.503 (Γιώρα, or Giōra).

It is, of course, possible that Josephus has intentionally misrepresented the name Simon really used. However, the two versions of the letter Bet above include one with a dot (dagesh) in the center of the letter and one that does not have the dot. With the dagesh, modern pronunciation sounds it like an English "b", and without it sounds it like an English "v". The authors said they thought that Simon spelled one or more of these pun words without the dagesh, so the "b" sound fell silent in Greek transliteration. An old guide I found, maybe from one of those old encyclopedias from the turn of the 20th century (I think it was the Jewish Encyclopedia), and which enumerates Hebrew/Greek/Latin transliteration rules, stated that the combination Alef+Bet ( אב ) is transliterated as Alpha+Upsilon (αυ), but otherwise Bet would be transliterated as either a Beta (β), Pi (π), or Phee (φ).

Simon's enemies, on the other hand, would have a field day punning his stage name into "son of ... GAAVAH ( גַּאֲוָה )", Excellency, haughtiness, or "GABAH ( גָּבַהּ )", Lifted up, haughty, or "GABAR ( גָּבַר )" Prevail, or "GABOAH ( גָּבֹהַּ )", High, higher, highest, or "GAAR ( גָּעַר )" or "GEARAH ( גְּעָרָה )", both meaning Rebuke.

A funny thing occurred to me, that the name could also be punned to "Son of GIR (Aramaic) ( גִּר )", meaning chalk plaster. Besides the famous two passages in Ant 18:63 & 20:200, the only other instance where of Josephus used the noun christos (χριστὸς) was in Ant 8:137 where he describes Solomon's temple: "but the other part up, to the roof, was plastered over (χριστὸν ἦν), and, as it were, embroidered with colours and pictures." Someone could then read BEN GIR as EBEN GIR ( אַבְנֵי־גִר ) "Heavy chalk = Limestone"(Isa 27:9), which could be a reference to the fate that bad folks should have met with rather than be, well, bad, that is, to be drowned in the sea with a millstone around the neck. This fate was pronounced upon Judas Iscariot by Jesus, as we all well know, but the associated phrase "(i)t would have been better for that man if he had not been born" (Mark 14:21; Mat 26:24) is also found in the Parables of Enoch (1 Enoch 38:2): "(i)t had been good for them if they had not been born." Look it up.

Anyhow, if the transliteration "rule" above is, like most rules, meant to be broken and full of exceptions (it is very hard to get factual information about transliteration practices in general, much less in Roman times), then I suppose that the authors' proposal might have some merit. It would go a long way to explain the origin of the Parables of Enoch, without having to resort to a bogy man Herod the great and the Gospel use of the Greek phrase υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ("Son of Man") to explain its use in the Parables of Enoch.

DCH (Now it's time to see "The Donald" on Saturday Night Live)

Edit 11/8/15 (12:27pm). Corrected spelling of "dagesh".

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2048
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: The "Son of Man" and Simon Bar Giora

Post by DCHindley » Mon Nov 23, 2015 6:11 pm

Mr David Charles Hindley,

What is up with you, Dood!* Don't you know that it has already been proposed that the Parables was composed in Aramaic? Idiot!
R. H. Charles, Apocrypha & Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (APOT), vol 2 (Pseudepigrapha), pp 174-176:

[174] But 'the most convincing evidence ... of an Aramaic original is furnished by the Ethiopic translations of the term "Son of Man". They are walda sab'e 46.2,3,4; 48.2; 60.10: walda b'esi 62.5; 69.29a,b; 71.14: and walda 'eguala 'ema hejaw 62.7,9,14; 63.11; 69.26,27; 70.1; 71.17. Of these the last is the most peculiar. Literally it means "the son of the offspring of the mother of the living" ... and is a rendering of οἱ ἄνθρωποι, οἱ υἱοὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων and especially of υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου.' Schmidt then proceeds to emphasize the importance of these different renderings in the Parables, whereas in the N.T. it is the last that is uniformly used as a rendering of ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, and observes: 'before lxii he uses no other term than walda sab'e, the equivalent of the Aramaic כר נשא . Later he employs four times the phrase walda b'ese which corresponds to the Aramaic ברה דגברא . ... This title is found in the Palestinian Lectionary, the Curetonian Fragments, and the Sinaitic text'. From the above evidence Schmidt concludes that, if the translator had 'a Greek text before him in which the N.T. title ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου was uniformly used', it would be scarcely conceivable that he would have used three distinct Ethiopic expressions to render it, and 'these of such a nature as to correspond exactly to the three different Ethiopic terms'. He holds, therefore, that 'the conclusion seems inevitable that he translated directly from the Aramaic. ... General considerations strengthen this conclusion. If the Parables of Enoch were translated from a Greek text one would certainly expect to find somewhere a quotation from it or a reference to it in early Christian literature'. But Schmidt can find none.
...

