Son of Man is a title?
|
A large part of apocalyptic interpretations of the gospels center on Jesus’ supposed self-identification as the “Son of Man”, theoretically referring to the “Son of Man” in Daniel. However, Jesus spoke Aramaic, and from what I have read, “Son of Man” is “bar nasha”, which could refer to humankind, “someone”, or “I”. Basically, using the language of the day, Jesus would have had to use some other apocalyptic title than “someone” if he were trying to build an understanding of the end times centered around himself. Although “Son of Man” appears to be used as a title in the Greek gospels, it seems to me that it would have been impossible for Jesus to have said these things in this way in Aramaic. So is this an innocent mistranslation of an Aramaic oral tradition into Greek, or a conscious apocalyptic projection by the author onto Jesus? Or do our English translations give a misleading emphasis? |
Comments
Re: Son of Man is a title?
Andrew, though I’d agree that the gospels call upon the son of man narrative in Daniel, I think there’s more going on than that.
For example, in Daniel - and in later reflections - there is a great tension/paradox between the very one referred to as ‘the human one’ and divine exaltation. We miss some of this is we lose all sense of the humanness of the ‘son of man’.
Walter Wink offers valuable insights here, I think, that would add a nice extra dimension to your work.
Re: Son of Man is a title?
I was disappointed with Wink’s book (I presume you have in mind The Human Being). My recollection is that it overweighted the anthropological interpretation of ‘Son of man’ and misconceived the apocalyptic, but I may well have missed something.
Nevertheless, the tension or paradox is there even in the apocalyptic narrative. The Son of man figure in Daniel 7 is that part of Israel that remains loyal to the covenant under the most severe testing. They constitute a human community that suffers at the hands of a brutal oppressor and is eventually vindicated, glorified, and given the kingdom that was taken from the fourth beast. But this is not a story of generic humanness. It is specifically the covenant people that suffers and is exalted.
To my mind, the more difficult question is how does New Testament christology make the jump from the apocalyptic narrative about the exaltation of a suffering human individual, who embraces in himself the faithful community, to an identification of this figure with God. The Son of man story stretches to the point at which the faithful servant reigns at the right hand of the Father throughout the coming ages, but that still seems to me to remain within the span of the human narrative.
Re: Son of Man is a title?
From a linguistics point of view, one would argue that the gospel writers, in Greek, clearly wanted to make reference to the Daniel "son of man" through using that phrase. It’s the same phrase, "uihos anthropos" (hope I got that right), used in the gospels as in the book of Daniel in the Greek LXX - which was clearly in common usage (Jesus, through the NT writers, quotes from the Greek OT rather than the Hebrew).
Whether Jesus himself calls himself the "Son of Man" in Greek, or used an Aramaic phrase with similar imagery, or even quotes the Hebrew hardly matters. For his followers, writing later in Greek, the connection has clearly been made. They understood him to be the Son of Man, as in Daniel.
Re: Son of Man is a title?
Do you think that the use of "son of man" as a title has been a problem
only with traditionalist exegesis, or does some of the problem lie with
the Greek text itself?
I don’t think this is a problem of exegesis. The titular sense is not totally irrelevant. It is not a formal title in the Gospels that supposedly designates the humanity of Jesus - as opposed to the ‘Son of God’ But Jesus uses the term often enough to suggest that it should be regarded as customary means of characterizing him. The important point to keep in mind is that even if it has a titular sense, that meaning should not be disconnected from the narrative. Jesus the Son of man only in the sense that he enacts the apocalyptic story.
Re: Son of Man is a title?
from the OP:
“theoretically referring to the “Son of Man” in Daniel. However, Jesus spoke Aramaic,”
Daniel was written in Aramaic was it not?
Re: Son of Man is a title?
Zack, you have a good point. From what I’ve studied, Daniel was written in Aramaic. So that begs the question, did the writer of Daniel use the Aramaic “Son of Man” as a title? By Richard’s argument, if one said “Son of Man” in Aramaic, it had no apocalyptic implications. Seeing that the writer of Daniel used that term in Aramaic, he must not have loaded it with meaning and was just referring to “some human”…
That raises another question, did the title “Son of Man” refer to an apocalyptic figure before Daniel was written? I don’t think so, but I’m not positive.
Re: Son of Man is a title?
“By Richard’s argument, if one said “Son of Man” in Aramaic, it had no apocalyptic implications.”
