Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Something as:

The Romans + Josephus: where is this Jewish Superman who will defeat us? We see only Vespasian!

The centurion in Mark: "really this (mere son of) man is the Son of God!"

Mark: but Jesus Nazarene is not really the Son of God ("my God, my God, why you abandoned me?").

No that's fucking stupid (as per usual)

I like your point on the Nazarene as allegory of the "passive Jews" but still I have problems in accepting that the Jesus and the Christ (seen as distinct actors) share the same goals or the same degree of divinity. For me, Jesus is clearly inferior to Christ even when he realizes Daniel on the cross.

to Ben,

Bernard wrote:

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

I want to go back on that:
In Psalm 8:4-5, we have: "What is man that You are mindful of him,
And the son of man that You visit him?
For You have made him a little lower than the angels,
And You have crowned him with glory and honor.
You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands;
You have put all things under his feet,
All sheep and oxen—
Even the beasts of the field,
The birds of the air,
And the fish of the sea
That pass through the paths of the seas."
Here "man" and "son of man", are the same and stand for "mankind". It is also said that God have put all things under his [mankind] feet. "all things " are all animals which benefit mankind.

However in Hebrews 2:6-9a, we have:
But one testified in a certain place, saying:
“What is man that You are mindful of him,
Or the son of man that You take care of him?
You have made him a little lower than the angels;
You have crowned him with glory and honor,
You have put all things in subjection under his feet.”
For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him.
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, ..."

If the author of Hebrews equated "man" with "son of man", both standing for "mankind", he would not have written:
For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him.
"all" includes more than just animals. That's confirmed by "He left nothing that is not put under him"
"son of man" cannot refer to mankind (however it does in the Psalm), but only as Jesus being the "son of man", to whom obviously the Christians then "do not yet see all things put under him" (but it is true for mankind regarding animals in Psalm 8)
However, in Psalm 8, God "have put all things under his [mankind] feet"
So in Hebrews, "man" can still mean "mankind, but "son of man" is another entity which got equated to Jesus (or Jesus is identified as being the "son of man").

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.

That's a lot of cut & paste here on texts other than Daniel 7, which would considerably dilute your points 3 to 6.
And the author who wrote the last passage of the Didache might have known about Zechariah (as Paul probably did also for 1 Thessalonians) and, more certainly, gMatthew.
The Christian editors of Revelation would have known about Zechariah and gMatthew also.
And Isaiah 19:1 could have been inspiration for the Lord using the clouds to move around.

And in all that, I do not see Daniel 7, except specifically for "in the clouds of heaven" in gMark.

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

R. Alexandri said: R. Joshua opposed two verses: it is written, And behold, one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven, whilst [elsewhere] it is written, [behold, thy king cometh unto thee … ] lowly, and riding upon an ass! — if they are meritorious, [he will come] with the clouds of heaven; if not, lowly and riding upon an ass.

That's the opinion of one rabbi, which he proposed certainly not forcefully. Also that rabbi might have been influenced by Christian writings, such as gMark & gMatthew.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:to Ben,

Bernard wrote:

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

I want to go back on that:
In Psalm 8:4-5, we have: "What is man that You are mindful of him,
And the son of man that You visit him?
For You have made him a little lower than the angels,
And You have crowned him with glory and honor.
You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands;
You have put all things under his feet,
All sheep and oxen—
Even the beasts of the field,
The birds of the air,
And the fish of the sea
That pass through the paths of the seas."
Here "man" and "son of man", are the same and stand for "mankind". It is also said that God have put all things under his [mankind] feet. "all things " are all animals which benefit mankind.

However in Hebrews 2:6-9a, we have:
But one testified in a certain place, saying:
“What is man that You are mindful of him,
Or the son of man that You take care of him?
You have made him a little lower than the angels;
You have crowned him with glory and honor,
You have put all things in subjection under his feet.”
For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him.
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, ..."

If the author of Hebrews equated "man" with "son of man", both standing for "mankind", he would not have written:
For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him.
"all" includes more than just animals. That's confirmed by "He left nothing that is not put under him"
"son of man" cannot refer to mankind (however it does in the Psalm), but only as Jesus being the "son of man", to whom obviously the Christians then "do not yet see all things put under him" (but it is true for mankind regarding animals in Psalm 8)
However, in Psalm 8, God "have put all things under his [mankind] feet"
So in Hebrews, "man" can still mean "mankind, but "son of man" is another entity which got equated to Jesus (or Jesus is identified as being the "son of man").

