>>This result indicates to me that the phrase 'SoM' was probably used
in the versions of the gospels with which Justin was familiar, hence
that, if added at all, it must have been added pre-Justin, hence
pre-Harmony and pre-Diatessaron, thus casting severe doubt on the
argument from harmonies. Do you agree? Or how would you put it?<<
Well, the occasions were:
1st Apology LI (citing Dan 7:13, although calling the source
2nd Apology XXXI (again quoting Dan 7:9-28 as referring to Christ's
Dialogue XXXII "Trypho said, 'These and such like Scriptures, sir,
compel us to wait for Him who, as Son of man, receives from the
Ancient of days the everlasting kingdom',"
Dialogue LXXVI Again refers to Dan 7 (but not quoting) and linking it
to Luke 9:22,
Dialogue LXXIX Again refers to Dan 7,
Dialogue C quotes Matt 16:21, explaining that "He said then that He
was the Son of man, either because of His birth by the Virgin, who
was, as I said, of the family of David and Jacob, and Isaac, and
Abraham; or because Adam was the father both of Himself and of those
who have been first enumerated from whom Mary derives her descent,"
Dialogue CXXVI alludes to Dan 7 among proofs that the scriptures
Prior to Justin, the term is used by the authors of the following
letters (although I'd hesitate to give any credence to any but the
first of these as genuine productions):
Ignatius Ephesians XX (short Greek version) "Jesus Christ, who was of
the seed of David according to the flesh, being both the Son of man
and the Son of God,"
Ignatius Trallians IX (long Greek version) "At the dawning of the
Lord's day He arose from the dead, according to what was spoken by
Himself, 'As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's
belly, so shall the Son of man also be three days and three nights in
the heart of the earth.' (Matt 12:40)"
Barnabas XII "Behold again: Jesus who was manifested, both by type and
in the flesh (alluding to 1 Tim 3:16?), is not the Son of man, but the
Son of God."
Cleveland, Ohio, USA