Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Michael BG wrote:Mark had a suffering Son of Man figure who is raised after death. Mk 13:24 talks of the Son of Man coming with glory. It sounds more like the gospel of John. Luke has 21:27 which is based on Mk 13:24. So the only really relevant saying is 24:26 within the road to Emmaus resurrection appearance. One saying does not really make a theme. Neither Lk 12:8-9 nor Mt 10:32-33 has the word glory.

Mk 13:26 is derived—probably indirectly—from Dan 7:13-14: SoM and clouds from v.13 and power and glory from v.14. I don't think anything can be made of the presence of "glory" only in Mk 13:26.The parallels in Mt 24:30 and Lk 21:27 both feature glory (though interestingly they both have "power and great glory", whereas Mk 13:26 has "great power and glory").

Mark 2
5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, ‘Son, your sins are forgiven.’
10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins’—he said to the paralytic—


24 The Pharisees said to him, ‘Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?’
28 so the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath.’

spin wrote:

Michael BG wrote:

spin wrote: While I'm not convinced on the argument you are responding to, it is difficult to use the Similitudes for dating purposes. … Whatever the case, 1 Enoch doesn't seem like a safe benchmark to date anything by.

I was going to post a reply regarding the Grabbe article that questioned the date of the Similitudes of Enoch. However Grabbe gave me the impression that there was now general agreement to a first century dating. John J Collins in The Apocalyptic Imagination (p 177-78) addresses J. T. Milik. Both Collins and Grabbe use 56:5-7 and particularly 67:5-13 to date it post 4 BCE and the lack of any mention of the Temple's destruction or Jewish Revolt to date it to before 66 CE.

I don't think one should expect a text written—according to Milik—in 270 to mention either the fall of the temple or the Jewish war—especially if it is a christian production. I haven't seen what Grabbe or Collins say, but I have seen a lot of dating analyses of the Similitudes in scholarly literature. None seem to deal with his contextualization which include for example an explanation for 1En 56:5's reference to Medes, a term used for the Palmyrenes who were active in the later 3rd century. But Milik's date hasn't been received well and the reference to Parthians and Medes is reduced to a stereotypical references to Parthians (with Medes thrown in for no substantive addition). No-one seems impressed with his trajectory from the fifth book of Sibylline Oracles which he thinks is the source of allusion to the invasion of Judea by the Parthian Pacorus (in 40 BCE) as well as apocalyptic material in 1En 56. Against Milik one datum frequently referenced regards hot springs and kings visiting them for their health but being vexed in their spirit (67:8), taken as a reference to King Herod visiting Callirhoe in his old age. In its context it seems hopeful to me. I'd be interested to know what Grabbe has to add on the dating—if he goes beyond the data already evinced over the last 40 years—, as I think he is a trustworthy commentator.

The only other information on dating I have seen is an attack on Milik because he put too much reliance on the Similitudes of Enoch not being at Qumran.

spin wrote:The whole SoM thing is hard to grasp given its humble origin in Dan 7:13. The chapter describes several beings, each representing realms, each like known beings. One is like a lion, another like a bear, then a panther, one like a creature that seems to be an elephant and the last is "one like a son of man". Naturally this one represents God's people. But we know that "son of man" is a simple poetic means of describing a person, which Daniel 8:17 shows, when the phrase is used for the character of Daniel. The RSV gives "mortal", putting "son of man" into a footnote. So Dan 7:13 deals with a being of human appearance, which is how angels are often represented (eg Mk 16:5), though "son of man" bears no special significance. We are missing the steps that transform this descriptive phrase into a messianic title. One can guess the steps. 1) Daniel is uncoupled from its historical context. 2) 7:13 is isolated from its context of national entities. 3) The angelic figure, "one like a son of man" coming on the clouds, is transformed into a messianic figure. 4) The being like a son of man part is lost, while "son of man" is elevated as a reference to the messianic figure. But those steps we just don't have.

I wonder if the steps are already present in Daniel 7:14

And to him (the one like a son of man) was given dominion
and glory and kingdom,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him;
his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom one
that shall not be destroyed.

The son of man figure is a monarch ruling the world forever.

iskander wrote: In John 12:34 Jesus is asked this question : who is this son of man?
34The crowd answered him, ‘We have heard from the law that the Messiah* remains forever. How can you say that the Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man?

