(8 votes, average: 4.50 out of 5)
Loading...In my previous post I began to discuss Larry Hurtado’s evaluation of How Jesus Became God. For the link to his initial post, see http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2014/05/29/how-jesus-became-god-per-ehrman/ As I indicated, after I read his comments we had some exchanges on email, and he graciously agreed to correct several of his mistaken comments, in which he attributed views to me that I do not have and never expressed in my book. (These views, which I do not hold, are the reasons he claims I’m out of date and ill informed). The post in which he gives his corrections can be found here: http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2014/06/02/ehrman-on-jesus-amendments/
In this post I’d like to begin to reiterate the points that he makes in the second post, but quoting his initial comments that I thought were in error, and saying a few things about them.
The first comment that startled me was the following:
As I’ve mentioned, on several matters Ehrman seems ill-informed and/or not current. For example, he assumes that the expression “the son of man” (used numerous times by Jesus in the Gospels) was a recognized title of a figure well-known in ancient Jewish eschatological hopes. So, Ehrman continues (on this assumption), Jesus must have been referring to this future figure, not to himself. But from at least the 1970s it has been clear that this assumption is baseless. There is, in fact, no evidence that “the son of man” was a fixed title, or that there was a known figure who bore it, in ancient Jewish tradition. So (as is clearly the way the Gospel writers took the expression), Jesus’ use of “the son of man” (NB: with the definite article) seems to have been simply a distinctive self-referential expression/idiom.
This comment startled me because in fact this is not a view I state anywhere in my book, and it is not a view that I have, or have had for, well, as far back as I started having informed views on the matter (I suppose around 1981?). Why would Larry think that I believed that “the Son of Man” was a “fixed title” in early Judaism? That it was a widely recognized title that Jesus simply borrowed from the mainstream of Jewish apocalyptic preaching? (Since I never say any such thing)
My hunch is that it is because of this:
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log into your paid account. If you are not yet a member of the blog, JOIN NOW OR YOU’LL NEVER FIND THE ANSWERS!!!
So is there textual evidence of the dating of “Daniel”? Clearly th einterpretation you give suggests post-300 Bc 9I don;t know the dates of the king o the Selucids you mention)
It’s usually dated to the time of the Maccabean Revolt, say roughly mid-second century BCE
Hi Bart
I’ve read that you agree that jesus claimed to be the messiah and hence was crucified for that title being exposed by Judas. If that is the case, then isn’t it implicit that he is the King to come who will be God’s representative?
Kind regards 🙂
It’s not implicit that he *is* but it’s implicit that he *thought* he was.
It’s not implicit that he *is* but it’s implicit that he *thought* he was.
As in I don’t believe in that teaching but was simply speaking from the lens of Christianity.
However, the question still remains. If he *thought* he was the messiah, is that not implicit that he *thinks* he is the son of man to come who will usher a paradisical rule. This is because the messiah is a king and Jesus said the world is to end. Which means his rule must be as the son of man who ushers this new age (especially when you consider he speaks of 12 disciples around the son of man each in thrones judging the tribes of Israel….if the disciples have this honour where is Jesus? Isn’t he the son of man sitting in the centre?)
I think Jesus thought he himself was the messiah whom the son of man (the cosmic judge of the earth, someone other than Jesus) would establish on his throne.
I think the way you explain it here is very clear. And since you say there’s been a lot of debate among scholars over the years, much discussion of the issue, another *scholar* encountering a statement of yours that Jesus saw the “Son of Man” as *different from himself* shouldn’t have jumped to the conclusion that you held the older view.
Is it plausible that Jesus could have taken the idea from 1 Enoch, and the people he was actually talking to – his disciples – were also familiar with that reference?
It’s unlikely that there’s a specific “smoking gun,” in my opinion, given that so much has been lost. Nothing suggests that Jesus actually read 1 Enoch.
Dr Ehrman, what I don’t understand from your post is: if the way that Jesus understands and uses the term is the same as the usage in 1 Enoch, wouldn’t the people he’s addressing also be aware of that usage? So if he understands the term as per 1 Enoch, and that’s the way his audience understands it, why would it *not* be “a figure well-known in ancient Jewish eschatological hopes” (which seems to be your point of agreement with Dr Hurtado)?
