Son of Man

[ViaCrucis]

It's easier to separate the way Jesus used it to those. The hard one is Daniel 7:13 since it is so similar to Mark 13:26. Now that this idea of Christian interpolation is unrealistic, here is where I'm currently at:

Jesus used the framework of current Jewish understanding to incorporate his teaching. He was fine with being misunderstood since the disciples and others wouldn't be able to comprehend who he actually was until they followed his teaching. So he said what he said in Mark 13:26 knowing his audience was already aware of Daniel 7:13, and that it would be misunderstood.

It seems like what you are trying to do is find a way to justify a quasi-Marcionite view of the New Testament; by divorcing Jesus and the early Christians away from their Jewish context. Marcion accomplished this by selectively choosing and meticulously editing out anything even remotely Jewish from Luke's Gospel and several of Paul's letters. Because Marcion had a problem with the God of Israel and was convinced Jesus preached a new and as-of-yet unknown god named Abba or Father.

The problem, of course, is that for Marcion to do that he had to--as already addressed--meticulously edit things to make them come out right in his mind.

The Jewish context of Jesus and the early Christian movement is simply too deeply rooted to get rid of, it's very much there and not going anywhere.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

As a historian I have a problem with that. If the original text is gender neutral then the translation should be gender neutral, but it is more important to be faithful to the text than "politically correct." You can be as politically correct when it comes to interpreting scripture but don't interpolate the text itself.

I agree, though I don't have a problem with things such as translating υἱός as "child" rather than "son" depending on context. E.g. Galatians 3:26 says "you are all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus", if translating more literally it would read "sons of God" (υἱοὶ θεοῦ), but even the archaic KJV still uses a more neutral "children" rather than "sons". Translating it as "children" still captures the point of the text even if it's not strictly the most literal translation. Likewise, I don't have much trouble where some translations have rendered ἀδελφοί (brothers/brethren) as "brothers and sisters", that could be argued to be more of a stretch, but seeing as the communities consisted of both men and women, ἀδελφοί arguably shouldn't be seen as restricted to only referring to the male Christians of the community, but to everyone of the community. While that isn't lost in translating as "brethren" or "brothers", the inclusivity of "brothers and sisters" does not (necessarily at least) lose anything from the intent and meaning of the text. It's fair enough to argue, and a case for both sides of the argument can be made and made well. But personally speaking I don't think these sorts of things are really about "political correctness", so much as balancing textual fidelity with translation clarity.

Though in the mentioned case where it reads "daughter of/son of/man/woman" well, if that's the case, that's just dumb.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Chesterton]

For the record that daughter/son/man thing was just a joke. Or an attempt at one.

 

[ChetSinger]

I believe Jesus to be the creator of the Son of Man phrase.

No, it's definitely pre-Christian. Appearing in Daniel, it was one of the supporting passages of the Jewish "Two Powers in Heaven" belief that was popular during 2nd temple Judaism. This has been researched by rabbinical scholar Alan Segal in his book of the same name.

The figure was divine, because there's a throne in heaven for him and because he's walking on the clouds (in ANE religions only gods walked on clouds). Because Judaism was monotheistic the figure was not interpreted as a second god but sometimes as a binitarian YHWH.

Jesus applied this label to himself many times and, due to the widespread nature of Two Powers beliefs, it was an understated claim to divinity every time he spoke it. His explicit use of it at his trial earned him an immediate conviction for blasphemy because the Sanhedrin understood exactly what he was claiming.

 

[smaneck]

Jesus applied this label to himself many times and, due to the widespread nature of Two Powers beliefs, it was an understated claim to divinity every time he spoke it. His explicit use of it at his trial earned him an immediate conviction for blasphemy because the Sanhedrin understood exactly what he was claiming.

Huh? The Gospel accounts indicate that Jesus was condemned by the Sanhedrin when He said He was the Messiah, not the Son of Man. That's why the Roman's crucified Him. Claiming to a king (which was the meaning of Messiah) was tantamount to treason.

 

[ChetSinger]

Huh? The Gospel accounts indicate that Jesus was condemned by the Sanhedrin when He said He was the Messiah, not the Son of Man. That's why the Roman's crucified Him. Claiming to a king (which was the meaning of Messiah) was tantamount to treason.