Perhaps not. That seems to me to be asking the wrong question though. To me, the phrase carries apocalyptic implications (as far as Daniel is concerned) BECAUSE of Daniel’s use of it simply due to the fact that Daniel is an apocalypse. From what I can tell, the phrase only appears twice in English translations, once in reference to THE “Son of Man” and once in reference to himself, and they aren’t even the same phrase in the original languages.
“son of man” is used frequently throughout all of the OT (esp. in Ezekiel where God addresses Ezekiel as “son of man”) and not just in Daniel, where the phrase appears only a few times.
I think we have to consider the eschatology of the Jewish community at the time. I believe they would have understood this as a reference to the “Son of Man” in Daniel 7. I think we also have to take into consideration the use of the phrase in stark contrast to the beast-kings who had just been slain. To me, this is considerably Messianic in nature. I believe the Jews would have recognized Jesus use of “Son of Man” as a claim to His Messiah-ship.
Re: Son of Man is a title?
That raises another question, did the title “Son of Man” refer to an apocalyptic figure before Daniel was written? I don’t think so, but I’m not positive.
In the apocalyptic sense the term originates with Daniel, though it’s wrong to refer to it as a title here. Daniel simply says that a figure in human form or human appearance came on the clouds of heaven - in immediate contrast to the four beasts. Both the beasts and the human figure are symbols for nations or peoples: the beasts are oppressive empires, the human figure represents the saints of the Most High who remain loyal to the covenant.
The phrase ‘Son of man’ does occur prior to Daniel, however. One of the most interesting usages is in Ezekiel, where the prophet is addressed repeatedly as ‘Son of man’ and instructed to proclaim judgment and restoration to Jerusalem, which seems highly pertinent to Jesus’ usage, though less overtly so than Daniel 7 (see The Coming of the Son of Man, 51-52).
Re: Son of Man is a title?
The discussion so far might illustrate something about Jesus which hasn’t yet been considered: that in his person and his actions he deliberately evaded clear identification, and did not fit easily into any prophetic category as it had been understood up to that time.
So ‘Son of man’ might have had overtones of Daniel 7:13, and the wider narrative of which it was a part. However, Jesus’s use of the term was not so clearly understood by his contemporaries, since they nowhere identified him with this narrative, and not least because ‘son of man’ had (to them) a corporate rather than individual significance.
The difficulty for interpreters is that we want there to be a definite meaning, or for there to be definite answers to our questions. Ambiguity is not an attractive option.
For instance, Jesus’s self-description as ‘Son of Man’ could have been an allusion to Daniel 7:13, but that he changed the significance from corporate to personal, or corporate within the personal, raises the possibility (one could say certainty) that he changed the significance of the term in other ways as well.
Jesus probably also changed other terms and designations. His own unique use of the term ‘son’ in relation to God as ‘father’ is an outstanding example. The term ‘Son of God’ as applied to him is another - where it certainly cannot be limited to its messianic significance, and ceases to be so limited within the NT writings.
There is no evidence that any of Jesus’s contemporaries drew any conclusions from echoes of Ezekiel in his use of the term ‘Son of Man’, despite its repeated use by the prophet to describe how God addressed him. As far as the term’s relevance to judgement and restoration of Jerusalem is concerned, it could have had that significance, or none at all. It is possible that its significance for judgement and restoration of Jerusalem became eclipsed, within the story, by further levels of significance.
‘Son of Man’ is also a translation of a Hebrew idiom used when making adjectival forms of nouns. How do you express that something is like something else? You preface the noun with ‘son of’. ‘Son of Man’ could be paraphrased something along the lines of ‘very like a man’, or ‘the very essence of a man’. In Jesus’s case, this would draw attention to a theological paradox which became increasingly obvious to writers within the NT.
The existence of ambiguity needs to be carefully considered. The phrase ‘Son of Man’ could mean all of the things considered above, and none of them. It could have been a title (as used by Jesus), and it could have been a deliberate ‘non-title’, or ‘anti-title’. It’s rather like God saying ‘I am who I am’ when questioned by Moses about his name. It’s both a name, and not a name.
Maybe Jesus was saying that he was, in some senses, the fulfilment of prophecy, and in other senses, something, and someone, which none of them had fully anticipated or predicted. He came to shatter prophetic mindsets as much as to fulfil them. In that sense, he was not simply fulfilling what the prophets had foretold, but was introducing entirely new categories in himself and in his actions. A historical/narrative interpretation, in which Jesus is understood within the terms of reference of his historical times, may be of limited value for interpretation here.
