Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Michael BG wrote:
Firstly we need to raise the issue of the use of “the” ...

Which is what is attempted in this thread - http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... f=3&t=2358

The instance in Hebrews and the two instances in Revelation appear to me to be completely peripheral to the process of turning "a son of man" (= human) into "the Son of Man" (= a title for Jesus). Hebrews is simply quoting scripture, and does not give Jesus the title, whereas Revelation is cribbing from Daniel, and using the term exactly as Daniel used it.

to Ben,

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

I do not think so:
Heb 2:6-9:
"It has been testified somewhere, "What is man that thou art mindful of him, or the son of man, that thou carest for him?
Thou didst make him for a little while lower than the angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honor,
putting everything in subjection under his feet."
Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. As it is, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him.
But we see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for every one."
Jesus did (except yet the subjection of everything to him) what the son of man would do (according to Psalm 8:4-6): therefore Jesus is the son of man.

Is there anything preventing the following chain of development of the meaning of the term "son of man" from being the case?

On the other side, I do not know of any early Christian writers in Antiquity who claimed Daniel 7:13-14 is a prophesy about Jesus. Certainly not the most likely to do so, the author of Hebrews and "Matthew".

Daniel 7.13 uses the term to mean that the figure in question, in contradistinction to the (leonine/aquiline, ursine, and pardine/avian) monsters which came before, looks simply like a human instead of like a beast: "one like a son of man" = "one like a human".

I do not see any contradistinction between the beasts which come out of the sea, explained later to be earthly kings (7:17), and the heavenly "like a son of man", who is a stranger in God's court, coming by way of the clouds of heaven (from earth, as Elijah in 2Ki 2:11?).

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:to Ben,

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

I do not think so:
Heb 2:6-9:
"It has been testified somewhere, "What is man that thou art mindful of him, or the son of man, that thou carest for him?
Thou didst make him for a little while lower than the angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honor,
putting everything in subjection under his feet."
Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. As it is, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him.
But we see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for every one."
Jesus did (except yet the subjection of everything to him) what the son of man would do (according to Psalm 8:4-6): therefore Jesus is the son of man.

There is no "the" in the Greek.

On the other side, I do not know of any early Christian writers in Antiquity who claimed Daniel 7:13-14 is a prophesy about Jesus. Certainly not the most likely to do so, the author of Hebrews and "Matthew".

I cannot tell what you are claiming here. Are you saying that nobody thought that "one like a son of man coming on the clouds" was Jesus?

Daniel 7.13 uses the term to mean that the figure in question, in contradistinction to the (leonine/aquiline, ursine, and pardine/avian) monsters which came before, looks simply like a human instead of like a beast: "one like a son of man" = "one like a human".

I do not see any contradistinction between the beasts which come out of the sea, explained later to be earthly kings (7:17), and the heavenly "like a son of man", who is a stranger in God's court, coming by way of the clouds of heaven (from earth, as Elijah in 2Ki 2:11?).

Again, no idea what you mean. You see no contradistinction, and yet you give two very strong contradistinctions: human versus beasts, and heavenly versus earthly. Human versus beasts, however, was the only contradistinction I had in mind. The first three figures are "like" beasts, whereas the fourth is "like" a human being. That is all I meant: "one like a son of man" is no more a title here originally than "one like a leopard".

to Ben,

I cannot tell what you are claiming here. Are you saying that nobody thought that "one like a son of man coming on the clouds" was Jesus?

I cannot say that was not thought about, but that was not written by early Christian writers in antiquity, which is rather odd if Jesus was "copied" from the "son of man" of Daniel.
I would like to know who was the first one to do so?

There is no "the" in the Greek.

That does not matter much because that "son of man" is described as an exceptional entity, not a regular human.
The author of Hebrews, by repeating "for a little while lower than the angels" & "crowned him with glory and honor" and acknowledging Jesus has not yet be "putting everything in subjection under his feet", meant that Jesus was that "son of man" of the Jewish scriptures.

Again, no idea what you mean. You see no contradistinction, and yet you give two very strong contradistinctions: human versus beasts, and heavenly versus earthly. Human versus beasts, however, was the only contradistinction I had in mind. The first three figures are "like" beasts, whereas the fourth is "like" a human being. That is all I meant: "one like a son of man" is no more a title here originally than "one like a leopard".