All of the synoptic gospels record the moment when Jesus' trial ended. It had been dragging on because the Sanhedrin couldn't find enough damning testimony from witnesses, and they grew frustrated. So they challenged Jesus themselves and his answer brought immediate condemnation from them. That answer was his self-identification with the cloud-walking Son of Man in Daniel.

Here are the relevant passages:

Matthew 26:59-66
Mark 14:55-64
Luke 22:66-71​

Particularly in Luke 22:70, notice how Jesus' identification as the Son of Man brought this response: "Are you the Son of God, then?". Why on earth would the Sanhedrin draw a line connecting Daniel's Son of Man with the Son of God? It's because Dr. Segal identified the Son of Man as a widely-considered divine figure in 2nd temple Judaism, a physical embodiment of YHWH. But his questioners knew that Jesus had grown up a nice Jewish boy in Galilee, so of course they believed they were hearing blasphemy.

Being well aware of the beliefs that surrounded him, Jesus walked into his sentence knowingly.

I'm not making this up, of course. It's a subject of research by rabbinical scholars including Segal and Boyarin. A scholarly bibliography can be found here: http://twopowersinheaven.com/?page_id=16

 

[smaneck]

All of the synoptic gospels record the moment when Jesus' trial ended. It had been dragging on because the Sanhedrin couldn't find enough damning testimony from witnesses, and they grew frustrated. So they challenged Jesus themselves and his answer brought immediate condemnation from them. That answer was his self-identification with the cloud-walking Son of Man in Daniel.

But that statement is made in response to the question as to whether or not Jesus is the Messiah. It seems to me is that what this indicates is that the Messianic hope by Jesus times has come to be connected with Daniel's apocalyptic figure.

 

[ChetSinger]

But that statement is made in response to the question as to whether or not Jesus is the Messiah. It seems to me is that what this indicates is that the Messianic hope by Jesus times has come to be connected with Daniel's apocalyptic figure.

I don't know the totality of what Daniel's Son of Man meant in 2nd temple times. Apparently rabbis of that era speculated quite a bit. But I do know from reading that Two Powers beliefs were both widespread and orthodox, so Jesus' self-identification as that figure was a claim to Godhead: he was claiming to be the incarnate YHWH, standing right there before the Sanhedrin. Which is of course how Christianity considers him. But not the Sanhedrin; it's what terminated the trial and got him immediately sent off to Pilate.

 

[smaneck]

I don't know the totality of what Daniel's Son of Man meant in 2nd temple times. Apparently rabbis of that era speculated quite a bit. But I do know from reading that Two Powers beliefs were both widespread and orthodox, so Jesus' self-identification as that figure was a claim to Godhead: he was claiming to be the incarnate YHWH, standing right there before the Sanhedrin. Which is of course how Christianity considers him. But not the Sanhedrin; it's what terminated the trial and got him immediately sent off to Pilate.

I think you are wrong. It was claiming to be the Messiah that got him sent off to Pilate. If Jesus had been judged guilty of blasphemy they would have stoned him themselves as they will Stephen soon afterwards. Pilate couldn't care less if someone was claiming to be a god. Claiming to be king, was another matter entirely.

 

[ChetSinger]

I think you are wrong. It was claiming to be the Messiah that got him sent off to Pilate. If Jesus had been judged guilty of blasphemy they would have stoned him themselves as they will Stephen soon afterwards. Pilate couldn't care less if someone was claiming to be a god. Claiming to be king, was another matter entirely.

Susan, are you relying on memory? Because in Matthew 26:65-66 and Mark 14:64 Jesus is judged guilty of blasphemy and sentenced to death.

I'm glad you mentioned Stephen. Do you remember his last sentence, the one that drove the crowd to act? It's in Acts 7:56, and yes, he identifies Jesus as Daniel's Son of Man, which in Two Powers belief was the visible YHWH.

 

[smaneck]

Susan, are you relying on memory? Because in Matthew 26:65-66 and Mark 14:64 Jesus is judged guilty of blasphemy and sentenced to death.