Only if they read 1 Enoch! Which seems unlikely on the whole.
It seems like Prof. Hurtado’s interpretation of the phrase “the Son of Man” strongly resembles that of Geza Vermes? Wasn’t his position criticized on the basis that the article in Hebrew is incorrect for the meaning of “I, myself” or “Yours Truly” that Prof. Vermes was arguing for (“the” rather than “a”)? I am wondering how much linguistic analysis rather than textual or literary antecedents (comparisons with the prophetic books of Daniel and Enoch) can contribute to discussion of the controversy? I don’t know any of the ancient languages involved.
Yes, it is similar to Vermes’s; and like all views, it has been criticized!
I’m glad I’m not the only one who has always been a bit mystified by the term “Son of Man.” It would appear that the meaning of the term depends to a very large extent on who uses it.
It was confusing, but you clarified it very well. That is one of your gifts, thinking and writing clearly.
Hi Bart. Really love this inside baseball scholarly debate. Been enjoying listening to your Lost Christianities lectures in the car, second time through…. Wondering, Is there an online resource for scholarly papers on New Testament studies that you know of? Or a journal I can subscribe to that you’d recommend? Thanks in advance for any advice you may have.
May not be what you’re looking for, but I’d strongly suggest starting online with Mark Goodacre’s, New Testament Gateway site.
Don’t the majority of scholars think that Jesus never even said the phrase “Son of Man”; that it is part of later tradition added after his death?
Nope, just the contrary.
I’m afraid I don’t understand the debate over the Son of Man being a “fixed” title. Sure it is a generic term meaning “human being”, but in many of the apocalyptic sayings of Jesus it clearly refers to the Son of Man who is described in 1 Enoch. So what does the debate entail exactly?
Another question: You both state that the Son of Man concept was not widely known among Jews before Jesus’ time. Was it entirely new to most of his followers?
The debate is whether Jesus is using it in an unusual way or in a customary way. My sense is that it was not new, but we don’t have a lot of evidence for its widespread use. In any event, surely Jesus told his disciples what he was talking about.
It’s a coin-toss as far as I can see. There are numerous gospel references where Jesus is clearly using the title as a self-reference, yet others where he seems to imply someone else. Maybe Jesus himself was confused and/or said different things at different times? I think there comes a point when it is justified to acknowledge want we can’t know something until further evidence is discovered, which, on this issue, seems very unlikely at this stage in the game. Sure, one can speculate and create arguments of probability, but on this issue, I don’t see anything screaming out as being particularly probable to the point of reaching confident belief. I can only go as far as saying that it is likely that Jesus spoke *something* about a comming “Son of Man”.
As far as I understand, the expression “the son of man” is not idiomatic in koine Greek. Correct me if this is a wrong view. If so, it must represent an underlying Aramaic expression, either an idiom or a Jewish sectarian religious idea or both. How could the oral traditions, mainly in Greek-speaking communities preserve it without understanding it? Isn’t it an indication that the gospel authors to some degree were translating at least in part from Aramaic writings?
yes, it could come either from Aramaic or Hebrew.
I have another question. Some of us have learned that for the ancient Jews, the terms “Son of God” and “Son of Man” meant the *reverse* of what a modern person might assume. “Son of God” *didn’t* imply divinity (it was used for their kings), and “Son of Man” *did* (it referred to the supernatural Being in Daniel).
Would scholars now say that’s flat-out wrong? The kings *were* perceived as low-level “divinities,” and “Son of Man” had no recognized meaning at all?
Kings were not *always* considered divine; they sometimes were, but possibly not commonly. Son of man did mean something — but not always the same thing to everyone in every context.
What would you say about Maruice Casey’s reconstruction of an Aramaic substratum? Just too hypothetical? Any more hypothetical than your approach to the Greek?
Yes, I’ve never found it convincing.
One of the things that woke me up to the problems of Christianity is that I saw too many examples where people who were supposedly empowered by the Holy Spirit would shade the truth, ignore the truth or just create new “truth.” Truth was subjugated to their desire to make a point or achieve a “godly” goal. Or their fixed beliefs made them impervious to truth. I don’t think a supreme being would need to violate the principle of truthfulness in order to achieve his goals. Sad that many leading Christian thinkers and apologists can’t see their own indifference to truth.