Re: Son of Man is a title?
I think some of you are all way off track here. Perhaps you haven’t read Maurice Casey’s The Solution to the Son of Man released just after Perriman’s, or his doctoral thesis published on son of man in 1979. On Daniel, 2.4b-7 was written in Aramaic. Jesus used the idiom ‘bar nasha’. The evangelists literally translated it into a Greek nonsense but perceived it’s usefulness as a title. Perhaps not all the ‘son of man’ examples in the gospels come from the historical Jesus.
Re: Son of Man is a title?
Casey’s scholarship may be more extensive than others’, but that does not mean his conclusions are in every respect watertight.
For instance, whatever later redactors may have done with the phrase ‘son of man’ (and I’m sceptical of some of the revisionist activities attributed to this enigmatic body of people), it seems to me that the context of Jesus’s usage of the phrase in some of the Mark passages Casey examines closely implies a singular rather than collective or plural meaning. The context of Daniel 7:13 also creates the potential for either a singular or collective meaning.
Casey also seems to be doing something that other scholars tend to do, in seeking to uncover definitive meaning through historical, etymological research. He tends to deny the possiblity of incremental meaning in later usages of the phrase - not only as Jesus used it, but as the supposed redactors also interpreted it.
I still think that even with the benefit of broad and detailed knowledge of Aramaic, Jesus’s usage of the phrase ‘son of man’ was intended to baffle his hearers, and certainly had that effect.
I also think, with the considerable benefit of hindsight, that it is not textually invalid to understand Jesus’s usage of the phrase as a theological insight into his unique combination of humanity and divinity, and that this becomes more significant than the messianic overtones it shares with its sister phrase ‘Son of God’. (Casey seems to deny the messianic significance of the phrase in Daniel 7:13).
I’m sure this contribution will make me few friends on the website! It does seem to me that Casey has made a uniquely valuable contribution to the debate surrounding the phrase ‘son of man’. I am doubtful whether his conclusions are as irrefutable as he seems to convey.
Re: Son of Man is a title?
How on earth can Jesus’ use of an Aramaic idiom baffle his Aramaic speaking audience? The later usage is due to its literal translation into Greek. “It seems to me … with the considerable benefit of hindsight”. Well, it’s difficult to argue with wisdom such as that.
Re: Son of Man is a title?
Yes, I suppose the comment did sound rather supercilious.
Jesus’s use of an Aramaic idiom might well have baffled his Aramaic-speaking audience because it does not fit easily into what appear to be previous categories of usage. (Casey’s research actually leads me to very different conclusions from the ones he reaches about the usage of the phrase).
Hindsight is important for interpretation because centuries of pondering on the texts by faith communities cannot be quickly dismissed by contemporary academics, who may proclaim objectivity, but actually operate on a huge underlay of interpretive presuppositions.
Re: Son of Man is a title?
Casey is a meticulously careful scholar. He dismisses nothing quickly. You haven’t actually interacted with Casey’s arguments or offered any constructive rebuttal. There is no evidence in the gospels of the audience being baffled at Jesus’ use of the idiom - in fact all the examples from Jesus make perfect sense in Aramaic. Using a very common term for ‘person’ was not the best way to baffle them, unless of course we imagine that he was referring to Dan. 7.13 without making that clear. In that case, there should be evidence that it did baffle people, but there is none. He is supposed to have baffled people in passages of dubious authenticity, as for example when they did not understand his references to the resurrection of the Son of man, but its not the expression Son of man they fix on (Mark 9.10), and when he told them to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod (Mark 8.14-20). Also, I can’t see Jesus’ deity in Mark, though its abundant in John, where the crowd are said to be puzzled over Jesus’ use of the term Son of man, which is meant to tell us how uncomprehending they were (John 12.32-36). I’m wondering if in fact you have read the book itself? In view of Casey’s career he has the benefit of great hindsight.
Re: Son of Man is a title?