The (like a) beast are human earthly kings. They are coming from the sea. The (like a) son of man is coming with the clouds of heaven to God. The clouds here seem to be a mode of transportation.
That would suggest that (like a) son of man is coming from earth and human. Anyway, he is given all kingdoms of earth as an earthly human (superlative) king (as the ones described as beasts).

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:to Ben,

I cannot tell what you are claiming here. Are you saying that nobody thought that "one like a son of man coming on the clouds" was Jesus?

I cannot say that was not thought about, but that was not written by early Christian writers in antiquity, which is rather odd if Jesus was "copied" from the "son of man" of Daniel.
I would like to know who was the first one to do so?

So you are not disagreeing that, for example, Mark 13.26 is an allusion to Daniel 7.13, right?

There is no "the" in the Greek.

That does not matter much because that "son of man" is described as an exceptional entity, not a regular human.

Well, the original Psalm is certainly just describing humankind in general. (Not going to debate that point here and now, though: read some solid commentaries on the Psalms if you disagree.)

What Hebrews intends is, of course, potentially a different thing.

The author of Hebrews, by repeating "for a little while lower than the angels" & "crowned him with glory and honor" and acknowledging Jesus has not yet be "putting everything in subjection under his feet", meant that Jesus was that "son of man" of the Jewish scriptures.

Yes, and Jesus is also the "man" from the first clause:


That is why I do not think that "son of man" is being used as a title for Jesus here. The author is saying that Jesus is somehow in view in this verse, but it is not by virtue of his being entitled as the Son of Man, any more than it is by virtue of his being entitled as Man.

The (like a) beast are human earthly kings. They are coming from the sea. The (like a) son of man is coming with the clouds of heaven to God. The clouds here seem to be a mode of transportation.
That would suggest that (like a) son of man is coming from earth and human. Anyway, he is given all kingdoms of earth as an earthly human (superlative) king (as the ones described as beasts).

None of this contradicts what I was saying. I think you were pouring a different meaning into the word "contradistinction" than I intended.

to Ben,

Well, the original Psalm is certainly just describing humankind in general. (Not going to debate that point here and now, though: read some solid commentaries on the Psalms if you disagree.)
What Hebrews intends is, of course, potentially a different thing.

Exactly. The psalm is about mankind, but the author of Hebrews used it to refer to Jesus, as the son of man.

So you are not disagreeing that, for example, Mark 13.26 is an allusion to Daniel 7.13, right?

Yes we have "coming in the clouds" in both texts. But in Mark 13.26, Jesus, as the son of man, is coming down from God's heaven to the clouds. That's a long time after the ascension. In Da 7.13, the son of man is going to God (would be during Jesus' ascension). Reverse direction, different times.
So "Mark" might have got "coming in the clouds" from Daniel, but that's it. He was not using Daniel 7:13-14 as a prophecy for Jesus' ascension and his future function as the ultimate king.

Yes, and Jesus is also the "man" from the first clause:

Not necessarily. The author of Hebrews felt he had to keep the "man" clause because it is in Psalm 8:4. Between the "man" clause and the "son of man" clause, he changed the "and" by "or", making sure "man" and "son of man" are understood as two different entity.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:to Ben,

Well, the original Psalm is certainly just describing humankind in general. (Not going to debate that point here and now, though: read some solid commentaries on the Psalms if you disagree.)
What Hebrews intends is, of course, potentially a different thing.

Exactly. The psalm is about mankind, but the author of Hebrews used it to refer to Jesus, as the son of man.

....

The author of Hebrews felt he had to keep the "man" clause because it is in Psalm 8:4. Between the "man" clause and the "son of man" clause, he changed the "and" by "or", making sure "man" and "son of man" are understood as two different entity.

No such change was made:


This is pure LXX.

So you are not disagreeing that, for example, Mark 13.26 is an allusion to Daniel 7.13, right?

Yes we have "coming in the clouds" in both texts. But in Mark 13.26, Jesus, as the son of man, is coming down from God's heaven to the clouds. That's a long time after the ascension. In Da 7.13, the son of man is going to God (would be during Jesus' ascension). Reverse direction, different times.
So "Mark" might have got "coming in the clouds" from Daniel, but that's it. He was not using Daniel 7:13-14 as a prophecy for Jesus' ascension and his future function as the ultimate king.

