Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

John2 wrote:spin wrote:

… 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).

I think that once Christians believed that the resurrected Jesus was in heaven with God and was thus a heavenly figure they equated him with the future coming heavenly figure the Son of Man that Jesus had spoken about. However this can only be true if Jesus spoke about a coming heavenly Son of Man figure. If we have sayings where Jesus is not the heavenly Son of Man figure this to me seems to be evidence that these sayings are historical because I cannot see any circumstances where early Christians would create sayings where Jesus and the Son of Man are separate beings.

iskander wrote:

Michael BG wrote: 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

I do not know what point you are making. I have read Geza Vermes’ article on the Son of Man in Jewish Aramaic in Matthew Black’s An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts.

John2 wrote: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 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.

I can’t imagine what question regarding the Son of Man sayings that Mt 9:1-5 would be the answer for me because for me the Marcan version (Mk 2:1-12) is older.
Even if you wished to make out a case for “the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” as being historical this does not counter my case for Lk 12:8-9 as being historical. I think Maurice Casey makes a case for this (Mk 2:10) going back to an Aramaic saying which he thinks was said by Jesus, but where when Jesus said the son of man in this context he was referring to not only himself but his disciples as well. It is possible that it is an early Christian comment has been inserted into this story and put into the mouth of Jesus.

Michael BG wrote: I think that once Christians believed that the resurrected Jesus was in heaven with God and was thus a heavenly figure they equated him with the future coming heavenly figure the Son of Man that Jesus had spoken about. However this can only be true if Jesus spoke about a coming heavenly Son of Man figure. If we have sayings where Jesus is not the heavenly Son of Man figure this to me seems to be evidence that these sayings are historical because I cannot see any circumstances where early Christians would create sayings where Jesus and the Son of Man are separate beings.

I think it's likely that the Jesus of the NT is a created character and words have been put in his mouth. I think he's an anthropomorphised angel - like 'a son of man' elevated to be the Son of Man.

John2 wrote:
spin wrote:

… 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).

To extrapolate from spin's commentary - that '[people] were looking for a human figure who would perform his liberation act not on the heavenly plane, but in the human world' - they created Him.

Michael BG wrote:

In Q there was a saying where Jesus talks of the Son of Man as a separate being in heaven from himself.

Luke 12:8-9 contains it:

[8] "And I tell you, every one who acknowledges me before men, the Son of man also will acknowledge before the angels of God;
[9] but he who denies me before men will be denied before the angels of God.


Matthew 10:32-33 contains a parallel which Matthew has likely changed.

[32] So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven;
[33] but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.

It sounds to me like he's talking about himself here too. The only difference is that Luke has "the Son of Man also will" instead of "I also will." In both cases though I think he is talking about himself (like he is in the examples I gave above, which are in Mark, "Q" and material that is special to Matthew). Why would he be talking about a different Son of Man in Luke 12:8-9?

MichaelBG wrote:

can’t imagine what question regarding the Son of Man sayings that Mt 9:1-5 would be the answer for me because for me the Marcan version (Mk 2:1-12) is older.

I didn't see that it was also in Mark. So Mt. 9:1-5 is not special to Matthew then. My bad. He is still talking about himself though.

MichaelBG wrote;

Catchpole also states that Lk 12:8 “dovetails with such eschatological sayings as Mt 24:27, 37, 39 = Lk 17:24, 26, 30 which show no sign of equating the Son of man with Jesus or of being disqualified from authentic tradition by presupposing the delay of the Parousia.”

I think he's talking about himself in these cases too, i.e., his future self, like in Mk. 8:31-38:

And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again ... whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of man also shall be ashamed of him, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

MichaelBG also wrote:

Then Catchpole states that Lk 12:8 “dovetails precisely with Mt 25:31-46” where the “scheme demands that the Son of man shall not previously have been seen on earth”. This is because those being judged ask when they saw the Son of man and the answer is they didn’t they will be judged on how they responded to “the least of these my brethren” (vs 40, 45).

I get the same impression from Mt. 25 as I do from Mk. 8:31-38 above, that Jesus is referring to his future self, or "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him...."

Why would the Son of Man who "must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again" be different from the Son of Man who "comes in his glory, and all the angels with him"? In other words, what is the point of there being one Son of Man who will "rise on the third day" and another who "comes in his glory" at the End of Days?

And now that I think about it, James sees this "other" Son of Man (according to Catchpole's argument) as Jesus in Hegesippus:

EH 2.23:

Why do ye ask me concerning Jesus, the Son of Man? He himself sitteth in heaven at the right hand of the great Power, and is about to come upon the clouds of heaven.’ And when many were fully convinced and gloried in the testimony of James, and said, ‘Hosanna to the Son of David,’ these same Scribes and Pharisees said again to one another, ‘We have done badly in supplying such testimony to Jesus.