It’s a slightly lazy response, but the review of Casey’s book by Michael F. Bird on Euangelion raises some questions about Casey’s conclusions (as well as commending the book for its scholarship):
There are three major criticisms I have with this book. First, Casey often derides those who write about the Son of Man from the Christian tradition (German Lutherans are a preferred target). I do not for a minute deny that presuppositions and theologically informed views have influenced these scholars, however, Casey nowhere acknowledges his own presuppositions and how they influence him. The implied author of this book (i.e. Casey’s representation of himself) is that of an objective and secular critic who has come to liberate us from the shackles of theologically loaded interpretations of the Son of Man. But I suggest that the existence of such an ideal objective and impartial author is just as mythical as the existence as the ‘primordial son of man’ known to occasionally haunt the lecture rooms of German universities. Casey’s dislike for orthodox Christianity is easily documented (see his responses to S.E. Porter, N.T. Wright in various articles and his monograph on John’s Gospel) and one wonders if this atheological aesthetic has impacted some of his conclusions (i.e. he likes to make sure nothing supports orthodox christology!).
This leads to my next second point, that Casey has not definitively refuted a link between the idiom bar (e)nash(a) and the kebar enash in Dan. 7.13. Let me preface that by saying that not every Son of Man reference in the Gospels is necessarily a quote or allusion to Dan. 7.13, and they may simply be an expression of an Aramaic idiom as Casey rightly notes (e.g. Mk. 2.10). What is more, the authenticity of several texts (e.g. Mk. 13.26, 14.62) are complex in their own right and although I do not subscribe to Casey’s view that they are secondary formulations that refer to Jesus’ parousia, I recognize the validity of the tradition-historical questions that he raises. What is more, ‘Son of Man’ is not a technical title for ‘Messiah’. Nonetheless, Casey objects to combining the Aramaic idiom with the human figure of Dan. 7.13 on the grounds that, the ‘one like a son of man’ is an ‘abstract symbol of the Saints of the Most High’ (p. 30). He also rejects the messianic interpretation attached to the Son of Man expression as well. In response: (1) The symbolism of Daniel 7 uses metaphors that are plastic and oscillate between being inclusive and exclusive. For instance, the beasts clearly symbolize the four pagan kingdoms (e.g. 7.23), but they also symbolize the four kings (7.17). So a beast can symbolize both a kingdom and an individual king. Can we say the same about the ‘one like a son of man’ who is the heavenly counterpart of the four beasts and the little arrogant horn? He clearly symbolizes the ‘Saints of the Most High’ but given the royal description and royal role that he executes can we see here an implied reference to a Jewish king? Casey is forced to regard the beasts as a symbol (a king) for a symbol (kingdoms) and then deny that the symbols can be individual despite the fact that an individual interpretation is given in 7.17! (2) The fact is that there arose a tradition of messianic exegesis of Daniel 7 in 4Q246, 1 Enoch, the Gospels, and 4 Ezra which indicates that a messianic interpretation of Dan. 7.13 is both primitive and possible at the time of Jesus. Third, Casey’s Aramaic reconstructions are suggestive of semitic sources underlying the Gospels in certain places and he probably bring us as close to the words of Jesus as we can go. However, he occasionally gives the impression that he is providing us with the actual words of Jesus as he often makes a point why Jesus preferred one word over another. This is perhaps true for one or two short proverbial sayings (like maybe Mk. 10.45), but what Casey has really done is reconstructed a possible Aramaic tradition lying beneath the Greek text of the Gospels. That tradition is likely to be a paraphrase, summary, digest and gist of what Jesus said depending on what one makes of the oral tradition. For the most part (and I allow some exceptions) the Jesus tradition, regardless of what language we find it in, contains the ipsissima vox not the ipsissima verba of Jesus.
Bird’s comments on the variation in meaning and usage of ‘Son of Man’ roughly correspond with my own views, and I don’t really understand how Casey can have got it quite so wrong with Daniel 7:13 (which may be both collective and singular, and also messianic). Maybe you can enlighten me.
On another track, and slightly at a tangent, I find plenty of material pointing to the divinity of Jesus in Mark’s gospel - not least in one of the passages (Mark 2:23-28) where ‘Son of Man’ acquires greater significance than simply ‘a person’ or ‘this person’, or any necessary or direct association with Daniel 7:13. Who has authority over the sabbath commandment other than God himself? What did Jesus mean by idenitfying himself as ‘son of man’? Baffling, I’d have thought.