It seems as though a small point, that you have to address this type of inaccuracy of what you write, lest it become an enlarged and expanded inaccurate interpretation. This is very important for you.
What was meant by “The son of man” and where it originated is very interesting.
I have read Larry’s blog for over a year now. Your blog differs Larry’s because YOU have used the phrases: “I don’t know,” “good point,” “we don’t know,” or “never thought of that.”
Larry comments with such arrogance in that he knows EVERYTHING and everyone else is moronic. Larry acts like he is never wrong.
Moreover, most intelligent people (your bloggers) certainly know that scholars debate everything and don’t know “the all”. Not with Larry. He thinks we are dumb and Jesus made him the thirteenth disciple.
I do like his blog. As a professional too, I run into lawyers, doctors, CPA’s, and etc. that will NEVER admit they don’t know something, nor have read about the topic, etc. Most of them use petty lazy words to manipulate the public. SAD!
Wow! You scholars really nitpick!! :^)
It’s our day job.
I am enjoying reading your book How Jesus Became God but speaking of nitpicking, I notice that you occasionally use the name Jesus and the title Christ interchangeably. My thought is that the name Jesus is the historical person who died and Christ is the cosmic figure created by Paul who he tied into Jesus.
I hear Christians referring to Jesus with his name and also as Christ even in the same sentence. Am I wrong to think that it is clearer to refer to the man as Jesus and Paul’s cosmic figure as Christ and not mix them as being the same?
Yes, generally I used “Jesus” to refer to the man and “Christ” to refer to the theological figure after his death (who was not created by Paul, though; Paul inherited this title and the idea behind it.)
Doesn’t Christ mean the anointed one?
And the word jesus has never been seen before it’s doesn’t fall under any
Jesus
Reveals
Christ
Secret
Yes, Christ means anointed one, just as Messiah does in Hebrew. Jesus was a common name in Jewish antiquity.
Apostile Paul ?
Can you give me an example how Paul lol
inherited this title ? Inherited Christ title ?
Verse ?
He frequently uses “Christ” to refer to Jesus, almost as if it were Jesus’ actual name.
Christ means Massiah in Greek
What does jesus mean in Greek ?
Has John the Baptist ever referred to Christ ?
Is Christ in Barbelo family tree ?
” Jesus ” is a hidden name, ” Christ ” is a revealed name
For this reason ” jesus ” is not particular to any language;
Rather he is always called by the name ” jesus “. While as for Christ in Syriac it is “Messiah”, in Greek it’s Christ. Certainly all the other languages have it according to this own language. The ” Nazarene ” is he who reveals what is hidden, which jesus spoke of so Christ is the only to reveal. Jesus the revealer ( Jesus Christ )
Or jesus hidden thing and Christ is the only one with that kind of connection with jesus ?
Just blogging 🙂
Jesus is the English transliteration of the Greek Ιησους which is the Greek rendition of the Hebrew Joshua which was a common name in Israel, related to the Hebrew word for “salvation.”
minutiae matters
Small things add up to big things.
Since we’re on the topic of nitpicking, when are you going to call Michael Bird’s bluff that Larry Hurtado’s writings provide the narrative that answers _how_ Jesus came to be viewed as God by Christians? I pointed out to Dr. Bird on both Hurtado’s blog and on his own that Hurtado doesn’t actually provide said narrative, at least not overtly sans assumptions that Hurtado’s own historical paradigm render moot. Hurtado’s view, which I find compelling in many respects, is that Jesus became an object of veneration because early Christians came to believe via dreams and visions that God required that they treat Jesus this way. In other words, Hurtado addresses the question: When was Jesus venerated and how do we know? He does not answer the question: How did Jesus come to be viewed as God? When I pointed out that venerating Jesus and viewing him as God himself, Hurtado substantiated the observation:
“As Ehrman also notes (rightly), when someone talks about ‘Jesus viewed as God,’ it’s not terribly clear what is meant. I prefer to avoid such abstractions and focus on specific statements of confession/belief and, still more important in my mind, devotional practices. These, in the ancient period, are our best indicators of the religious stance of people.”