Matthew says they stated he was worthy of death, only Mark says he was condemned to death. In any case, it is still not clear whether it is his claim to be the Messiah or his claim to be the Son of Man which set them off. As I said, a charge of blasphemy would have gotten nowhere with Pilate.

 

[ChetSinger]

Matthew says they stated he was worthy of death, only Mark says he was condemned to death. In any case, it is still not clear whether it is his claim to be the Messiah or his claim to be the Son of Man which set them off.

I don't think claiming to be the Messiah was necessarily blasphemous in itself because Israel was expecting someone to appear as the Messiah (Bar Kokhba was briefly pronounced the Messiah). Claiming to be YHWH incarnate, that was blasphemous. And claiming to be Daniel's Son of Man was that claim, at least during the 2nd temple period. Drs. Segal and Boyarin were unable to find any pre-Christian rabbinical criticism of Two Powers belief, leading them to speculate that its appropriation to Jesus by Christianity triggered its abandonment by Judaism sometime in the 2nd century CE. I found the subject quite astonishing: pre-Christian Judaism accepted a binitarian Godhead. And Daniel's Son of Man was one of the OT passages used in support of it (thus my interest in this thread).

As I said, a charge of blasphemy would have gotten nowhere with Pilate.

Right, and they didn't try. The charge before Pilate was "King of the Jews".

 

[smaneck]

I don't think claiming to be the Messiah was necessarily blasphemous in itself because Israel was expecting someone to appear as the Messiah (Bar Kokhba was briefly pronounced the Messiah). Claiming to be YHWH incarnate, that was blasphemous. And claiming to be Daniel's Son of Man was that claim, at least during the 2nd temple period. Drs. Segal and Boyarin were unable to find any pre-Christian rabbinical criticism of Two Powers belief, leading them to speculate that its appropriation to Jesus by Christianity triggered its abandonment by Judaism sometime in the 2nd century CE. I found the subject quite astonishing: pre-Christian Judaism accepted a binitarian Godhead. And Daniel's Son of Man was one of the OT passages used in support of it (thus my interest in this thread).

What I'm suggesting is that the Messiah and the Son of Man figures were conflated by Jesus' time which is why he mentions them together. While the Son of Man was clearly a supernatural being I'm not persuaded the Jews saw him as YHWH incarnate. In fact I know of nowhere in the Bible where the word 'incarnate' is mentioned.

 

[danny ski]

I don't think claiming to be the Messiah was necessarily blasphemous in itself because Israel was expecting someone to appear as the Messiah (Bar Kokhba was briefly pronounced the Messiah). Claiming to be YHWH incarnate, that was blasphemous. And claiming to be Daniel's Son of Man was that claim, at least during the 2nd temple period. Drs. Segal and Boyarin were unable to find any pre-Christian rabbinical criticism of Two Powers belief, leading them to speculate that its appropriation to Jesus by Christianity triggered its abandonment by Judaism sometime in the 2nd century CE. I found the subject quite astonishing: pre-Christian Judaism accepted a binitarian Godhead. And Daniel's Son of Man was one of the OT passages used in support of it (thus my interest in this thread).


Right, and they didn't try. The charge before Pilate was "King of the Jews".

Dr. Boyarin's argument for widely accepted binitarianism is very weak. The fact that it did not make it into the post Temple Judaism is huge argument against it. Even though, biniatarianism had isolated proponents AFTER the end of the 1st c. CE. Dr. Boyarin assumed that there were two thrones in heaven. One for the Ancient of Days and another for the one like the son of man. However, that's not what the text says. It just says "thrones". The idea that a mortal share power with Gd cannot be supported, Isaiah 42-8 says the opposite. It relegates the heresy of binitarianism to its proper place.

 

[ChetSinger]

Dr. Boyarin's argument for widely accepted binitarianism is very weak. The fact that it did not make it into the post Temple Judaism is huge argument against it. Even though, biniatarianism had isolated proponents AFTER the end of the 1st c. CE. Dr. Boyarin assumed that there were two thrones in heaven. One for the Ancient of Days and another for the one like the son of man. However, that's not what the text says. It just says "thrones". The idea that a mortal share power with Gd cannot be supported, Isaiah 42-8 says the opposite. It relegates the heresy of binitarianism to its proper place.