All of this seems to depend upon the author of Hebrews (A) regarding the animals as the full content of the "all", instead of as concrete instances of "all", and (B) mentally applying all of the pronouns back only to "son of man" and not to "man". A is a toss-up, and B is not how Hebrew parallelism works. Your view is possible. I do not see how it is more likely than any other.

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.

That's a lot of cut & paste here on texts other than Daniel 7, which would considerably dilute your points 3 to 6.

Each cut-and-paste, as you are calling it, is attested explicitly in at least one passage. We know that Christian authors associated these verses with one another. Points 3-6 stand completely undiluted, because "the son of man" goes back to only one of the passages (the one in Daniel), not to all of them.

And the author who wrote the last passage of the Didache might have known about Zechariah (as Paul probably did also for 1 Thessalonians) and, more certainly, gMatthew.

To compare:

The Christian editors of Revelation would have known about Zechariah and gMatthew also.
And Isaiah 19:1 could have been inspiration for the Lord using the clouds to move around.

I pointed all of this out, including Isaiah 19.1.

And in all that, I do not see Daniel 7, except specifically for "in the clouds of heaven" in gMark.

And "son of man". It would be weird to suggest that Mark got the clouds from Daniel 7.13 but not the "son of man" riding them.

Ben.

Giuseppe wrote:
... I see here a clue for a correct interpretation of Mark 15:39 (the centurion who recognizes Jesus, the Son of Man, as real Son of God). Josephus (the Romans) says that the Star Prophecy is about "men coming from Judaea". Mere mortals.

The primary man coming from Judea in Josephus's mind would have been himself.

Giuseppe wrote: The centurion contradicts directly Josephus: that man on the cross is the (Son of) God. And so the prophecy about the Son of Man " in glory" is realized on the cross. The true Son of God is been able of make to seem as victorious a mere son of man, by making him appear as himself on the cross (even if really he was not him because the Son of God abandoned the Son of Man on the cross).

Josephus prophecies that Vespasian was the chosen one.

Ben C. Smith wrote:

Michael BG wrote:I don’t find your use of the word “dominical” as being useful.

The term "dominical sayings" means exactly that it is a saying supposedly uttered by Jesus. It is a holdover on my part from having read many rather old treatments of the sayings tradition. I still cannot get over that more modern readers no longer know what to make of it. I will have to start avoiding the term so as not to cause confusion. (It does not mean that the saying itself has anything to do with lordship; it is all about the saying being on Jesus' lips.) Consult Google Books for a quick survey on how the term is used, even in more modern scholarship.

So when you write “dominical” sayings, what you mean are sayings that are attributed to being said by Jesus. There are other aspects of older treatments what we generally no longer use – the use of “St” before the name of an author, the use of "evangelist” now more commonly termed “author”.

Ben C. Smith wrote:

Michael BG wrote: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.

My point #6 is not as textured as you are making it out to. It is no more and no less than that people identified Jesus with the figure in Daniel 7.13. When modern exegetes identify the previous monsters with certain nations, they say things like, "The leopard [in Daniel] is Greece." I am saying that Jesus as "the" son of man may have begun in much the same way: "The son of man [in Daniel] is Jesus."

Christians must have had a reason for seeing Jesus as the son of man and you suggested that they saw him as that “apocalyptic figure”, which implies the bringing of the end of times, while I am suggesting that it was because they saw Jesus Christ as a heavenly figure. This is a difference of emphasis. Did the earliest Christians believe that Jesus would come again? (I think Paul is ambiguous – 1 Cor. 15 there is no coming Jesus Christ; 1 Thess. 4 those joining God meet Jesus Christ in the air.) They certainly believed he was a heavenly figure.

Ben C. Smith wrote:

Michael BG wrote: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”?

That is what I am trying to explain, apparently unsuccessfully. I think that Jesus came to be called "Lord" because certain scriptures about the Lord were thought to apply to him. I think that Jesus came to be called "Christ" because certain scriptures about the Messiah were thought to have predicted him. And I think that Jesus came to be called Son of Man because Daniel 7.13 was thought to be about him.