So we’re still waiting for the narrative that Dr. Bird pretended has been provided by his side of the debate.
~Sean Garrigan
I had said:
” When I pointed out that venerating Jesus and viewing him as God himself, Hurtado substantiated the observation:”
I don’t know what happened to the missing part of the above statement that I know existed, at least in my head, but I meant to say:
” When I pointed out that venerating Jesus and viewing him as God himself are not the same thing, Hurtado substantiated the observation:”
~Sean
Good points!
Bart,
According to the Jesus Seminar’s work from 1993 (somewhat dated but over 100 scholars I think), the majority of scholars do think “the Son of Man” phrase is not something Jesus ever said but was added by later tradition. They at least seem to have been able to make a head count among their somewhat large group (see quote below from their work). How do you determine that it is “just the contrary”, that the majority of scholars agree with you that Jesus did use the phrase “the Son of Man”? Have you really counted?
Referring to Mark 13:26 the Jesus Seminar says: “It is the opinion of most scholars that Mark intends v. 26 (“the son of Adam will come on the clouds”) as an oracle addressed to his own readers and not as something Jesus addressed to his disciples decades earlier….The wording of the prediction about the son of Adam does not identify Jesus as the son of Adam. That curious omission has led some scholars to the view that Jesus may have spoken about the son of Adam as a messianic figure other than himself. Some fellows of the Jesus Seminar share this view, but the majority reject it as unsupported by the evidence.” (The Five Gospels, pg. 113)
Ah, I see where we are at cross purposes now. They are saying that the *apocalyptic* Son of Man sayings do not go back to Jesus, not that Jesus never used the term Son of Man in *any* sense.
Well, perhaps Richard Carrier can sort it out using Bayes’ theorem. :p
HA!!!
Dr. Ehrman,
Me personally, when I read the gospels involving the Son of Man titles (particularly in Mark since Jesus Christ uses that therm the most) Jesus always seems to be referring to himself as the title because each saying from Jesus is used after HE does something and it typically has to do with authority or identity of Jesus himself. For example in Mark 2:6-11 when he forgives the sons of the paralytic.
Another example would be before the high priest in Mark 14:62 where the ask the identity of Jesus and Jesus calls him the Son of Man.
Doesn’t it seem a little silly to think he is referring to someone else when the actions involve Jesus directly?
Yes, Jesus does call himself the Son of Man in the Gospels (although he does not indicate that he is the Son of Man in 14:62; I would argue just the opposite). The question is whether *those* Son of Man sayings are authentic or not.
How could one really determine if they are in authentic? Do any texts have the titles missing or any of those a stories?
It’s a long and complicated process. But in principle it’s the same process as is involved in deciding what Abraham Lincoln, or Napolean, or Julius Caesar really said. We have records of their sayings and we have to examine them using rigorous historical criteria.
I see in your other post to Hurtado you talk about how there is the historical approach and a theological approach. Why can’t theological be historical? I know you say God COULD have but it seems you completely separate the two and remove the theological from historical? Thanks! 🙂
I explain why in my book! (History is not the past!)
I don’t have the Jesus Seminar’s book (The Five Gospels) with me at the moment, but if I recall, I do not think that they think that ANY of the “Son of Man” sayings are authentic. But putting that aside, do you have any sense for roughly what percent of scholars think the *apocalyptic* Son of Man sayings go back to Jesus?
I don’t have a percentage. But my strong sense is that the large majority of critical scholars in North America, and probably Europe, understand Jesus principally as an apocalyptic prophet, so at least these types of sayings would be consistent with that particular point of view.
Not trying to harass you with so many questions, but I was curious as to your thoughts. Why is it that Paul never mentions Jesus as “the Son of man”?
Almost certainly because he was writing to Gentiles who would have no clue what it would mean.
