jaihare said
brenmcg said
What Daniel himself mean by the Son of Man might be up for discussion. But not what was mean by it in the gospels.
Just to be clear, Daniel did not mention “the Son of Man.” He wrote about a vision concerning “one like a son of man” (Dan 7:13; Aramaic, כְּבַר אֱנָשׁ kəḇar ʾĕnāš). It is indefinite, not a title, which would be בַּר אֱנָשָׁא bar ʾĕnāšaʾ “the son of man,” and it would lack the “like” element (כְּ־ kə- “like”). What Daniel said was that the thing he saw in his vision, whether it was an angel or something else, looked to him like a human. He also gives an interpretation of his prophecy, and in the interpretation the “one like a son of man” was “the people of the saints of the Most High” (Dan 7:27; Aramaic, עַם קַדִּישֵׁי עֶלְיוֹנִין ʿam qaddîšê ʿelyônîn).
I don’t think it’s unclear what Daniel meant (whoever “Daniel” was that actually wrote the book), but it became more complicated later on with interpretations of the text, which went well beyond what the pseudonymous author meant when he penned the text—which is clear from the text itself.
I very much agree. The expressions are superficially similar, but the function of each expression is very different.
Robert said
Bren, do you think the historical Jesus foresaw his resurrection, ascent, and return from heaven as the Son of Man?
No. I would say the historical Jesus knew what he was doing was dangerous and that his life was in danger. That he was participating in a non-violent threat to the powers of the day. That he may have predicted his death to the disciples and taught the philosophy of bodily resurrection. Who knows? Less likely is he predicted he would be the king of a new-age post death kingdom. But its possible. He taught that he was the messiah and both he and his companions were constantly accused of being law-breakers.
jaihare said
Just to be clear, Daniel did not mention “the Son of Man.” He wrote about a vision concerning “one like a son of man” (Dan 7:13; Aramaic, כְּבַר אֱנָשׁ kəḇar ʾĕnāš). It is indefinite, not a title, which would be בַּר אֱנָשָׁא bar ʾĕnāšaʾ “the son of man,” and it would lack the “like” element (כְּ־ kə- “like”). What Daniel said was that the thing he saw in his vision, whether it was an angel or something else, looked to him like a human. He also gives an interpretation of his prophecy, and in the interpretation the “one like a son of man” was “the people of the saints of the Most High” (Dan 7:27; Aramaic, עַם קַדִּישֵׁי עֶלְיוֹנִין ʿam qaddîšê ʿelyônîn).
I don’t think it’s unclear what Daniel meant (whoever “Daniel” was that actually wrote the book), but it became more complicated later on with interpretations of the text, which went well beyond what the pseudonymous author meant when he penned the text—which is clear from the text itself.
Daniel might refer to a son of man, or one like a son of man, but when the gospels refer to the son of man they’re referring to the one from Daniel 7.
The son of man is not the “people of the saints of the most high”, he is their representative in heaven. The order of earth will be reflected by the order of heaven where the fourth beast will no longer speak against the most high but will be replaced by one like a son of man.
Omar6741 said
I am prepared to accept this reasoning, except for the very possibility that the disciples re-interpreted the statements of their master after seeing visions of him resurrected; the identification of Jesus with the Son of Man may have been a by-product of these resurrection appearances.
That may be a possibility, but the claim that the historic truth is maintained in the awkward third person references to the son of man is just wishful thinking. And without these the claim that Jesus predicted someone else coming on the clouds of heaven is pure speculation.
Robert said
How would it even be possible if Jesus did not foresee his resurrection and ascension?
Taking “foresee” to mean saw beforehand, as in the resurrection and ascension actually occurred.
“Predict” taken to mean making a claim about the future. Whether it occurred or not.
Robert said
So you don’t think the historical Jesus foresaw his resurrection, ascent, and return from heaven as the Son of Man, but you do think he predicted his resurrection, ascent, and return from heaven?
No I think its possible he predicted his resurrection ascent and return from heaven, I don’t think its possible he foresaw them. (with the meanings as described above).
brenmcg said
Daniel might refer to a son of man, or one like a son of man, but when the gospels refer to the son of man they’re referring to the one from Daniel 7.The son of man is not the “people of the saints of the most high”, he is their representative in heaven. The order of earth will be reflected by the order of heaven where the fourth beast will no longer speak against the most high but will be replaced by one like a son of man.
You’re declaring things that are contrary to what the book of Daniel says for itself. It literally gives an interpretation of the vision. It isn’t really left up to private interpretation. He doesn’t say that he saw a son of man. He said that he saw something that looked like a son of man (a human being) as opposed to the four beasts that he had just seen. Just like the beasts are not beasts, the human is not a human—and Daniel explains what they mean.
brenmcg
Daniel might refer to a son of man, or one like a son of man, but when the gospels refer to the son of man they’re referring to the one from Daniel 7.
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
The Son of Man does not appear in Daniel.
Daniel was written in the 2nd Century BCE.
The Son of Man does appear in 2 Enoch, Section 22.
2 Enoch was written in the 1st Century C.E. before AD 70, if not before the death of Paul, if not before the death of Philo.
Lay out your argument that the gospel writers must be referring to something that does not exist in Daniel without the remotest possibility they are referring to something that does appear in 2 Enoch, Paul, and Philo content.
brenmcg said
Omar6741 said
I am prepared to accept this reasoning, except for the very possibility that the disciples re-interpreted the statements of their master after seeing visions of him resurrected; the identification of Jesus with the Son of Man may have been a by-product of these resurrection appearances.
