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

The Man/Son of Man

Expand Messages
  • Douglas W Kincaid
    I d like to add my thoughts to the discussion about the *Son of Man*. The LXX will be used for OT quotes, since the *Son of Man* concept seems to have more
    Message 1 of 8 , Nov 1, 1998
      I'd like to add my thoughts to the discussion about the *Son of Man*. The
      LXX will be used for OT quotes, since the *Son of Man* concept seems to
      have more exposure in the LXX, rather than the Masoretic.

      I term the 80 *son of man* passages in Ezekiel & Da.8:17 as *generic*, so
      to speak, where the text clearly indicates humans without transcendent
      overtones. What follows are other passages which seem to indicate
      something more than generic *son of man*.

      It is interesting how the Greek LXX (Brenton translation) of Nu.24:7,17
      differs from the Tanakh. "There shall come a *man* out of his (Jacob's)
      seed, and he shall rule over many nations.... a star shall rise out of
      Jacob, a *man* shall spring out of Israel." (I won't quote the Tanakh,
      but it doesn't contain the word *man* here.)

      Luke recorded Paul as having said in Athens (Ac.17:31), "He (the Unknown
      God) will judge the world in righteousness through a *Man* (caps in NASB)
      whom He has appointed...." Also Paul wrote in Ro.5:15, "...much more did
      the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one *Man*, Jesus
      Christ, abound to the many."

      Although *man* in Ac.2:22 & 1Ti.2:5 in my opinion doesn't seem to fit the
      sense as well, you may also want to compare those verses. *Man* is
      generic in all the above verses, but yet I think there is something more
      to the story, as the following passages reflect.

      Ps.79:17 LXX (80:17 in most other Bibles) "Let thy hand be upon the *man
      of thy right hand*, and upon the *son of man* whom thou didst strengthen
      for thyself."

      Stephen's discourse contains OT quotes that agree with the LXX. For
      example, in Ac.7:14 Stephen says Jacob's relatives who went to Egypt
      numbered *75*. The Tanakh for Ge.46:27 reads *70*, but the LXX says
      *75*, as Luke recorded the Hellenist Stephen as saying. In Ac.7:55-56
      Stephen identified the *son of man at the right hand* of Ps.79:17
      (80:17): "Being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven
      and saw the glory of God, and *Jesus* standing at the *right hand* of
      God; and he said, 'Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the *Son of
      Man* standing at the *right hand* of God." Here the *Son of Man* is
      identified as *Jesus* (solely).

      Ps.8:4 LXX "What is *man*, that you art mindful of him? or the *son of
      man*, that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little less than angels,
      thou hast crowned him with glory and honour...."
      The writer of the book of Hebrews quotes this passage in He.2:6-9. In
      v.6 is the *son of man* terminology. He.2:9 "We do see Him who has been
      made a little lower than the angels, *Jesus*, because of the suffering of
      death crowned with glory and honor...." So the writer of Hebrews also
      positively identifies the *son of man* as *Jesus*, who is crowned with
      glory and honor.

      Forum comments have been made about the occurrence of *Son of Man* in
      Da.7:13. The *Son of Man* came up to the Ancient of Days and was given
      glory & a kingdom. The whole passage of Da.7:9-14 is expanded in the
      book of Revelation, filling chapters 4 & 5. (Similar imagery also
      appears in 1En.14:18-24.) In the apocalyptic manner, the vision has been
      recast with additional imagery. The description in Revelation is given
      as the *Lion from the tribe of Judah* & the *Lamb that was slain*
      (5:5-6). Re.22:16 identifies Him as *Jesus*. (IMO this links the
      books of 1Enoch, Daniel, Revelation, with Jesus.)

      There is an awesome description in Revelation of the *Son of Man*:

      Re.1:13-18 "In the middle of the lampstands one like the *son of man*,
      clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and girded across His breast with
      a golden girdle. His head and His hair were white like wool; and His
      eyes were like a flame of fire; and His feet like burnished bronze, when
      it has been caused to glow in a furnace, and His voice like the sound of
      many waters.... and His face like the sun shining in its strength. And
      when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as a dead man. And He laid His right
      hand upon me, saying, 'Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and
      the living One; and *I was dead*, and behold, I am alive...." This *son
      of man* is *Jesus* (Re.5:9,22:16).