It makes sense to me that binitarian beliefs related to Daniel's Son of Man existed at that time. They've been found by multiple scholars, and you can observe the violent effect when the Son of Man label was applied to Jesus by Stephen and by himself: quick death.

One question is, were they included within orthodoxy? And I gather that Segal and Boyarin (and others such as Hurtado and Heiser) reach their conclusion (that they were within orthodoxy) not so much from what they found, but from what they didn't find: pre-Christian rabbinical condemnation of them. Should such condemnations be found I'm sure that will change.

I myself can find what look to me like clear examples of a binitarian YHWH in the Hebrew scriptures. One is where YHWH and two angels meet Abraham at the oaks of Mamre and they eat a meal Abraham prepares. Another is when the elders of Israel dine with YHWH and see him, even though God says no one can see him. So I have no problem with YHWH being able to take physical form on earth while he simultaneously reigns in heaven. I think it's just one of his abilities.

 

[danny ski]

It makes sense to me that binitarian beliefs related to Daniel's Son of Man existed at that time. They've been found by multiple scholars, and you can observe the violent effect when the Son of Man label was applied to Jesus by Stephen and by himself: quick death.

One question is, were they included within orthodoxy? And I gather that Segal and Boyarin (and others such as Hurtado and Heiser) reach their conclusion (that they were within orthodoxy) not so much from what they found, but from what they didn't find: pre-Christian rabbinical condemnation of them. Should such condemnations be found I'm sure that will change.

I myself can find what look to me like clear examples of a binitarian YHWH in the Hebrew scriptures. One is where YHWH and two angels meet Abraham at the oaks of Mamre and they eat a meal Abraham prepares. Another is when the elders of Israel dine with YHWH and see him, even though God says no one can see him. So I have no problem with YHWH being able to take physical form on earth while he simultaneously reigns in heaven. I think it's just one of his abilities.

The best argument against is that binitarianism did not make it into orthodoxy nor any other stream of Judaism. It's even less valid than the idea of reincarnation. Although, it did survive within Judaism. Dr.Boyarin makes a case, but it's a weak one to put it charitably. As for the rest, the angels at Mamre were just that- angels. Not Gd. I don't know why the mob decided to stone Stephen, but I do know that his speech contained some glaring mistakes. In any case, killing without a trial was called murder then as it is now.

 

[ChetSinger]

The best argument against is that binitarianism did not make it into orthodoxy nor any other stream of Judaism.

My understanding from Segal and Boyarin is that binitarianism did make it into orthodoxy but was kicked out in the 2nd century CE. Are you disagreeing with that?

As for the rest, the angels at Mamre were just that- angels. Not Gd.

I disagree, but I suppose that's off-topic in this thread so I won't pursue it.

 

[danny ski]

My understanding from Segal and Boyarin is that binitarianism did make it into orthodoxy but was kicked out in the 2nd century CE. Are you disagreeing with that?


I disagree, but I suppose that's off-topic in this thread so I won't pursue it.

Of course I disagree. Their case is a speculation. Strict monotheism in our written records is an indisputable position. The Shema is the corner stone of our religion.

 

[ChetSinger]

Of course I disagree. Their case is a speculation. Strict monotheism in our written records is an indisputable position. The Shema is the corner stone of our religion.

I've done a little studying on the Shema. The word translated as "one" is "echad", which is used elsewhere in the Torah to describe a thing which is itself composed of multiple things. I can provide some examples if you wish. So I believe that binitarianism, or in my case trinitarianism, is compatible with the Shema.

 

[danny ski]

I've done a little studying on the Shema. The word translated as "one" is "echad", which is used elsewhere in the Torah to describe a thing which is itself composed of multiple things. I can provide some examples if you wish. So I believe that binitarianism, or in my case trinitarianism, is compatible with the Shema.

The word "one" operates exactly the same in Hebrew as in English. It can mean single unity and compound unity, depending on the context. Where is the compound unity in the Shema? Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.