In general, the ministry of Jesus in Mark has recurrent allusions to the return of YHWH to Israel as sketched by Isaiah; Jesus heals, delivers and cleanses the sick, lame, demonised and unclean as an alternative temple, in which the presence of YHWH is by implication manifested - but in no way separate from Jesus’s own person. A haemorrhaging woman shows Jesus reversing the mosaic injunctions on uncleanness, and overturning the prescribed sanctions for breaking the injunctions. He exhibits authority over the created world, in parallels with the God’s activity in the psalms, and authority over death. And so on, and so on.
Re: Son of Man is a title?
Unfortunately Bird has a tendency to misrepresent among many other things. Why don’t you read Casey’s response posted on James Crossley’s blog, and also James’ own response?
Re: Son of Man is a title?
Re: Son of Man is a title?
While I’m not sure how closely Bird read the book or was able to interact with the Aramaic, I am not sure you have read the book and not just the blog review. Perhaps, without repeating the argument here, you ought to read pp. 121-25 on Mark 2.27-28 and even Casey’s Aramaic Sources of Mark pp. 138-73 on Mark 2.23-28.
Re: Son of Man is a title?
I’ve not followed the arguments at all closely regarding the allusion to Daniel 7, so ignore me if I’m off the track or if you’ve already covered my question. I always thought that when Jesus referred to himself as the "son of man" he was aligning himself and his mission with the prophet Ezekiel. God calls Ezekiel "son of man," beginning in Ezek. 2:1 and consistently throughout that book. Ezekiel calls the diasporate Jews to repentance, prophesying coming judgment on diasporate Israel and destruction of the earthly kingdoms aligned against Israel. He also foresees the eventual gathering-together of a spiritual Jewish remnant surviving the judgment who will dwell with God in a restored Israel. Jesus sounds these same notes in his prophetic ministry.
Surely there’s some relevant exegetical work that’s been done on John 3. In verses 5-7 Jesus is telling Nicodemus that he must be born of water and the spirit, which is surely an allusion to Ezeziel 36:24-28. Then in verses 13-14 Jesus seems to be referring to himself as the son of man, but in so doing he says that the son of man descended from heaven. So now I’m wondering: was Ezekiel supposedly a heavenly being sent down to earth? Surely not. Did Ezekiel pay a visit to heaven and report on what he saw there? Yes he did. In ch. 1 Ezekiel describes the vision of the wheels within wheels: this event takes place in and above the clouds. And again in ch. 10-11 Ezekiel sees the whirling wheels in the heavens. He ascends with them even higher to the heavenly temple of God. So here’s a prophet called son of man who is brought by God into the heavens, after which he descends back to earth and describes what he saw up there. This is what Jesus is claiming to have done in John 3, no?
Re: Son of Man is a title?
John, there is certainly something very striking about the use of ‘Son of man’ in Ezekiel - designating a prophetic figure who, as you say, speaks of judgment and restoration for Israel. What seems missing, though, is the direct literary connection - the allusion or quotation, the linguistic echo. This makes me think that Daniel 7 - with its strong narrative of judgment, pagan oppression, suffering, vindication, and kingdom - was more a much more significant influence on the development of Jesus’ thought.
I don’t think Ezekiel finds himself transported into heaven. In chapter 1 he is on the banks of the river Chebar and sees the ‘chariot’ approaching him across the desert, accompanied by clouds, which I presume signify its heavenly origin (cf. Ezek. 10:20). It all takes place at ground level. In chapters 10-11 he has been transported from Babylon to Jerusalem by the Spirit (or an angel), travelling between earth and heaven (Ezek. 8:3). The rest of what he sees in his vision takes place in the imagined temple in Jerusalem - and what he sees is the glory of the Lord departing from the temple (Ezek. 10:18-18), which would make no sense if this were a heavenly temple, no?
Re: Son of Man is a title?
Steph - whatever makes you think I have not read the book - or am unable to interact with the Aramaic?
The links you provide seem to indicate a developing discussion, rather than a refutation of Michael Bird’s criticisms. Some of the shorter contributions on the blog indicate the kind of prejudice that would provide a natural bias towards Casey’s views; but I’m sure this would not be true of yourself.
I found Bird’s outline of the book to be very balanced and fair. I am somewhat deterred from reading books by academics who claim to have found the answer to issues which have perplexed scholars of all kinds down through the ages; I think ‘contribution towards the discussion’ might have been more helpful.
On the other hand, the meaning and significance of ‘son of man’ is so important to on-going discussions on this site, that I think we might all need to go out and buy a copy for Christmas.