I think I disagree with you, but in the past when I have written this you seem to only see a different emphasis. I think early Christians first believed that Jesus was the first of the resurrected (Paul’s first fruits) and saw Jesus in heaven with God. Then they equated Jesus with the heavenly son of man figure of Daniel because Jesus had seen a parallelism between himself on earth and the son of man in heaven ("… everyone who acknowledges me before men, the Son of man also will acknowledge before the angels of God; Lk 12:8 “For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of man also be ashamed, when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” Mk 8:38).
Early Christians believed that Jesus was the Messiah (Christ) because God had resurrected him and Jesus was now in heaven with God (Acts 2:14ff, Acts 10:42 “He is the one ordained by God …”, Paul uses the term Son of God rather than Messiah in Romans 1:4 “ordained Son of God miraculously”. It is likely that once Christians saw Jesus as Messiah they saw him as “lord” (Acts 2:36 “God has made him both Lord and Christ” they would have been influenced by Ps 110:1 “The Lord says to my lord: ‘Sit at my right hand …’” [Acts 2:34, Mk 10:36-37]). Once Christians called Jesus Christ “lord” they could apply Old Testament texts about “the LORD” to him.

(I haven’t checked but I now wonder how often “Q” refers to Jesus as Messiah or Christ and when used if these sayings can be determined as the last layer of Q.)

Ben C. Smith wrote:Furthermore, there are a lot more scriptures about the Lord and (at least allegedly) about the Messiah than there are about the Son of Man, so those two former terms are a lot more common. The Christians who started calling him the Son of Man (as a title) were probably fewer in number, and apparently pretty much all of their extant thought on the topic got absorbed into the gospels.

There are few son of man sayings in the Old Testament, Messiah and Son of God are much more powerful terms and these seem to have replaced the earlier son of man sayings which are only preserved in the gospel traditions.

Ben C. Smith wrote:

Michael BG wrote:Not all the son of man sayings apply the term to Jesus and these do not seem to fit your chain of development.

If they are really not about Jesus, and they are apocalyptic in nature, they come in at #5. If not, they probably come in at #1. (Which saying would not line up with those two?)

Mk 8:38, Lk 12:8 see above
Mk 13:26 “And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory.”
Mk 14:62b “and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."

Q Lk 12:40 “You also must be ready; for the Son of man is coming at an unexpected hour." / Mt 24:44
Q Mt 24:27 “For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of man.” Lk 17:24 “For as the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other, so will the Son of man be in his day.”
Q Lk 17:26 “As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of man.” / Mt 24:37
Q Lk 17:30 “so will it be on the day when the Son of man is revealed.” / Mt 24:39

Mt 10:23 “When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes.”
Mt 13:41 “The Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers,”
Mt 19:28 (poss. Q Lk 22:28-30) “Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” [I think “twelve” before thrones was added by Matthew].
Mt 25:31 “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.”

Lk 18:8 “I tell you, he will vindicate them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of man comes, will he find faith on earth?"”
Lk 21:36 “But watch at all times, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that will take place, and to stand before the Son of man."

The first two I think are the clearest with regard to the son of man being separate from Jesus, but in all of them it is possible that Jesus is not speaking about himself.

Ben C. Smith wrote:

Michael BG wrote: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.

I am not sure I can prove such a thing, but it makes sense, right? A saying about Abraham Lincoln in the third person probably does not originate from Lincoln. So a saying about Jesus in the third person, as the Son of Man, probably does not originate with Jesus.

If Abraham Lincoln spoke like Donald Trump then it is possible that such saying went back to him - “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... ed-states/

However Jesus does not refer to himself as Jesus. He refer to “the son of man”. It is possible that he is not referring to himself but he is referring to a separate heavenly being.

