the definite article "*the* Son of man" v 'son of man'

[Adam]

Has anyone suggested yet that the exclusive NT use of "the" with "son of man" supports Mythicist and Biblicist interpretations of Jesus, but weighs against secular Historicist views like the Jesus Seminar?

[DCHindley]

Has anyone suggest yet that the exclusive NT use of "the" with "son of man" supports Mythicist and Biblicist interpreations of Jesus, but weighs against secular Historicist like Jesus Seminar?

I am afraid not, Adam.

[MrMacSon]

In modern biblical research the occurrences of Son of man in the Synoptic gospels are generally categorized into three groups: those that refer to his "coming" (as an exaltation); [ii] those that refer to "suffering"; and [iii] those that refer to "now at work" ie. referring to the earthly life.[77][79][80]"

Although Son of man is a distinct from Son of God, some gospel passages equate them in some cases, e.g. in Mark 14:61, during the Sanhedrin trial of Jesus when the high priest asked Jesus: "Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed one?" Jesus responded "I am: and you shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.".[80][83] This builds on the statement in Mark 9:31 that "The Son of man is delivered up into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and when he is killed, after three days he shall rise again."[80] In the parable of the Sheep and the Goats, the returning Son of man has the power to judge, by separating men from "all the nations" into distinct groups, in Matthew 25:31–46.[80]

The presentation in the Gospel of John is somewhat different from the Synoptics and in John 1:51 he is presented as contact with God through "angelic instrumentality", in John 6:26 and 6:53 he provides life through his death and in John 5:27 he holds the power to judge men.[77] The first chapter of the Book of Revelation refers to "one like a Son of man" in Revelation 1:12-13 which radiantly stands in glory and speaks to the author.[81] In the Gospel of John Jesus is not just a messianic figure, nor a prophet like Moses, but the key emphasis is on his dual role as Son of God and Son of man.[82]'

In the 5th century, Saint Augustine viewed the duality of Son of God and Son of man in terms of the dual nature of Christ in hypostatic union, in that the Son of God became the Son of man through the act of Incarnation and wrote:

• "Since he is the only Son of God by nature, he became also the Son of Man that he might be full of grace as well."[84][85]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_and ... Son_of_Man

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

In the 5th century, Saint Augustine viewed the duality of Son of God and Son of man in terms of the dual nature of Christ in hypostatic union, in that the Son of God became the Son of man through the act of Incarnation and wrote:

• "Since he is the only Son of God by nature, he became also the Son of Man that he might be full of grace as well."[84][85]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_and ... Son_of_Man

In the 1st century, Saint Mark presented the duality of Son of God and Son of man in the parable of the tenants

1 And he began to speak to them in parables. “A man (ἄνθρωπος - anthrōpos) planted a vineyard and put a fence around it and dug a pit for the winepress and built a tower, and leased it to tenants and went into another country. 2 When the season came, he sent a servant to the tenants to get from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. 3 And they took him and beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 4 Again he sent to them another servant, and they struck him on the head and treated him shamefully. 5 And he sent another, and him they killed. And so with many others: some they beat, and some they killed. 6 He had still one other, a beloved son (υἱὸν - huion). Finally he sent him to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’

[MrMacSon]

I haven't read these but, having just found them, I thought I may as well put them here forprosperity posterity -

Maurice Casey (1981) 'Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7' SPCK; London. 272 pp. (a revised version of Casey's 1977 PhD thesis)

Maurice Casey (2009) The Solution to the 'Son of Man' Problem The Library of New Testament Studies (Book 343) Bloomsbury T&T Clark

Andrew Angel (2009) 'The Son of Man: Jesus, Eschatology and Mission' ANVIL Vol. 26 Nos 3 & 4 (link to the full paper)

[DCHindley]

I haven't read these but, having just found them, I thought I may as well put them here for prosperity [posterity?] -

Maurice Casey (1981) 'Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7' SPCK; London. 272 pp. (a revised version of Casey's 1977 PhD thesis)

Maurice Casey (2009) The Solution to the 'Son of Man' Problem The Library of New Testament Studies (Book 343) Bloomsbury T&T Clark

Andrew Angel (2009) The Son of Man: Jesus, Eschatology and Mission' ANVIL Vol. 26 Nos 3 & 4 (link to the full paper)

I'm on my union mandated break (taken later in day than usual, boss), but I like Andrew Angel's analysis. Still, I was surprised that the Parables of Enoch were not mentioned even once. There is currently quite an industry in trying to explain the Son of Man in these Parables as dependent on a mostly imaginary or at least wishfully invented 1st century socio-economic environment (Herod as an oppressive tax obsessed monster who made everyone's life miserable except for the elites, etc). Another scholar from the turn of the 20th century explained the creation of the Parables of Enoch as propaganda of Simon Bar Giora during the Judean rebellion of 66-74 CE, later attributed to Jesus due to an overlap of language used, which actually I think might have some merit.