Re: Son of Man is a title?
As I suggested, you should read Casey and Crossley’s responses to the Bird review. It is completely misrepresentative and to say it is “fair” suggests you haven’t read the book. Also you followed the quotation of his ‘review’ with passages in Mark, completely ignoring the extensive arguments Casey had made in his book. Yes I think you ought to buy a copy.
Re: Son of Man is a title?
Peter, I would take issue with your tangential point about Mark 2:23-28. The fact that Jesus has authority over the Sabbath does not point to divinity. Yes, that authority belongs to God, but the whole point of the Son of man story in Daniel 7 is that this figure is given authority, and kingdom, glory, etc. The implicit claim is that Jesus makes in this story is that he has been given authority to redefine the existence of Israel.
Notice the earlier story of the paralytic lowered through the roof (Mk. 2:1-12). Jesus is accused of blasphemy, but it becomes clear that in his mind he has not acted in the person of God but in the authority that has been given to him specifically as the Son of man - the one who is vindicated and exalted because of his faithfulness in the face of suffering. In Matthew this is made quite unambiguous: ‘the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins’; ‘they glorified God, who had given such authority to men’ (Matt. 9:6, 8).
Re: Son of Man is a title?
"What seems missing, though, is the direct literary connection - the allusion or quotation, the linguistic echo."
That’s why I cited the connection between John 3 and Ezekiel 36: Jesus’s self-reference as son of man immediately follows his discourse on being born of the spirit, which surely echoes Ezekiel’s idea of God putting a new spirit within Israel. Ezekiel 36 is a rich chapter, hitting all the big themes: judgment on the nations, restoration of Israel, forgiveness and sanctification, fruitfulness and plenty like the garden of Eden (v. 35), leading on to them dry bones of ch. 38. I offer no opinion as to whether the connections to Daniel 7 are stronger and tighter than this one.
The sheer repetition of the phrase "son of man" ought to be taken into consideration, I should think. According to the Crosswalk online concordance, God refers to Ezekiel as "son of man" 93 times, whereas the phrase is used only twice in Daniel.
I don’t think Ezekiel finds himself transported into heaven… it all takes place on ground level."
There’s a definite element of verticality to Ezekiel’s vision. So in chapter 1 the vision begins in a dust storm, but then in v. 22 Ezekiel sees over the heads of the mysterious beings an "expanse", which is the same word used to describe the heavens in Genesis 1. Then in v. 25 Ezekiel hears a voice coming from above the expanse. He looks and sees above the expanse a throne, with a figure appearing like a man seated on the throne. In v. 28 Ezekiel identifies this figure as Yahweh. This sure sounds like a vision of heaven to me. Again in ch. 10 Ezekiel sees the expanse extending over the heads of the cherubim. Now he sees a temple up there, with a cloud filling the inner court.
"what he sees is the glory of the Lord departing from the temple (Ezek. 10:18), which would make no sense if this were a heavenly temple, no?
Ezekiel says that the glory of the Lord departed from the threshold of the temple and stood over the cherubim. Then in v. 19 he sees the cherubim rise up from the earth until they stood at the entrance of Yahweh’s house. It seems that Ezekiel is experiencing a vision in which the cherubim and the glory of the Lord ascend from earth to a heavenly palace and temple of the Lord. It’s not until ch. 40 that God shows Ezekiel the future glorious temple to be located in earthly Jerusalem.
Re: Son of Man is a title?
There’s also the very first verse of Ezekiel to consider:
Now it came about in the thirtieth year, on the fifth day of the fourth month, while I was by the river Chebar among the exiles, the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God. (Ezek. 1:1)
In drawing parallels between Ezekiel and Jesus it’s perhaps relevant that, in addition to being a prophet, Ezekiel was also a priest (Ezek. 1:3).
Re: Son of Man is a title?
Standing on the earth, by the river Chebar, Ezekiel sees in a vision the heavens opened above him.
Jesus is never merely a priest (as I recall); always a high priest.
Re: Son of Man is a title?
A hermeneutical question comes to mind here: in reading a text, how might one distinguish sincerity from sarcasm? The same phrase can connote either what the words mean or their opposite, and usually we have to rely on tone of voice to infer the speaker’s intention. In a written text the intenionality cues are missing and must be supplied by the reader.