Have you considered John 12:34 ?

John 12:32-35a

[32] and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."
[33] He said this to show by what death he was to die.
[34] The crowd answered him, "We have heard from the law that the Christ remains for ever. How can you say that the Son of man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of man?"
[35] Jesus said to them, "The light is with you for a little longer. …

I think John is using the idea of Jesus being lifted up to not only represent his crucifixion but also his resurrection and his being lifted up into heaven. I think John created this section with its identification of Jesus with the Son of Man and he is not using any words which his community might have received as going back to the historical Jesus.

spin wrote:

Michael BG wrote:Mark had a suffering Son of Man figure who is raised after death. Mk 13:24 talks of the Son of Man coming with glory. It sounds more like the gospel of John. Luke has 21:27 which is based on Mk 13:24. So the only really relevant saying is 24:26 within the road to Emmaus resurrection appearance. One saying does not really make a theme. Neither Lk 12:8-9 nor Mt 10:32-33 has the word glory.

Mk 13:26 is derived—probably indirectly—from Dan 7:13-14: SoM and clouds from v.13 and power and glory from v.14. I don't think anything can be made of the presence of "glory" only in Mk 13:26.The parallels in Mt 24:30 and Lk 21:27 both feature glory (though interestingly they both have "power and great glory", whereas Mk 13:26 has "great power and glory").

Well spotted I did mean Mk 13:26.
Mark has

ἐρχόμενον ἐν νεφέλαις μετὰ δυνάμεως πολλῆς καὶ δόξης.

Coming in clouds with power much and glory.

δυνάμεως being translated as power

I found this Septuagint version in Greek of Daniel 7:14

14 καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία, καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τῆς γῆς κατὰ γένη καὶ πᾶσα δόξα αὐτῷ λατρεύουσα· καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ ἐξουσία αἰώνιος, ἥτις οὐ μὴ ἀρθῇ, καὶ ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ, ἥτις οὐ μὴ φθαρῇ.

I think ἐξουσία is being translated as authority (dominion) and δόξα as glory.
I think therefore it is unlikely that Mark had his copy of Septuagint Daniel 7:14 open in front of him when he wrote this verse. And so indirectly as you suggested.

Michael BG wrote:

iskander wrote: In John 12:34 Jesus is asked this question : who is this son of man?
34The crowd answered him, ‘We have heard from the law that the Messiah* remains forever. How can you say that the Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man?

Have you considered John 12:34 ?

John 12:32-35a

[32] and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."
[33] He said this to show by what death he was to die.
[34] The crowd answered him, "We have heard from the law that the Christ remains for ever. How can you say that the Son of man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of man?"
[35] Jesus said to them, "The light is with you for a little longer. …

I think John is using the idea of Jesus being lifted up to not only represent his crucifixion but also his resurrection and his being lifted up into heaven. I think John created this section with its identification of Jesus with the Son of Man and he is not using any words which his community might have received as going back to the historical Jesus.

Jesus was ' son of man ' in the Greek Testament.

Jesus seems to have used " son of man " when talking about himself. Is your thread about how his followers interpreted this title?

Michael BG wrote:

spin wrote:...We are missing the steps that transform this descriptive phrase into a messianic title. One can guess the steps. 1) Daniel is uncoupled from its historical context. 2) 7:13 is isolated from its context of national entities. 3) The angelic figure, "one like a son of man" coming on the clouds, is transformed into a messianic figure. 4) The being like a son of man part is lost, while "son of man" is elevated as a reference to the messianic figure. But those steps we just don't have.

I wonder if the steps are already present in Daniel 7:14

And to him (the one like a son of man) was given dominion
and glory and kingdom,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him;
his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom one
that shall not be destroyed.

The son of man figure is a monarch ruling the world forever.

It's hard to talk about this without rehearsing the reification of the christian interpretation of the passage, but to me there is nothing messianic about the passage. It has been transformed from a version of Baal's fight with the sea. The four beasts come out of the see and Baal does battle with them and upon vanquishing them, he returns to El's court riding on the clouds of heaven. Baal is known as "cloud-rider" in Ugaritic literature. The narrative has been transformed: the beasts are no longer the children of the sea, but supernatural protectors of their nations. The entity that is like a lion stands for Babylon. The panther like beast battles for Persia. The battle, however, has been sublimated and everything operates under the control of the god figure, the ancient of days. The angelic figure described as the one like a son of man seems obviously to be the one who contends elsewhere against Persia (10:13 & 21), he who instructs Gabriel to interpret for Daniel (8:16), Michael. A reader of Daniel would see the figure in 7:13 as a supernatural proxy sent by God. A century later Jews were looking for a human figure who would perform his liberation act not on the heavenly plane, but in the human world.