[175] We have now to consider what Schmidt terms 'the most convincing evidence of an Aramaic original', i.e. the Ethiopic translations of the term 'Son of Man'. The Ethiopic translation was made, as we have just seen, from the Greek. Hence whatever explanation we give of the three forms must be justified by a Greek retranslation. This fact at once discounts any attempt to find a Greek prototype for 'eguala 'emahejaw 'offspring of the mother of the living'. This Ethiopic phrase is used indifferently as a rendering of ἄνθρωπος, υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου, άνθρωποι, υἱοὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἀνήρ. And the full form walda 'eguala 'emahejaw = υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου in Dan. 7.13, Ps. 79.18, in Ezekiel about ninety times, Rev. 1.13, 14.14, and in the Gospels always = ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. In itself the Ethiopic phrase can mean 'son of man' or 'the Son of Man'. But if the translator wished to make it clear that the latter title was used, he could do so by prefixing a demonstrative pronoun as a rendering of the Greek article . This is done in every instance in the Parables save three. In the course of eight verses in lxxxix. 42-9 the Greek article is so rendered eleven times.

Let us now examine the other two titles walda sab'e and walda b'esi. sab'e distinctively = ἄνθρωπος (though in a few cases it = ἀνήρ). Thus walda sab'e = υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου. It can also = ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, but to make this unmistakable the translator could prefix the demonstrative pronoun as the equivalent of .

Next comes walda b'esi. b'esi = ἀνήρ, generally, but as Dillmann (Lex. 519) puts it, it stands creberrime [Latin - frequently] for ἄνθρωπος. In fact in the Ethiopic Version of our book it is used as a rendering of ἄνθρωπος in 1.2, 15.1 [preserved in surviving Greek fragments of 1 Enoch]. If more of the Greek version had survived we should no doubt find many other instances.

The result of the above examination comes to this. The above three renderings do not presuppose three different forms in the Greek. They most probably presuppose merely one, i.e. ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, but walda b'esi may presuppose ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνδρὸς. But I think the latter improbable. In 62.5 ; 69.29 (bis)·, 71.14 b'esi may be a rendering of ἀνθρώπου as in 1.2; 15.1.

This change of rendering may seem surprising, but we have a perfect parallel in the Curetonian and Sinaitic versions of the Syriac N.T.1 Thus whereas in the Peshitto b'reh de-nasa ( ברה דאנשא ) occurs uniformly as a rendering of ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, in the Curetonian version we have b'reh de-gabra ( ברה דנברא ) in Luke 7.34; 9.26; 22.48, and in the Sinaitic version breh de-gabra in Mark 8.38; Luke 7.34; John 13.31, and elsewhere in both these versions b'reh de-nasa. In the Palestinian Lectionary there is still another way of rendering the phrase, but this does not concern us here. We have, however, learnt from these versions that differences in the manner of rendering the title 'Son of Man' in these versions does not imply any difference in the original Greek. Similarly we conclude that the three renderings of this title in the Parables do not presuppose corresponding variations in the Greek, but are due to the translator.

If, then, these variations in the Parables are due to the translator or translators it follows that these translators were Aramaic-speaking Jews, since the phrases walda b'esi and walda sab'e are respectively equivalents of b'reh de gabra and b'reh de-nasa.2

On the above grounds we conclude that ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου stood in all cases in the Greek version of the Parables.1 That this Greek phrase represents the Hebrew בךהאדם , we shall further conclude from the evidence given in the next section.

175n1 See Schmidt in Encyc. Bibl. iv. 4714.
175n2 The Aramaisms in the Ethiopic version of the O.T. are probably due to Aramaean missionaries.
176n1 There is just a possibility that two forms stood in the Greek version, i.e. ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου and ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνδρὸς, and that these were due to the translators, who in this case also would be Aramaic-speaking Jews, but this is highly improbable.
DCH

*Misspelt on purpose

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2048
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: The "Son of Man" and Simon Bar Giora

Post by DCHindley » Mon Nov 23, 2015 6:14 pm

DCHindley wrote:Mr David Charles Hindley,
Well, I know I'm in trouble when someone invokes my middle name! Think Charles Taze Russell, or Barak Hussein O'Bama.

DCH

*Misspelt on purpose[/quote]

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ben C. Smith, Bernard Muller, JoeWallack, lsayre, MrMacSon, rakovsky and 48 guests