That may be a possibility, but the claim that the historic truth is maintained in the awkward third person references to the son of man is just wishful thinking. And without these the claim that Jesus predicted someone else coming on the clouds of heaven is pure speculation.
The idea that those “awkward third person references” preserve historic truth is an application of the standard criterion of dissimilarity, and hence is neither wishful thinking nor speculation.
jaihare said
You’re declaring things that are contrary to what the book of Daniel says for itself. It literally gives an interpretation of the vision. It isn’t really left up to private interpretation. He doesn’t say that he saw a son of man. He said that he saw something that looked like a son of man (a human being) as opposed to the four beasts that he had just seen. Just like the beasts are not beasts, the human is not a human—and Daniel explains what they mean.
He has a vision of heaven where thousands ipon thousands artend the ancient of days. There’s nothing to suggest this isn’t a true vision of heaven.
One like a son of man approaches the ancient of days. This may or may not be an actaul son of man, its open to interpretation.
This vision is symbolic of the fact that holy people of the most high will triumph on earth. But it could still be the case that he saw a true vision of heaven, reflecting the order of earth.
Omar6741 said
The idea that those “awkward third person references” preserve historic truth is an application of the standard criterion of dissimilarity, and hence is neither wishful thinking nor speculation.
Jesus claiming to be the son of man does not pass the criterion of dissimilarity. Neither does Jesus referring to himself as the son of man in the third person.
He refers to the messiah in the third person as well but nobody would suggest thats evidence the historic Jesus claimed someone else to be the messiah.
Steefen said
brenmcgDaniel might refer to a son of man, or one like a son of man, but when the gospels refer to the son of man they’re referring to the one from Daniel 7.
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
The Son of Man does not appear in Daniel.
Daniel was written in the 2nd Century BCE.
The Son of Man does appear in 2 Enoch, Section 22.
2 Enoch was written in the 1st Century C.E. before AD 70, if not before the death of Paul, if not before the death of Philo.
Lay out your argument that the gospel writers must be referring to something that does not exist in Daniel without the remotest possibility they are referring to something that does appear in 2 Enoch, Paul, and Philo content.
Son of man is referenced in the context of the end times where the abomination that causes desolation is also referenced. Matthew even tells us he’s quoting Daniel in Matt 24:15
brenmcg said
Omar6741 said
The idea that those “awkward third person references” preserve historic truth is an application of the standard criterion of dissimilarity, and hence is neither wishful thinking nor speculation.
Jesus claiming to be the son of man does not pass the criterion of dissimilarity. Neither does Jesus referring to himself as the son of man in the third person.
He refers to the messiah in the third person as well but nobody would suggest thats evidence the historic Jesus claimed someone else to be the messiah.
It is not merely the use of the third person that points to a “Son of Man” who is meant to be different from Jesus; in some of the sayings, there is also the implied contrast between the speaker (i.e. the referent of “me”), on the one hand, and “the Son of Man”, on the other.
This implied contrast between Jesus and the Son of Man satisifes the criterion of dissimilarity, and so the idea that Jesus thought of the Son of Man as different from him is not wishful thinking or speculation.
brenmcg said
jaihare said
You’re declaring things that are contrary to what the book of Daniel says for itself. It literally gives an interpretation of the vision. It isn’t really left up to private interpretation. He doesn’t say that he saw a son of man. He said that he saw something that looked like a son of man (a human being) as opposed to the four beasts that he had just seen. Just like the beasts are not beasts, the human is not a human—and Daniel explains what they mean.
He has a vision of heaven where thousands ipon thousands artend the ancient of days. There’s nothing to suggest this isn’t a true vision of heaven.
One like a son of man approaches the ancient of days. This may or may not be an actaul son of man, its open to interpretation.
This vision is symbolic of the fact that holy people of the most high will triumph on earth. But it could still be the case that he saw a true vision of heaven, reflecting the order of earth.
Of course, the visions are all meant to be taken as true visions, since what they symbolize is true.
But the fact that the four beasts are not meant to be taken literally should lead us to expect that the “one like a son of a man”, who is the end of the same sequence as the four beasts and described in terms that contrast him with them, is also not meant to be taken literally.
Omar6741 said
It is not merely the use of the third person that points to a “Son of Man” who is meant to be different from Jesus; in some of the sayings, there is also the implied contrast between the speaker (i.e. the referent of “me”), on the one hand, and “the Son of Man”, on the other.
This implied contrast between Jesus and the Son of Man satisifes the criterion of dissimilarity, and so the idea that Jesus thought of the Son of Man as different from him is not wishful thinking or speculation.
So other than the third person use of the son of man where else in the gospels is there an implied contrast between Jesus and the son of man?
Omar6741 said
Of course, the visions are all meant to be taken as true visions, since what they symbolize is true.
But the fact that the four beasts are not meant to be taken literally should lead us to expect that the “one like a son of a man”, who is the end of the same sequence as the four beasts and described in terms that contrast him with them, is also not meant to be taken literally.
Who says the beasts are not meant to be taken literally?
Wars are fought in heaven as on earth. Gabriel and Michael are heavenly beings fighting wars on behalf of humans. Which heavenly beings are they fighting against? The beasts?
In chapter 8 Gabriel is described as being “like a man”. And in chapter 9 as “the man I saw in my vision”.
If he is the one like a son of man who approached the ancient of days – he can be described as being both literal and as “a man”.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)