Michael BG wrote:

Michael BG wrote:Mark had a suffering Son of Man figure who is raised after death. Mk 13:24 talks of the Son of Man coming with glory. It sounds more like the gospel of John. Luke has 21:27 which is based on Mk 13:24. So the only really relevant saying is 24:26 within the road to Emmaus resurrection appearance. One saying does not really make a theme. Neither Lk 12:8-9 nor Mt 10:32-33 has the word glory.

spin wrote:Mk 13:26 is derived—probably indirectly—from Dan 7:13-14: SoM and clouds from v.13 and power and glory from v.14. I don't think anything can be made of the presence of "glory" only in Mk 13:26.The parallels in Mt 24:30 and Lk 21:27 both feature glory (though interestingly they both have "power and great glory", whereas Mk 13:26 has "great power and glory").

Well spotted I did mean Mk 13:26.
Mark has

ἐρχόμενον ἐν νεφέλαις μετὰ δυνάμεως πολλῆς καὶ δόξης.

Coming in clouds with power much and glory.

δυνάμεως being translated as power

I found this Septuagint version in Greek of Daniel 7:14

14 καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία, καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τῆς γῆς κατὰ γένη καὶ πᾶσα δόξα αὐτῷ λατρεύουσα· καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ ἐξουσία αἰώνιος, ἥτις οὐ μὴ ἀρθῇ, καὶ ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ, ἥτις οὐ μὴ φθαρῇ.

I think ἐξουσία is being translated as authority (dominion) and δόξα as glory.
I think therefore it is unlikely that Mark had his copy of Septuagint Daniel 7:14 open in front of him when he wrote this verse. And so indirectly as you suggested.

I was shocked by the version of 7:14 you posted, which was so different to the one used by my bible software, which was ostensibly Rahfs. It turns out after some investigating that it is the Theodotion translation,


whereas the one you posted was the Old Greek. I get the idea if Aquila's translation of Daniel had survived it would have been different again. Working from the text of a Greek translation is not too safe, as it is hard to know which if any were used in the gathering of materials for the section.... But this is taking you away from the thread topic.

spin wrote:

Michael BG wrote:

spin wrote:...We are missing the steps that transform this descriptive phrase into a messianic title. One can guess the steps. 1) Daniel is uncoupled from its historical context. 2) 7:13 is isolated from its context of national entities. 3) The angelic figure, "one like a son of man" coming on the clouds, is transformed into a messianic figure. 4) The being like a son of man part is lost, while "son of man" is elevated as a reference to the messianic figure. But those steps we just don't have.

I wonder if the steps are already present in Daniel 7:14

And to him (the one like a son of man) was given dominion
and glory and kingdom,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him;
his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom one
that shall not be destroyed.

The son of man figure is a monarch ruling the world forever.

It's hard to talk about this without rehearsing the reification of the christian interpretation of the passage, but to me there is nothing messianic about the passage. It has been transformed from a version of Baal's fight with the sea. The four beasts come out of the see and Baal does battle with them and upon vanquishing them, he returns to El's court riding on the clouds of heaven. Baal is known as "cloud-rider" in Ugaritic literature. The narrative has been transformed: the beasts are no longer the children of the sea, but supernatural protectors of their nations. The entity that is like a lion stands for Babylon. The panther like beast battles for Persia. The battle, however, has been sublimated and everything operates under the control of the god figure, the ancient of days. The angelic figure described as the one like a son of man seems obviously to be the one who contends elsewhere against Persia (10:13 & 21), he who instructs Gabriel to interpret for Daniel (8:16), Michael. A reader of Daniel would see the figure in 7:13 as a supernatural proxy sent by God. A century later Jews were looking for a human figure who would perform his liberation act not on the heavenly plane, but in the human world.

