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

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

Expand Messages
  • Jack Kilmon
    ... 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
    Message 1 of 45 , May 31, 2012
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      -----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


      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
      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

      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.



      Jack kilmon
    • 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
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        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 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


        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"


        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


        [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.