      There is a striking similarity in another passage of Daniel:

      Da.10:5-10 LXX "I lifted up mine eyes and looked, and behold a *man*
      clothed in linen, and his loins were girt with gold of Ophaz: and his
      body was as Tharsis (beryl, NASB), and his face was as the appearance of
      lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and legs as the
      appearance of shining brass, and the voice of his words as the voice of a
      multitude.... So I was left alone, and saw this great vision, and there
      was no strength left in me... and I retained no strength. Yet I heard the
      voice of his words... and I fell with my face to the earth. And, behold,
      a hand touched me...."

      Continuing in v.16: "And behold, as it were the likeness of a *son of
      man* touched my lips; and I opened my mouth, and spoke, and said to him
      that stood before me, 'O my lord, at the sight of thee my bowels were
      turned within me, and I had no strength...."

      There are common elements to both of the above Revelation & Daniel
      accounts: e.g., the glorious appearance of the *Son of Man*, the
      recipient of the vision slumps to the earth, the hand of the glorified
      *Son of Man* touches the person on the ground who saw the vision.

      In all the above occurrences of the expression *Son of Man*, he is
      identified as solely *Jesus* by New Testament books. IMO *Son of Man*
      meant only one special individual to those writers. In the minds of most
      Chicago Bulls fans, *da man* is Michael Jordan <g>. But according to the
      NT books, *the Man* was *Jesus*. That is my interpretation too, assuming
      the NT descriptions are correct. The one who gave those superlative
      teachings, had such qualities of character, and envisioned awesome
      glorious appearance, is *the Man*.

      Have a good day,

      Doug Kincaid
      Nashville


      ___________________________________________________________________
      You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
      Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
      or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
    • Ian Hutchesson
      ... Pardon a few mildly inane questions, but is the use of lion in Dan7:4 special or generic? is bear in 7:5 special or generic? or leopard in 7:6
      Message 2 of 8 , Nov 2, 1998
        >I term the 80 *son of man* passages in Ezekiel & Da.8:17 as *generic*, so
        >to speak, where the text clearly indicates humans without transcendent
        >overtones. What follows are other passages which seem to indicate
        >something more than generic *son of man*.

        Pardon a few mildly inane questions, but is the use of "lion" in Dan7:4
        special or generic? is "bear" in 7:5 special or generic? or "leopard" in 7:6
        special or generic? or even "son of man" in 7:13 special or generic? Each of
        these nouns function in one way, as similes to describe something else. They
        are not in themselves anything important other than for what they represent.
        The "one like a son of man" is in fact not a son of man, only like one, just
        as the beast which was like a lion was not in fact a lion, merely like on.
        The all important "like" gets omitted when it gets into the NT: Mk13:26
        doesn't have it, for example. This is changing the significance of the
        passage by manipulating it into something else.

        The only way the simile can work is that the term "son of man" actually
        signifies something plainly accessible to the audience. That significance we
        find in many ancient Jewish documents, including Daniel, Ezekiel and
        numerous DSS. The significance of "son of man" is "human", the offspring of
        our species. So, the one going up to heaven on a cloud has the appearance of
        a human, unlike all those beasties. It would actually have little meaning to
        say that "there came one like a son of man", had the term "son of man" had a
        special significance, for if it were a unique term then the simile would not
        actually work.

        Let us assume for a moment that there was something more in the phrase, what
        exactly would it be, given the continued simple use of "son of man" in Dan8
        and in the DSS works written after Daniel? Did Christ come on the clouds
        like a Christ, did Jesus come like a Jesus? Is that what you'd like to
        think? What would that sort of thing mean?

        It does not help in the analysis of the Dan7 passage to look forward a few
        hundred years to see how people were using terms at that later time. It
        cannot have any historical value on the earlier work. Imagine the song
        "Jamaica Farewell" being analysed today: "Down the way where the nights are
        gay..." Everyone starts to titter. Gays down in Jamaica...!? This sort of
        thinking is totally out of place in the original context of the song, but
        it's very hard not to think such things when we hear the song since the
        propaganda concerning gayness has challenged the core of our society. In
        second century, as in modern, Christianity, "son of man" carries
        implications that were not originally in the phrase. It does not help us
        understand the original passage in Daniel.