In any event, I’ll conclude with this: Andrew, your arguments against Jesus echoing Ezekiel’s "son of man" appellation speak for themselves.
Re: Son of Man is a title?
Neither sincerity nor sarcasm. Just good humoured appreciation of your contribution to the exchange.
Re: Son of Man is a title?
On the narrow issue of how to determine the “sense” of a word I suggest “On Christian Doctrine” by Augustine of Hippo.
Re: Son of Man is a title?
Shiert I thought you were on Christmas holiday, otherwise I might have engaged you in conversation about the article on Pop Evolutionary Psych you linked to elsewhere. Returning to the (off-)topic at hand, was John Calvin being sincere or sarcastic when he wrote this in his Commentary on Genesis?
Here also the impiety of those is refuted who cavil against Moses, for relating that so short a space of time had elapsed since the Creation of the World. For they inquire why it had come so suddenly into the mind of God to create the world; why he had so long remained inactive in heaven: and thus by sporting with sacred things they exercise their ingenuity to their own destruction. In the Tripartite History an answer given by a pious man is recorded, with which I have always been pleased. For when a certain impure dog was in this manner pouring ridicule upon God, he retorted, that God had been at that time by no means inactive because he had been preparing hell for the captious.
The Tripartite History Calvin cites was a church history written by Epiphaneus Scholasticus early in the sixth century. But Epiphaneus took the canard from Augustine’s Confessions, written more than a century earlier, and apparently even in Augustine’s day the joke was already making the rounds:
How, then, shall I respond to him who asks, "What was God doing before he made heaven and earth?" I do not answer, as a certain one is reported to have done facetiously (shrugging off the force of the question). "He was preparing hell," he said, "for those who pry too deep.
Augustine was writing his personal failings and trusting in God’s forgiveness; maybe that put him in a more tolerant mood than either Epiphaneus or Calvin. Augustine continues:
It is one thing to see the answer; it is another to laugh at the questioner – and for myself I do not answer these things thus. More willingly would I have answered, "I do not know what I do not know," than cause one who asked a deep question to be ridiculed – and by such tactics gain praise for a worthless answer. Rather, I say that thou, our God, art the Creator of every creature. And if in the term "heaven and earth" every creature is included, I make bold to say further: "Before God made heaven and earth, he did not make anything at all. For if he did, what did he make unless it were a creature?" I do indeed wish that I knew all that I desire to know to my profit as surely as I know that no creature was made before any creature was made. (Book XI, Chapter XII, 14)
I ‘m not particularly persuaded by Augustine’s sincere answer to the question, but surely this has nothing to do with what that son of man Ezekiel saw when he ascended into heaven.
Re: Son of Man is a title?
Even on holiday I keep my eye on this amazing little website. Actually, with my work at Berkeley, I rarely have time to engage in the conversations here except when on holiday.
I cited a little known, less read, seldom referenced work of Augustine in response to your apt musings on the sense of the spoken as opposed to the written word. Augustine, in the tract cited, goes on at length (as he is wont to do, tediously so) to explain precisely how the Gospel, or Scripture for that matter, should be read. What emerges is a clear statement of christian doctrine grounded in a tutorial on how to determine how scripture was read and spoken. I am always amazed to discover new questions asked and answered centuries ago.
You are right, it doesn’t have much to do with Ezekiel, but I am still wondering what Ezekiel has to do with putting a penny in the pocket of someone who is poor, or feeding the starving, or salving the wound created by the loss of a loved one. You know, this Christianity stuff needs to be a lot more than just pushing concepts around on paper or a computer screen. For myself, I know I need to spend more time bringing my own thoughts and discourse back down to earth (and not in heaven?). Where ought Ezekiel be?
Sorry, I am embarassed to say I have not read much Calvin. I am impressed that you chose to present Augustine’s often quoted statement in full, with context. This particular passage is often misquoted. I think Augustine knew precisely how his words would be read and that they would be read exactly as he intended them to be read. One ought not suffer fools gladly.
As for the SciAm citation, I thought it was an adequate quick read on the highly speculative nature of social darwinism. But then, on reflection, I forget that whatever we think, say and write in doing theology is speculative, so it shouldn’t matter that there is no real evidence underpinning social darwinism. What is the sense of these words?
I appreciate very much your comments, John. You are one of four or five participants here that I will actually take time to read and try to understand. But remember,
“Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” RWE
Cheers from the frozen North.