I’m a little late on this thread, and a newcomer to the blog (lots of material to sift through). As a former evangelical Christian, I always took it for granted that Jesus referred to himself as the son of man, and that this son of man is the same one as described in Daniel. My primary reason for this is that, in Matthew 24, Jesus is asked, “what shall be the sign of YOUR coming, and of the end of the age?” Following that, the only “coming” described is that of the son of man coming in the clouds of heaven v30. It seems plain to me that Jesus must be referring to himself and identifying himself with the son of man in Daniel. Of course, he didn’t return in his generation and the prophecy failed, but it does seem to me that this is what Jesus believed.
Yes, Jesus certainly does refer to himself as the Son of man in a number of passages of the Gospels. The question is whether the *historical* Jesus referred to himself in that way or not. I give reasons in my book for thinking not. The later Christians who thought he *was* the son of man transformed his sayings so that he himself said he was (even though historially he did not think or say so).
References, both from Ezekiel and Daniel, to “the son of man” are noted in the manuscripts found in the caves of Qumran.
Even the famous story of James being invited by the High Priest to address the people at Passover, to dissuade them from their growing faith in Jesus, issuing in his surprise confession, “Why do you ask me concerning the Son of Man…?”, This was followed by a riot as the Temple police were tasked to remove James fromt he wall. This would suggest that early in the movement, the Jerusalem leaders were euqationg the Old Testament reference to the “one like unto a son of man who would lead the armies of heaven on the clouds.’ as part of the apocalyptic expectations.
If Josephus is correc then this reference to the “son of man” would precede any of the uses in the New TAetament gospels which were obviulsly written AFTER James had been stoned.
Where in Josephus is that (I’m away from my books for the summer)? I don’t recall him using the term Son of Man in reference to Jesus on the lips of James.
My apologiy for claiming the reference was by Josephus. Actually the reference is from Eusebius who claims the quote is from Hegessipus and includes Josephus as confirming James death as the reason for the destruction of the temple.. Here is the referece from Eusebius quoting Hegessipus in ‘The History of the Church’ (HC), 2, 23:
Now some of the seven sects, which existed among the people and which have been mentioned by me in the Memoirs, asked him, ‘What is the gate of Jesus? and he replied that he was the Saviour.
` On account of these words some believed that Jesus is the Christ. But the sects mentioned above did not believe either in a resurrection or in one’s coming to give to every man according to his works.
` But as many as believed did so on account of James. Therefore when many even of the rulers believed, there was a commotion among the Jews and Scribes and Pharisees, who said that there was danger that the whole people would be looking for Jesus as the Christ. Coming therefore in a body to James they said, ‘We entreat you, restrain the people; for they are gone astray in regard to Jesus, as if he were the Christ. We entreat you to persuade all that have come to the feast of the Passover concerning Jesus; for we all have confidence in you. For we bear you witness, as do all the people, that you are just, and does not respect persons. Do you therefore persuade the multitude not to be led astray concerning Jesus. For the whole people, and all of us also, have confidence in you. Stand therefore upon the pinnacle of the temple, that from that high position you may be clearly seen, and that your words may be readily heard by all the people. For all the tribes, with the Gentiles also, are come together on account of the Passover.’ The aforesaid Scribes and Pharisees therefore placed James upon the pinnacle of the temple, and cried out to him and said: you just one, in whom we ought all to have: confidence, forasmuch as the people are led, astray after Jesus, the crucified one, declare to us, what is the gate of Jesus.’
And he answered with a loud voice, ‘Why do you ask me concerning Jesus, the Son of Man? He himself sit 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. But let us go up and throw him down, in order that they may be afraid to believe him.’ And they cried out, saying, ‘Oh! oh! the just man is also in error.’
` And they fulfilled the Scripture written in Isaiah, ‘Let us take away the just man, because he is troublesome to us: therefore they shall eat the fruit of their doings.’
So they went up and threw down the just man, and said to each other, ‘Let us stone James the Just.’ And they began to stone him, for he was not killed by the fall; ….
LAST THING
JOHN 3 :2
And like a thief in the night
John 3 : 11-13
Jesus speaks of him being a witness to something as John did. ! Some people think jesus and John were just normal men until…? And jesus says you won’t believe me anyways when I speak of earthly things you don’t believe.
So why would I speak of heavenly things?
And he was saying this to the teacher of Israel geez
And says no one descends TO heaven but it is the one that comes down from heaven
So jesus lost in history until 30 ?
