Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

4207RE: [Synoptic-L] The phrase bar-(e)nash(a)

Expand Messages
  • Dennis Goffin
    Jun 1, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Jack: 13 I saw in the night-visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of
      the sky one like a son of man (כבר אנש [kibar 'anash]), and he came even to
      the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. 14 There was
      given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations,
      and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
      which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be
      destroyed.
      Dennis: This verse does not necessarily indicate the S o M of the NT. As in the case of Isaiah 42 & 53, Israel is being portrayed as an individual merely as a figure of speech. Both cases are analogous and to create separate quasimessianic beings from them is to fail to follow the internal logic of what are are basically visionary statements.Dennis

      ---------------------

      Dennis Goffin

      Chorleywood UK

      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      From: jkilmon@...
      Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 01:26:26 -0500
      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] The phrase bar-(e)nash(a)






























      -----Original Message-----

      From: E Bruce Brooks

      Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 10:54 PM

      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com

      Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] The phrase bar-(e)nash(a)



      To: Synoptic

      On: Son of Man

      From: Bruce



      Jack Kilmon knows a lot more about the Aramaic and Hebrew sources of the

      Synoptics than I do. How much of it is right I am not in a position to

      judge. I *am* pretty sure about the sequence of the Greek texts, which is Mk

      > Mt > Lk. Moving past that deadlock, I take pleasure in noting the

      following agreement.



      Jack: Son of Man can mean "just a feller" or THE Son of Man. I don't for a

      second believe Jesus thought he was "just a feller."



      Bruce: Nor do I, and I can prove it without resort to Aramaic. The test is

      this: Can the phrase Son of Man in Mark be replaced (without narrative

      catastrophe) by "anybody?" Or must it instead be replaced by "I?" I think it

      is obvious that the answer is, The latter, and only the latter. "Son of

      man" is a favorite device of the Psalmist(s), to maintain parallelism

      without repeating the word "man." Such synonymic variation defines the

      general meaning of the term. But none of the Son of Man uses in Mark can be

      shown to have that meaning. They are all specific self-references. What

      Jesus means by it (or what Mark wants Jesus to seem to mean by it) is the

      subject of the present discussion. The "just a feller" option is a mere red

      herring.



      Bruce



      E Bruce Brooks

      Warring States Project

      University of Massachusetts at Amherst



      In first century Judean Aramaic, "I" was אנא and emphatically אנא

      אנא .

      The Hebrew of the Psalmist is culturally and linguistically distant by

      centuries to Aramaic Daniel and the use of בר אנשׁ by Jesus. As in

      Meadowcroft in verse 14, understood with v. 13, the referent of the 3rd

      person masculine singular pronoun MUST be the Son of Man. It is a recently

      arrived figure who is the recipient of authority and homage. When this

      evidence is weighed, the Son of Man in the LXX seems to bear the mark of a

      divine figure. The ambiguity of the phrase כבר אנשׁ "like a Son of

      Man" is present in the MT and the LXX but the LXX use of ἐπὶ and its

      portrayal of the heavenly audience clarifies the ambiguity. When it comes

      to v. 14 the MT and the LXX agree that the figure who arrives on the clouds

      is vested with special authority, an authority that is eternal in scope.



      Daniel 7:13-14 (WEB)

      13 חזה הוית בחזוי ליליא וארו עם־ענני שׁמיא כבר אנשׁ אתה הוה ועד־עתיק יומיא

      מטה וקדמוהי הקרבוהי׃ 14 ולה יהיב שׁלטן ויקר ומלכו וכל עממיא אמיא ולשׁניא לה

      יפלחון שׁלטנה שׁלטן עלם די־לא יעדה ומלכותה פ



      13 ἐθεώρουν ἐν ὁράματι τῆς νυκτὸς καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς

      υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἤρχετο καὶ ὡς παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν παρῆν καὶ οἱ παρεστηκότες παρῆσαν

      αὐτῷ

      14 καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τῆς γῆς κατὰ γένη καὶ πᾶσα δόξα

      αὐτῷ λατρεύουσα καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ ἐξουσία αἰώνιος ἥτις οὐ μὴ ἀρθῇ καὶ ἡ

      βασιλεία αὐτοῦ ἥτις οὐ μὴ φθαρῇ



      13 I saw in the night-visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of

      the sky one like a son of man (כבר אנש [kibar 'anash]), and he came even to

      the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. 14 There was

      given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations,

      and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion,

      which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be

      destroyed.



      At Mark 14:62 Jesus says to Pilate:

      I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power,

      and coming in the clouds of heaven.



      At Daniel 8:17 the phrase is used as an idiom for "Hey fella!" so we have

      both usages a chapter apart in Old Judean Aramaic so I see only the choice

      between the apocalyptic SoM and the just ordinary guy SoM for what Jesus

      meant in his many referents to himself. I think it’s a no brainer for me.



      Regards,



      Jack



      Jack kilmon


















      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 45 messages in this topic