I think you are saying that the author of Daniel has taken features from Ugaritic literature and set them in a new context. If you are I would not disagree with this. I do see that the figure of one like a son of man is an angelic figure. If we see the angelic figure of the son of man fighting the angelic representatives of other nations there is also a parallel fight on the earthy plain. I think verse 14 is a statement of the ultimate victory and that victory includes the angelic figure becoming king of all peoples and nations. It is this role as king of the everlasting kingdom which I see as Messianic.

Within the apocalyptic literature this kingly role is often given to a heavenly figure. If we see this king being anointed by God then perhaps we can see within Judaism both an earthly Messianic figure and a heavenly Messianic figure.

spin wrote:

Michael BG wrote: I found this Septuagint version in Greek of Daniel 7:14

14 καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία, καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τῆς γῆς κατὰ γένη καὶ πᾶσα δόξα αὐτῷ λατρεύουσα· καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ ἐξουσία αἰώνιος, ἥτις οὐ μὴ ἀρθῇ, καὶ ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ, ἥτις οὐ μὴ φθαρῇ.

I think ἐξουσία is being translated as authority (dominion) and δόξα as glory.
I think therefore it is unlikely that Mark had his copy of Septuagint Daniel 7:14 open in front of him when he wrote this verse. And so indirectly as you suggested.

I was shocked by the version of 7:14 you posted, which was so different to the one used by my bible software, which was ostensibly Rahfs. It turns out after some investigating that it is the Theodotion translation,
…
whereas the one you posted was the Old Greek. I get the idea if Aquila's translation of Daniel had survived it would have been different again. Working from the text of a Greek translation is not too safe, as it is hard to know which if any were used in the gathering of materials for the section.... But this is taking you away from the thread topic.

I have read new testament scholars compare quotes from the Old Testament in the New Testament to the Masoretic text and the Septuagint text and conclude that because it is taken from the Septuagint it is not likely to have been said by the historical Jesus. C. H. Dodd in his book Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel states that the gospel writers often had access to different versions of a Greek Old Testament.

iskander wrote:Mark 2
5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, ‘Son, your sins are forgiven.’
10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins’—he said to the paralytic—

24 The Pharisees said to him, ‘Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?’
28 so the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath.’

iskander wrote:Jesus seems to have used " son of man " when talking about himself. Is your thread about how his followers interpreted this title?

No this thread is about whether it is likely that Jesus used the term Son of Man to talk about a heavenly figure which was separate from himself. It is not about all the Son of Man sayings in the gospels. I am hoping to create other threads for different types of son of man sayings e.g. the suffering SofM, SofM replacing “I”, SofM meaning humankind.

spin wrote:

The angelic figure described as the one like a son of man seems obviously to be the one who contends elsewhere against Persia (10:13 & 21), he who instructs Gabriel to interpret for Daniel (8:16), Michael. A reader of Daniel would see the figure in 7:13 as a supernatural proxy sent by God. A century later Jews were looking for a human figure who would perform his liberation act not on the heavenly plane, but in the human world.

This is very well put. I looked at Daniel with fresh eyes recently and came away with a similar impression (i.e., a supernatural proxy). Now I'm wondering if this is the way that Jesus saw himself (assuming he existed) or was it (and Jesus?) invented by the apostles (or later Christians).

Michael BG wrote:

iskander wrote:Jesus seems to have used " son of man " when talking about himself. Is your thread about how his followers interpreted this title?

No this thread is about whether it is likely that Jesus used the term Son of Man to talk about a heavenly figure which was separate from himself. It is not about all the Son of Man sayings in the gospels. I am hoping to create other threads for different types of son of man sayings e.g. the suffering SofM, SofM replacing “I”, SofM meaning humankind.

This is was Geza Vermes noted. See attachment

MichaelBG wrote:

...this thread is about whether it is likely that Jesus used the term Son of Man to talk about a heavenly figure which was separate from himself

Maybe the answer is in Mt. 9:1-5.

Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. Some men brought to him a paralyzed man, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the man, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven. At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, “This fellow is blaspheming!”

Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.”

Jesus clearly sees himself as the Son of Man here, and it looks like it is special to Matthew so maybe this is the way post-70 CE Jewish Christians saw it, at least.

Now that I look into it, it also appears to be the case in Mark and material that is unique to Mathew and Luke (or "Q"):

Mk. 2:28 (Mt. 12:8/Lk.6:5):

So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.

Mt. 8:20/Lk. 9:58:

And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head."