Ben C. Smith wrote:The only question is why "the Son of Man" was not changed to "I", but that can be explained by the convenient juxtaposition of other sayings which used the term "son of man" generically about human beings. Once it became a "thing" that Jesus regularly spoke about the Son of Man (that is, once these sayings were no longer thought to apply to a generic human being, but were applied to Jesus himself), Jesus was now speaking about himself in the third person. The sequence would go like this:

1. Jesus (allegedly) said, "The son of man [= the generic human being] has no place to lay his head." (I make no claim as to whether the saying really goes back to Jesus; the claim is that it was attributed to him.)
2. Jesus (allegedly) said, "The Son of Man [= Jesus himself] has no place to lay his head." (By now the saying is part of the landscape, but now what "son of man" means has changed. As a consequence, Jesus is now thought to have referred to himself in the third person.)
3. Jesus (allegedly) said, "They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds." (Now, in this same community or circle of Christians, it becomes natural to create sayings which follow this same pattern of Jesus referring to himself in the third person.)

Ben.

These texts are the problem.
He could have said “You will see the Son of Man coming on clouds" referring to a separate heavenly being who Jesus thought was going to come within the lifetime of some alive at the time. My problem then becomes could he have used the term “son of man” to refer to all humans or a group of humans including himself in a saying such as “The son of man has no place to lay his head”? Did early Christians change it from "we have no place to lay our heads" once there were settled Christian communities?

Why would early Christians change a saying such as “The Son of man has come eating and drinking; and you say, `Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'” if Jesus had said “I have come eating and drinking ...”?

Michael BG wrote:

Ben C. Smith wrote:

Michael BG wrote:I don’t find your use of the word “dominical” as being useful.

The term "dominical sayings" means exactly that it is a saying supposedly uttered by Jesus. It is a holdover on my part from having read many rather old treatments of the sayings tradition. I still cannot get over that more modern readers no longer know what to make of it. I will have to start avoiding the term so as not to cause confusion. (It does not mean that the saying itself has anything to do with lordship; it is all about the saying being on Jesus' lips.) Consult Google Books for a quick survey on how the term is used, even in more modern scholarship.

So when you write “dominical” sayings, what you mean are sayings that are attributed to being said by Jesus. There are other aspects of older treatments what we generally no longer use – the use of “St” before the name of an author, the use of "evangelist” now more commonly termed “author”.

Yes, there certainly are. What is your point? I explained my meaning, and I said I would try to avoid that terminology so as to avoid confusion.

Christians must have had a reason for seeing Jesus as the son of man and you suggested that they saw him as that “apocalyptic figure”, which implies the bringing of the end of times, while I am suggesting that it was because they saw Jesus Christ as a heavenly figure.

Actually, by "apocalyptic figure" I mean simply a figure who appears in an apocalypse. If I meant something to do with the end times, I would use the term which means exactly that: eschatological. That said, the figure in Daniel 7.13 is also eschatological, seeing as how he receives a kingdom which will never pass away: hence, the last kingdom.

You are splitting hairs, though, for reasons unclear to me as yet.

This is a difference of emphasis. Did the earliest Christians believe that Jesus would come again? (I think Paul is ambiguous – 1 Cor. 15 there is no coming Jesus Christ; 1 Thess. 4 those joining God meet Jesus Christ in the air.) They certainly believed he was a heavenly figure.

In 1 Thessalonians 4.15-16 he is also a coming, arriving, descending figure.

Ben C. Smith wrote:That is what I am trying to explain, apparently unsuccessfully. I think that Jesus came to be called "Lord" because certain scriptures about the Lord were thought to apply to him. I think that Jesus came to be called "Christ" because certain scriptures about the Messiah were thought to have predicted him. And I think that Jesus came to be called Son of Man because Daniel 7.13 was thought to be about him.

I think I disagree with you, but in the past when I have written this you seem to only see a different emphasis. I think early Christians first believed that Jesus was the first of the resurrected (Paul’s first fruits) and saw Jesus in heaven with God. Then they equated Jesus with the heavenly son of man figure of Daniel because Jesus had seen a parallelism between himself on earth and the son of man in heaven ("… everyone who acknowledges me before men, the Son of man also will acknowledge before the angels of God; Lk 12:8 “For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of man also be ashamed, when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” Mk 8:38).

Those two sayings sound to me like the words of early prophets threatening those who are rejecting them: "You are rejecting me, but when the Son of Man comes, boy, will you be sorry!" Now, on your interpretation, the early prophet in question happens to be Jesus himself. Do you have an argument for why it must be Jesus himself and not someone else threatening retribution?

