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

RE: [Synoptic-L] THE SON OF MAN

Expand Messages
  • Dennis Goffin
    Ron, The Aramaic merely said one like a human being did it not ? It was the LXX that had the word for word translation huios tou anthropou that was
    Message 1 of 45 , May 26, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Ron, The Aramaic merely said 'one like a human being' did it not ? It was the LXX that had the word for word translation huios tou anthropou that was potentially a strange and mysterious locution.
      Dennis
      ---------------------

      Dennis Goffin

      Chorleywood UK

      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      From: ron-price@...
      Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 18:18:30 +0100
      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] THE SON OF MAN


























      Dennis Goffin wrote:



      > Reading Telford's book "The Theology of the Gospel of Mark" I find myself

      > agreeing with everything he says in his analysis on pages 50 to 54 except for

      > his views on the origin of the Son of Man title which he believes developed

      > among the original Aramaic speaking traditional Jewish Christians. My

      > view on the Son of Man title is that this developed among the Hellenists and

      > not among the traditional Jewish Christians as he believes .......



      Dennis,



      I find myself in agreement with Telford on this point.



      Firstly, there is a clear a priori argument in favour of the label "Son of

      Man" having been introduced by Aramaic-speaking people because it was used

      in Dan 7:13 (originally written in Aramaic). The original followers of Jesus

      match this argument, but the Hellenists do not.



      Secondly, you may have difficulty explaining why Paul (in his extant

      letters) never used the label if it was thought to be messianic. My belief

      is that the label was assigned to Jesus by the original apostles precisely

      because it was *not* messianic. For after the crucifixion they had found

      themselves in a dilemma, namely why their scriptures never foretold that the

      Messiah would be crucified. Their solution was to suppose that the

      designation "Messiah" must have been incorrect, and that he was actually the

      "Son of Man", who would soon appear in the clouds to claim his kingdom. Paul

      accepted the messianic status of Jesus, and rejected the label �Son of Man�

      presumably because of its relatively lowly status, especially when compared

      with �Son of God�.



      Ron Price,



      Derbyshire, UK



      http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_home.html



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


















      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Dennis Goffin
      David, Luke does. Compare Lk 21:32 written after the fall of Jerusalem, with Mk 9:1 & 13:30 which speaks of a generation over 30 years earlier. For an analysis
      Message 45 of 45 , Jun 11, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        David,
        Luke does. Compare Lk 21:32 written after the fall of Jerusalem, with Mk 9:1 & 13:30 which speaks of a generation over 30 years earlier. For an analysis in depth of this question, I recommend Casey's book " The Solution to the Son of Man Problem" (2009)
        Dennis
        ---------------------

        Dennis Goffin

        Chorleywood UK


        To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
        From: ron-price@...
        Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 18:11:08 +0100
        Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] The coming kingdom


























        Apologies for the late reply. I've been on holiday in the English Lake

        District.



        David Cavanagh wrote:



        > If, as you suggest below, the original statement was thought to refer to

        > a return of Jesus, and the evangelists increasingly saw this as a

        > problem because it was not happening, and attempted to adapt the

        > materials, why do they not drop the reference to the present generation

        > of "some who are standing here"



        David,



        Each synoptic evangelist had a problem when dealing with an embarrassing

        text. Such a text could be repeated in full, abbreviated, altered, and/or

        put in a context which essentially changed its meaning. Thus the dropping of

        a reference would depend on how the particular evangelist felt at the time

        about the degree of embarrassment the reference caused.



        > ..... But Mark is the earliest gospel, and I very much doubt that Jesus

        > "failure to return" would actually be a problem as early as AD65-70.



        Mark, the earliest gospel, was probably written in 71 CE, shortly after the

        fall of Jerusalem. This was fully 40 years after the crucifixion, and plenty

        of time to be worried about the absence of a 'return' which had been

        expected to be imminent. Certainly Paul had expected it to be within his

        lifetime when he wrote to the Thessalonians: " ... we who are alive, who are

        left until the coming of the Lord ..." (1 Thess 4:15). But by the time he

        wrote the Philippian 'Joyful Letter', he seems to have changed his mind.

        (Php 1:21-26).



        Ron Price,



        Derbyshire, UK



        http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_home.html



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



















        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.