Re: Son of Man is a title?
Thanks for the implicit advice, Shiert. In lockstep conformity with our emphasis on context I’ve cut and pasted the full paragraph:
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin
of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers
and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing
to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the
wall. Out upon your guarded lips! Sew them up with pockthread,
do. Else if you would be a man speak what you think today in
words as hard as cannon balls, and tomorrow speak what tomorrow
thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing
you said today. Ah, then, exclaim the aged ladies, you shall
be sure to be misunderstood! Misunderstood! It is a right fool’s
word. Is it so bad then to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood,
and Socrates and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo,
and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh.
To be great is to be misunderstood.
Re: Son of Man is a title?
Thanks very much Andrew; it’s a good point. The difficulty I have with it though, and all the other instances of Jesus acting in the authority of God, is that he is never careful to do so in the name of YHWH, or to acknowledge YHWH as someone separate from himself, from whom he derives his authority. When this is taken with his ministry as a whole, and the symbolism which he enacts in his own person, I’m led to the view that Jesus does take the status of divinity to himself.
The divinity of Jesus is not so obvious that he could clearly have been accused of blasphemy during his ministry - except for the passages in John. Well, actually I think he could have been accused of balsphemy on many occasions, but his popularity shamed those who could have done so into silence, and even then they were uncertain about him. But Jesus’s divinity becomes very clear in the language of Paul’s letters, and in the subsequent practice of the church. So when we take the narrative approach to understanding who Jesus was, I guess it’s a case of which narrative are we talking about?
Re: Son of Man is a title?
“The implicit claim is that Jesus makes in this story is that he has been given authority to redefine the existence of Israel.” Isn’t this rather a stretch? The disciples were perfectly entitled to be in the fields on the sabbath where they were picking Peah, the grain left on the sides of the fields for the poor which they could get as they were going along the paths (Mark 2:23-28). In response to the Pharisees, Jesus says “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath. Surely, then, a/the man is master even of the sabbath.” This “authority” implied not just Jesus but all men.
And so he heals a man described as “paralytic” (2:1-12) probably with a psychosomatic illness. Jesus tells him to get up and walk “and so that you may know that a (son of) man on earth has the power to forgive/undo/release sins.” Bar nasha is not a title.
Re: Son of Man is a title?
Well, I agree that ‘Son of man’ is not really a title, and I wouldn’t in principle dispute the argument that bar nasha
may simply denote ‘a man’. Mark 2:23-28 could be interpreted in this
way, though given the fact that Jesus undoubtedly uses ‘Son of man’ as
a self-designation, given the contrast in verses 27-28 between anthropos and huios tou anthropos, and given the prominent position of kurios in verse 28, it still seems likely to me that ‘Son of man’ constitutes here a significant claim to divine authority.
But
to my mind we also have to take into account the pervasiveness of the
narrative of Daniel 7-12 not only in the Gospels (including John) but
the whole of the New Testament. This is not simply a matter of an occasional reference to a ‘Son of man’ coming on or with the clouds of heaven.
It is the whole narrative of judgment on Israel, pagan oppression,
Jewish apostasy, and the suffering and eventual vindication of a
faithful community. The humanistic interpretation of ‘Son of man’ can be sustained only by neglecting this narrative.
Re: Son of Man is a title?
You are making assumptions on the basis of the Greek translator which is nonsense in Aramaic. “A man is master of the sabbath” does not imply divinity. Nobody is “neglecting” Mark 13:26 or 14:62. They are secondary and Maurice Casey has demonstrated this in his book and elsewhere.
Re: Son of Man is a title?
This comment has been moved here.
Re: Son of Man is a title?
Richard, it’s not just that Jesus uses the phrase ‘Son of man’. It is the accompanying imagery of a figure coming on the clouds of heaven in glory to receive a kingdom that makes the connection with Daniel 7 so probable. In Daniel 7 ‘son of man’ is not really a title: he sees a figure in human form, in contrast to the preceding beasts, coming on the clouds of heaven to receive the kingdom from the ancient of days. Rather than treat ‘Son of man’ as a title, I would suggest that what Jesus invokes is a story about the suffering and vindication of a faithful community at a time when the covenant is under extreme threat. The extensive use of the imagery in Jewish apocalyptic literature generally backs up the connection between an apocalyptic ‘Son of man’ figure and and the originary vision of Daniel 7.