And this is how Acts 7:55-56 sees it too.

But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”

Michael, I 'knew' you had read Vermes, but I wanted to expand on his theme.


Jesus used " son of man" to mean " I ". He was a Jewish reformer making the Temple-centric religion into a Man-centric religion. Jesus has power over the Sabbath, power to forgive sins, power to reduce the oral law to only ten commandments etc.

Such a towering figure was later identified with Daniel 7:13. who is the Jewish Messiah and who will make the gentile nations the servants of the nation of priests.


The turning of the reformer Jesus into a magic messiah is a natural process in human history .
see attachment

MrMacSon wrote:

John2 wrote:
spin wrote:

… 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.

…

To extrapolate from spin's commentary - that '[people] were looking for a human figure who would perform his liberation act not on the heavenly plane, but in the human world' - they created Him.

I argue that “people” also believed that a heavenly figure would act on the human plane. (Most people who have religious faith believe that a heavenly figure can and does act in the world.)

MrMacSon wrote:I think it's likely that the Jesus of the NT is a created character and words have been put in his mouth. I think he's an anthropomorphised angel - like 'a son of man' elevated to be the Son of Man.

As you do not think there was an historical Jesus then everything in the gospels has to be a creation of Christians. Therefore you do not look at each saying to try to determine the likelihood that something in it might have been said by an historical Jesus. I think therefore we would have more profitable debates regarding assessing the evidence that there was an historical Jesus than in debating a particular saying. And that debate should take place in a different thread to this one.

John2 wrote:Michael BG wrote:

In Q there was a saying where Jesus talks of the Son of Man as a separate being in heaven from himself.

Luke 12:8-9 contains it:

[8] "And I tell you, every one who acknowledges me before men, the Son of man also will acknowledge before the angels of God;
[9] but he who denies me before men will be denied before the angels of God.

Matthew 10:32-33 contains a parallel which Matthew has likely changed.

[32] So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven;
[33] but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.

It sounds to me like he's talking about himself here too. The only difference is that Luke has "the Son of Man also will" instead of "I also will." In both cases though I think he is talking about himself (like he is in the examples I gave above, which are in Mark, "Q" and material that is special to Matthew). Why would he be talking about a different Son of Man in Luke 12:8-9?

It depends on your assumptions. Catchpole (and I agree with Catchpole) makes out a case that the Lucan version is more likely the earlier version. We need to decide which Son of Man sayings were mostly likely said by an historical Jesus and which one were created by early Christians because of their belief in the resurrected Jesus.

John2 wrote:MichaelBG wrote:

can’t imagine what question regarding the Son of Man sayings that Mt 9:1-5 would be the answer for me because for me the Marcan version (Mk 2:1-12) is older.

I didn't see that it was also in Mark. So Mt. 9:1-5 is not special to Matthew then. My bad. He is still talking about himself though.

If you assume that Mark has added nothing to an historical event then you can conclude that. However I think it is likely that the story has gained Christian interpretation

[1] And when he returned to Caper'na-um after some days, it was reported that he was at home.
[2] And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room for them, not even about the door; and he was preaching the word to them.
[3] And they came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men.
[4] And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him; and when they had made an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic lay.
[5] … Jesus … said to the paralytic, "My son, your sins are forgiven."
…

… `Rise, take up your pallet and walk'?

…."
[12] And he rose, …

This when all Christian interpretation has been removed is a simple healing story, which makes sense.
The reference to the faith of the four men in verse 5 is interpretation and has a Christological message – “people need to have faith in Jesus”. The “questioning in their hearts”(verse 6) implies that the author and I assume Jesus can read hearts (or as we would say today minds). The whole of verse 7 is not said out aloud but only in their hearts so we cannot know what they were thinking. Verse 8 is Jesus doing his mind reading act. In verses 9 and 10 he replies to something that hasn’t been said! Verse 11 is an addition to repeat what has already been said because of all the other additions. The word “immediately” is a favourite of Mark and the rest verse 12 is the standard reaction to a miracle.

John2 wrote:MichaelBG wrote;

Catchpole also states that Lk 12:8 “dovetails with such eschatological sayings as Mt 24:27, 37, 39 = Lk 17:24, 26, 30 which show no sign of equating the Son of man with Jesus or of being disqualified from authentic tradition by presupposing the delay of the Parousia.”

I think he's talking about himself in these cases too, i.e., his future self,

If you didn’t know that Christians equate Jesus with the coming Son of Man what aspects of these verses would make you think that the future coming Son of Man was actually present and saying these things?