Hmm we’ll if he was doing miracles like such and younger age I’m sure EVERYTHING would be documented
Unless it’s what the author said of what jesus spoke and that the son of man comes down from heaven and not descends to heaven ?
Son of man is another
From son god ?
No ?
Judas ( twin )
Didymos. ?
Can you touch on this bart ?
I’m afraid I’m not sure which part to respond to!
I wonder if the Son of Man usage parallels what you say about evolving Christology in your book. Unfortunately, I can’t draw a parallel of the top of my head like the scholars who commenting here but it would be interesting to compare exaltation and incarnation with where Son of Man and Son of God is used.
Wow, it is not that clean. It is hard to determine if the term is used deliberately in its proper context or the context that a early first century Jew who is uneducated would understand it assuming the connection to Daniel has been communicated. Jesus uses the term in the first and third persons almost like the authors are being coy about it in the Gospels. It appears to be assumed later which would follow an evolving Christology.
This is not confusing at all. You explained it with perfect clarity in typical Ehrman style. My question is, how much of the Old Testament did Jesus know? Was he familiar with Daniel?
Yes, to Daniel, since his Son of Man sayings seem to be based on Daniel 7. But there are large portions of Scripture he never quotes in our surviving sayings — so we just don’t know. He certainly knew the Torah and the Psalms.
Thanks for coming to Dallas this past September to debate Justin Bass on Jesus’ claims to divinity. Bass (in subsequent correspondence with me) maintains that the majority of critical scholars view the Son of Man claims (as in Mark 14:62) as 1) having been uttered by the historical Jesus and 2) as referring to a cosmic Son of Man, tantamount to a claim to divinity. He counts (and quotes) Raymond Brown, James Dunn, Martin Hengel, Seyoon Kim, Chrys Caragounis, Werner Kummel, Morna Hooker, Oscar Cullmann, C.F.D. Moule, and David Catchpole in support of this view.
He admits that, while it’s a majority view, there’s not a complete consensus. But he does claim a near consensus against your view that Jesus ever had in mind anyone other than himself when referring to the Son of Man.
In some of your more recent posts, you’ve mentioned you’ll be revisiting this topic. I’m hoping you can help us understand better what the “majority” and/or “consensus” views on these thorny questions are. It seems everyone has a gut feel for what the “majority” of scholars hold, but one’s gut feel seems to depend on one’s prior views; one thing I never see is headcounts. Is Bass correct in asserting that your view is marginal? And is he correct in asserting that the majority of scholars embrace his view of passages like Mark 14:62?
I’ve read some of Hurtado’s views and find them somewhat plausible, but I don’t have the background to be able to judge. In any case, if Hurtado is correct in saying that Jesus never used the Son of Man as a referent to a third party, at least (in Hurtado’s view) this would not be anything like a claim to divinity.
BTW, you may not remember me, but I greeted you during the intermission at the debate. I’m a former missionary with Wycliffe Bible Translators in Niger, having lost my faith on the field.
Yes indeed, that is the majority view. Of course, all those people he names happen to be people who believe that Jesus really is the Son of Man himself. That doesn’t mean their view is wrong, but it does mean that we need to look at evidence without assuming that our personal theological view was the view of Jesus!
Dr.Ehrman,
Which Son of Man does the “Son of Man” that Jesus taught about most closely resemble? The Son of Man in Daniel or Enoch, or was it a kind of combination of the two?
Daniel, I’m pretty sure.
Dr. Ehrman,
I was rereading Daniel’s version of the Son of Man. However Daniel’s Son of Man is the complete opposite of how you explain Jesus’ Son of Man might have been. Which is strange since like you previously said both of them were supposed to resemble the most. Daniels SOM was NOT a conquering figure (Daniel never actually refers to the SOM doing any battles) and WAS actually given a kingdom as he arrived in the clouds of heaven to the throne of the Ancient of Days the one actually judging the beasts as the “books were opened”. On the other hand you say Jesus’ Son of Man WAS a conquering figure and was NOT given a kingdom and instead it was actually Jesus who received a kingdom. So how can you say that they resemble? To me it seems that the SOM of Daniel instead actually begins to resemble what you explain what Jesus thought his role to be. A figure who was given power and dominion after the “Ancient of Days” brought judgment on mankind. So my questions are:
1) Could it then be true that Jesus was actually referring to himself as the SOM of Daniel? As the one who arrived to the throne of God on the clouds of heaven and was given dominion and power with the Ancient of Days and not the SOM doing the judging and conquering?