Ben C. Smith wrote:If they are really not about Jesus, and they are apocalyptic in nature, they come in at #5. If not, they probably come in at #1. (Which saying would not line up with those two?)

Mk 8:38, Lk 12:8 see above

This is #5. How can it not be? Even on your reading, by which Jesus himself utters it, but about someone else, it is #5.

Mk 13:26 “And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory.”

Same. #5.

Mk 14:62b “and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."

Either #5 or #7.

The first two I think are the clearest with regard to the son of man being separate from Jesus, but in all of them it is possible that Jesus is not speaking about himself.

Ben C. Smith wrote:I am not sure I can prove such a thing, but it makes sense, right? A saying about Abraham Lincoln in the third person probably does not originate from Lincoln. So a saying about Jesus in the third person, as the Son of Man, probably does not originate with Jesus.

If Abraham Lincoln spoke like Donald Trump then it is possible that such saying went back to him - “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.”

Hence the "probably". Most people do not speak of themselves in the third person. But some do.

However Jesus does not refer to himself as Jesus. He refer to “the son of man”. It is possible that he is not referring to himself but he is referring to a separate heavenly being.

That has always been true.

He could have said “You will see the Son of Man coming on clouds" referring to a separate heavenly being who Jesus thought was going to come within the lifetime of some alive at the time. My problem then becomes could he have used the term “son of man” to refer to all humans or a group of humans including himself in a saying such as “The son of man has no place to lay his head”? Did early Christians change it from "we have no place to lay our heads" once there were settled Christian communities?

Why would early Christians change a saying such as “The Son of man has come eating and drinking; and you say, `Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'” if Jesus had said “I have come eating and drinking ...”?

I suspect that saying is pure early Christian invention. Overall, you have a lot more faith than I do that these sayings go back to Jesus. I am deliberately avoiding making that assumption. What leads you to make it so often? To my mind you need to mount the argument for each and every saying.

to Ben,

All of this seems to depend upon the author of Hebrews (A) regarding the animals as the full content of the "all", instead of as concrete instances of "all", and (B) mentally applying all of the pronouns back only to "son of man" and not to "man". A is a toss-up, and B is not how Hebrew parallelism works. Your view is possible. I do not see how it is more likely than any other.

I cannot buy that because the author's further comments: "For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him". That goes way beyond supremacy over animals, which by the way, are not mentioned in Hebrews.
Another possibility is that the author of Hebrews thought of "man" as also standing for Jesus. He would be (regular) "man" and also (extraordinary) "son of man", both statuses being attested for Jesus in the epistle (regular man and heavenly deity).

Each cut-and-paste, as you are calling it, is attested explicitly in at least one passage. We know that Christian authors associated these verses with one another. Points 3-6 stand completely undiluted, because "the son of man" goes back to only one of the passages (the one in Daniel), not to all of them.

There is no attestation that earliest Christianity beliefs started according to your points 3-6. "Mark" picking up "the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven" from Daniel 7:13 and putting the phrase out of his original context in his gospel, is not evidence for your points 3-6.

Cordially, Bernard

Psalm 8
5 (4).what is man that You should remember him, and the son of man that You should be mindful of him? ה.מָה אֱנוֹשׁ כִּי תִזְכְּרֶנּוּ וּבֶן אָדָם כִּי תִפְקְדֶנּוּ:
6 (5).Yet You have made him slightly less than the angels, and You have crowned him with glory and majesty. ו.וַתְּחַסְּרֵהוּ מְעַט מֵאֱלֹהִים וְכָבוֹד וְהָדָר תְּעַטְּרֵהוּ:

Rashi ---Yet You have made him slightly less than the angels, etc.: Heb. מאלהים, which is an expression of angels, for You gave power to Joshua to still the sun and to dry up the Jordan, and to Moses to split the waters of the Sea of Reeds and to ascend to the heavens, and to Elijah to resurrect the dead.
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo ... rashi=true

The Oxford Study Bible. translates.
8:4 what are human beings that you are mindful of them...
8:5 You have made them a little lower than God...



NB Son of man means humanity : Moses, Joshua, Elijah, Jesus