If you replace Son of Man with references to “self” these sayings make no sense.

For as the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other, so will the I be in his day
As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of me.

John2 wrote:like in Mk. 8:31-38:

And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again ... whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of man also shall be ashamed of him, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

It is possible that early Christians have replaced a reference to himself with “Son of Man in verse 31. I discuss that verse in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2966

Kunigunde Kreuzerin raised the issue of Mk 8:38 earlier. I had already stated:

Catchpole argues (if I have understood him correctly) that “the presence of ‘Son of man’ in the probably independent variant Mk 8:38 supports its originality here”, ….

When comparing both versions I stated:
The Q version has both parts the positives ὁμολογήσῃ (acknowledge) and ἀρνησάμενός (denies), while Mark only has the negative αρνησαμενος (ashamed). The Marcan version has the addition of “this adulterous and sinful generation” and has the Son of Man “come(s) in the glory of his Father with the holy” (angels).
These extras in Mark seem to be Christian additions.

Both have a separate Son of Man. Jesus refers to the Son of Man as “he”. People do not refer to themselves as “he”.

John2 wrote:MichaelBG also wrote:

Then Catchpole states that Lk 12:8 “dovetails precisely with Mt 25:31-46” where the “scheme demands that the Son of man shall not previously have been seen on earth”. This is because those being judged ask when they saw the Son of man and the answer is they didn’t they will be judged on how they responded to “the least of these my brethren” (vs 40, 45).

I get the same impression from Mt. 25 as I do from Mk. 8:31-38 above, that Jesus is referring to his future self, or "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him...."

He is not referring to his future self but the future Son of Man figure. It is only because Christians have equated Jesus with the coming Son of Man that you read it that way.

Verses 31-33 has the Son of Man as judge. The use of “king” in verses 34 and 40 is troubling, but Catchpole in The Poor on Earth and the son of man in heaven. A reappraisal of Matthew xxv. 31-47 (https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/a ... CUMENT.PDF) sees a parallel with “the Elect one” in the Similitudes of Enoch especially I think 62 and 63. It has been recognised Matthew has some phrases that appear to come from the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71). An example is 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” to 1 Enoch 62:5 “When they see that Son of Man sitting on the throne of his glory”. Also the Similitudes of Enoch has such lines as “On that day the Elect One will sit on the throne of glory” (1 Enoch 45:3) and “And the Lord of Spirits set the Elect One on the throne of his glory” (1 Enoch 61:8).

Catchpole writes, “This means that Matthew and I Enoch incorporate in identical fashion the Daniel vii scheme in which the "one like a son of man" is an exclusively heavenly figure belonging, as it were, on the upper level of the apocalyptic double-decker framework” (p 381).

In verse 37 the righteous ask “Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? …”. In verse 44 the “goats” ask “Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?” It is clear from the answer that neither the righteous nor the “goats” have seen the king or the son of man because they are heavenly beings and therefore are not Jesus.

John2 wrote:Why would the Son of Man who "must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again" be different from the Son of Man who "comes in his glory, and all the angels with him"? In other words, what is the point of there being one Son of Man who will "rise on the third day" and another who "comes in his glory" at the End of Days?

I don’t agree with your assumptions. If you are a Christian then it makes perfect sense that the Son of Man is Jesus and Jesus said he would come again. However if you are looking for what an historical Jesus is likely to have said you need to step away from your Jesus Christ of faith. The first question that needs settling is did Jesus say the suffering Son of Man sayings? This is a discussion for another thread. I don’t think it is reasonable to conclude that just because you think it is likely Jesus used the term Son of Man in one group of Son of Man sayings that you can then use that as evidence regarding another group.

John2 wrote: And now that I think about it, James sees this "other" Son of Man (according to Catchpole's argument) as Jesus in Hegesippus:

EH 2.23:

Why do ye ask me concerning Jesus, the Son of Man? He himself sitteth in heaven at the right hand of the great Power, and is about to come upon the clouds of heaven.’ And when many were fully convinced and gloried in the testimony of James, and said, ‘Hosanna to the Son of David,’ these same Scribes and Pharisees said again to one another, ‘We have done badly in supplying such testimony to Jesus.

I do not think that the traditions attributed to Hegesippus are reliable especially if we have to rely on Eusebius to transmit them.

John2 wrote:And this is how Acts 7:55-56 sees it too.

But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”

I have suggested that the whole story regarding the death of Stephen is not historical viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1922&p=42239&hilit= ... hen#p42239.

(Didn’t we discuss this saying when discussing Mk 14:62 some time ago?)