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

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

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    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
    Message 1 of 45 , May 31, 2012
      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
    • 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
        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.