Back to work.

DCH

[MrMacSon]

for prosperity [posterity?] -

• lol, yes.

These comments are interesting -

.. I was surprised that the Parables of Enoch were not mentioned even once*. There is currently quite an industry in trying to explain the 'Son of Man' in these Parables as dependent on a mostly imaginary, or at least wishfully invented, 1st century socio-economic environment* (Herod as an oppressive tax obsessed monster who made everyone's life miserable except for the elites, etc).

Another scholar from the turn of the 20th century explained the creation of the Parables of Enoch as propaganda of Simon Bar Giora during the Judean rebellion of 66-74 CE, later attributed to Jesus due to an overlap of language used, which actually I think might have some merit.

* is that 'industry' post 2009?

[DCHindley]

for prosperity [posterity?] -

• lol, yes.

These comments are interesting -

.. I was surprised that the Parables of Enoch were not mentioned even once*. There is currently quite an industry in trying to explain the 'Son of Man' in these Parables as dependent on a mostly imaginary, or at least wishfully invented, 1st century socio-economic environment* (Herod as an oppressive tax obsessed monster who made everyone's life miserable except for the elites, etc).

Another scholar from the turn of the 20th century explained the creation of the Parables of Enoch as propaganda of Simon Bar Giora during the Judean rebellion of 66-74 CE, later attributed to Jesus due to an overlap of language used, which actually I think might have some merit.

* is that 'industry' post 2009?

I'm taking my union mandated 15 minute morning break now (as I'll be on the road at the proper time, as you know boss).

I was thinking of Books like Parables of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift (ed. Darrell Bock & James H Charlesworth, 2013), specifically an article by Bock entitled "Dating the Parables of Enoch" (p. 58ff), which traces attempts to date them and deduce their place of origin and authorship, going back to 1946. A lot of it was produced as papers presented in The Enoch Seminar at Camaldoli in 2005 and published in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man (ed. G. Boccaccini, 2007).

Bock has this tendency to summarize other people's work in a way that supports his own POV that the parables were produced by Palestinian Jews who developed a messianic/exalted Son of Man as the result of crushing repression and over taxation by Herod the Great and successors.

This POV is wrong in many ways, as other research has demonstrated (material culture of his kingdom actually doubled in his reign, and he lowered taxes paid in kind = grain = by shifting to tariffs on goods passing through from the east to Rome), and smacks of Christian bias and a desire to denigrate any suggestion that SoM theology developed outside of that imagined environment (because it fits well with NT Gospel accounts) or God forbid preceded that era.

DCH (now I gotta load up the car)

[Michael BG]

I haven't read these but, having just found them, I thought I may as well put them here for prosperity [posterity?] -

Maurice Casey (1981) 'Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7' SPCK; London. 272 pp. (a revised version of Casey's 1977 PhD thesis)

Maurice Casey (2009) The Solution to the 'Son of Man' Problem The Library of New Testament Studies (Book 343) Bloomsbury T&T Clark

Andrew Angel (2009) The Son of Man: Jesus, Eschatology and Mission' ANVIL Vol. 26 Nos 3 & 4 (link to the full paper)

I'm on my union mandated break (taken later in day than usual, boss), but I like Andrew Angel's analysis.

The article by Andrew Angel is interesting I particularly like his explanation of bar (e)nash(a) and the use of brackets. Maurice Casey states that the son of man can’t exist in Aramaic, but Angel states that bar enasha is “the son of man”. Casey states that the Aramaic “son of man” can’t be translated into Greek except as ho huios tou anthropou – the son of man, but Angel states it can and is translated as huios anthropou – a son of man in Testament of Joseph 2.5; Philo, De Vita Mosis 1.283; Ignatius, Ephesians 20.2; Joseph and Asenenth 18.9; Epistle of Barnabas 12.10.

This therefore means that bar enasha /ho huios tou anthropou can go back to Jesus and can refer to the eschatological coming son of man.