The view that I have long espoused is simply that such texts borrowed the direction of travel from Zechariah 14.5 and the clouds from Daniel 7.13. This combination is explicit in the Didache. In Mark 13.27 the "holy ones" from Zechariah 14.5 are interpreted as angels gathering the elect; in 1 Thessalonians 4.16 the "holy ones" are the risen dead, said to be reunited with the Lord before the living are caught up. The element of looking upon him or seeing him comes from Zechariah 12.10; this connection is explicit in Revelation 1.7 and in Matthew 24.30. Passages such as Isaiah 19.1, in which Yahweh comes (to earth, or to a spot on the earth) in judgment upon a cloud, would obviously help to facilitate the change of direction envisioned for Daniel 7.13.

At least some of the rabbis interpreted Daniel 7.13 as the coming of the messiah to earth. Talmud, Sanhedrin 98a:


Here the arrival of the messiah on a donkey (as per Zechariah 9.7) and the arrival of the messiah on the clouds of heaven (as per Daniel 7.13) are proposed as alternate scenarios, depending upon the moral state of Israel at the time.

We are obviously dealing with a living exegetical tradition here, both Jewish and Christian, and I find Crossan (and others of similar bent) quite convincing on these points.

Ben.

Read the scholarly studies of the 'two powers' traditions in the mekilata. Those who knew two powers interpreted Daniel 7.13 as if it pertained to one of the two gods. These groups were likely early Christians (but not necessarily). Note the juxtaposition in this early Jewish tradition of one god's 'youthful' appearances as the man of war in Exodus (e.g. Exod 15:1) and the other as 'old' Ancient of Days in Daniel (Dan 7:13). The fact that the sectarians did not take much interest in the one who was like a son of man suggests he was never understood to be a divine figure. But then again maybe the mekilata don't tell us everything.

Ben C. Smith wrote:

Michael BG wrote:It has been suggested that there are no examples outside the New Testament of the use “son of man” to mean “I” or “me”, because all such examples cited refer to being part of a specific group, which is counter to your point 2.

What if we substitute your "part of a group" usage for my #2? Does that get the sequence closer to plausible, in your estimation?

The usage of the term “son of man” from Daniel developed as an apocalyptic figure who brings the end of times, which is different from your point 5.

What is the difference? I am not really seeing the difference. The whole point is that Daniel is the source of this usage as a specific eschatological figure.

You are correct the difference is very minor. We can agree that Daniel is the source of this eschatological figure.

Ben C. Smith wrote:

From Jesus’ usage of the term in this way - as a distinct heavenly figure, Christians applied the term to Jesus after he became a heavenly figure after his resurrection. This is slightly different from your point 6.

In what way? This is the second time it feels like you are paraphrasing my point but then pronouncing the paraphrase as a separate point which is substantially different in some way.

The emphasis is different you stating that it was because they saw Jesus as the figure to bring the Kingdom of God, while I am saying it is because they believed he was a heavenly being.

Ben C. Smith wrote:

The idea that some of the son of man sayings attributed to Jesus are creations of early Christians has a certain appeal, but it also has a huge problem, why would they create sayings where Jesus refers to himself as "the son of man" rather than a more conventional way of referring to himself as “I” or “me”.

I suspect that such sayings originally did not even pretend to be dominical sayings. They were by Christian prophets about the Son of Man (= Jesus), and were placed on his lips only later.

I don’t find your use of the word “dominical” as being useful. Especially in point 6, “Dominical sayings which originally used "son of man" in one of its earlier senses (especially #1-3 above) are frequently reworded to turn Jesus into the son of man.” In another thread there was a discussion of the meaning of this word which I thought concluded that one of its meaning is relating to Jesus Christ as Lord. I think you might mean some sayings that refer to Jesus as the son of man (nothing to do with his lordship). This just brings another problem why would these early Christians use the term “Son of Man” rather than “Son of God”, “Christ Jesus” or “Jesus Christ”? There are very few examples of the term “son of man” being applied to Jesus outside of the gospels?

If we amend your points 2 and 5, I don’t think we have moved the debate on – there are three meanings of the term son of man. The question of the use of the term by Jesus cannot be ignored. Not all the son of man sayings apply the term to Jesus and these do not seem to fit your chain of development. I would be very happy if you could convince me that all son of man sayings that do not refer to a separate being are the creation of early Christians.