2) So how is it that you say that Jesus’ Son of Man most closely resembles Daniels when in fact they are very different?
I’m saying Daniel was the original source (so far as we can tell) for traditions of a future cosmic judge of the earth that are reflected in Jesus’ own understanding. I’m not saying that Jesus was giving a correct exegesis of Daniel 7. Big difference! (You can trace a modern preacher’s theology back to, say, a passage in Paul. But that doesn’t mean that he’s correctly interpreting Paul. Often he’s saying something quite different from what Paul actually says.)
This is assuming that at this point the SOM was seen as a particular individual. Also I think that maybe Jesus did consider himself to be the SOM of Daniel as I explained but later on people were influenced by views similar to Enochs’ SOM as being a preexisting being and later added those views to what Jesus had originally taught of himself to be.
Dr Ehrman –
I was going through Hurtado’s summary piece in “Who Is This Son of Man” where he argues ‘son of man’ was (a) a phrase Jesus used, (b) was not a fixed title, (c) was a peculiarity in the way Jesus refers to himself, not another (and not the cosmic judge) and (d) was thus retained (generally) in Jesus’s sayings out of deference for Jesus’s usage.
One key point he employs for why it is not a reference to a cosmic judge (a la Daniel) is the lack of evidence of it being used as a Christological honorific or liturgical phrase in the early church.
That premise just doesn’t do the conceptual work he seems to think it does. Putting aside the fact that there may well have been stages of development in the early church where Son of Man might have very good reason to be downplayed (30-40 years later he ain’t come back…), there seems to be one gaping evidentiary problem – Mark 14:62.
We can debate whether Jesus said these words, or whether he intended them to refer to himself or another. What seems indisputable is that the evangelist, part of the early church, believes the son of man coming on the clouds of heaven is pretty awesome, and the purposeful phrase of Son of man fits tightly with Daniel. If this isn’t evidence that the early church had some purchase on Daniel’s Son of Man, and further if it’s being attached to / associated with Jesus (as an exact title or merely a compact allusion), then it isn’t an honorific – then I clearly do not understand what honorific, early church and biblical allusion mean…
I know you are of the view that Son of Man was someone else that Jesus was referring to, but am I off base on Hurtado’s actual argument? He’s an eminent NT scholar, and I am just an amateur. Which is why I’m struggling to see why he’s seemingly falling into the trap of outright question begging on this point.
Thanks!
Yes, I have to admit I see that argument a lot and it makes zero sense to me, that Jesus did not come up with the use of Son of Man as a title in reference to the figure mentioned in Daniel 7. SOMEONE came up with the title being used in this way. If someone definitely came up with it, why is it not possible that Jesus came up with it? I don’t see the logic.
Excellent – thanks a ton. I’ve read and reread that set of his arguments, and it just doesn’t seem to adequately account for the existence or usage of the Daniel Son of Man reference/allusion in the Gospel. Its not that I don’t *get* his argument, and how it rests on lack evidence of Son of Man in early liturgy – but the extension of that premise just doesn’t carry the bucket as far as it is being assumed it does. I mean, the way Son of Man is used in Mk 14:62 is a flashing red light counterpoint… Cheers!
Dr Ehrman –
Much like in Mk 14:62, in the NRSV the term Son of Man in John 5:27 appears also to be both an honorific and an allusion to Daniel. Would you agree with this interpretation?
Apologies that I keep seizing on this Son of Man issue – it’s just that LH’s thesis here baffles me. There seem to be at least two boldface counterexamples readily at hand for anyone with an NRSV search function…
Many thanks as always!
Yes, but I don’t think the saying is authentic to Jesus.
Fantastic, thanks! I’m presently just banging my head against the “not used in 1st century liturgy or as an honorific” portion of his thesis. If that leg of the stool breaks, so goes the entire argument it seems. Cheers!