        >There is an awesome description in Revelation of the *Son of Man*:

        I'm sorry, Douglas, but what Revelation has to say might be fine, but it has
        little to do with the significance of Dan7, though conversely Dan7 has a lot
        to do with Revelation. Influence is a one way street, from earlier to later
        and not vice versa, so despite the fact that "son of man" was used one way
        in NT literature, it cannot affect Dan7.

        >There is a striking similarity in another passage of Daniel:
        >
        >There are common elements to both of the above Revelation & Daniel
        >accounts:

        Hopefully you can see the ultimate irrelevance of Revelation on the
        significance of Dan7, just as Coleridge's musings on Kublai Khan have no
        reflection on the original.

        There is an obvious change in significance to be found between Dan7's one
        coming on the clouds like a son of man and Mk13's son of man coming on the
        clouds. The first gives an idea of the form of the figure, the other in some
        way says who the figure is.


        Ian
      • Douglas W Kincaid
        On Mon, 2 Nov 1998 11:21:03 +0100 (CET) Ian Hutchesson ... Greetings Ian, In response, I ll limit my comments mostly to how I think *Son of
        Message 3 of 8 , Nov 5, 1998
          On Mon, 2 Nov 1998 11:21:03 +0100 (CET) Ian Hutchesson <mc2499@...>
          writes:
          >
          >Pardon a few mildly inane questions, but is the use of "lion" in
          >Dan7:4
          >special or generic? is "bear" in 7:5 special or generic? or "leopard"
          >in 7:6
          >special or generic? or even "son of man" in 7:13 special or generic?
          >In
          >second century, as in modern, Christianity, "son of man" carries
          >implications that were not originally in the phrase.

          Greetings Ian,

          In response, I'll limit my comments mostly to how I think *Son of Man*
          was meant and interpreted at the time it was written in Dan.7:13. The
          scope of my previous post was broader, including verses indicating how
          *Son of Man* was perceived by writers of NT books.

          As you probably know, most scholars think the book of Daniel was written
          around 165 BCE, when much of the known world was under Greek influence.
          Some of the musical instruments mentioned in Dan.3:5 are said to be of
          Greek origin (not of an earlier Babylonian or Persian) - Strongs #6460
          psalterion and #5481 cyphonya or bagpipe.

          D.S. Russell relates in his *Between the Testaments* the view of
          Mowinckel, "the Jewish conception of 'the Man' or 'the Son of Man' is a
          Jewish variant of the oriental, cosmological, eschatological myth of
          Anthropos." Peter Lemesurier in his *The Armageddon Script* referred to
          the Jews', "...the Messianic 'man' figure prefigured by the book of
          Daniel at 7:13." From Rudolph Otto's *The Kingdom of God and the Son of
          Man*, "The book of Enoch did not invent the mysterious figure found near
          God, for it already existed. Perhaps long previously he had actually
          been called 'the Man'.... the words 'Son of Man' had the force of a
          title...."

          So in Daniel 7 where the terms *beasts* (7:3-ff - lion, bear,etc.) &
          *Man* (7:13) occur, were literal animals and a natural human being like
          you or I meant? I don't think so. Dan.7:17 continues with, "These great
          *beasts*, which are four, are four *kings*." So we read in Daniel 7 that
          those animals symbolized humans (not literal animals).

          James VanderKam says in *Enoch: A Man for All Generations*, "Around the
          time of the Hellenistic reforms in Jerusalem...the first Jewish
          historical apocalypses made their appearance. These are the Apocalypse of
          Weeks (1Enoch 93:1-10, 91:11-17), the visions in Daniel 7-12, and the
          Animal Apocalypse (1Enoch 85-90).... Daniel's visions may be dated to the
          time of the Maccabean revolt (ca. 165) and the Animal Apocalypse perhaps
          a couple of years later."

          According to VanderKam, Daniel 7 and the Enochic Animal Apocalypse were
          written at about the same time. In the AA, as in Daniel 7, animals
          symbolized humans. Clean animals represented the patriarchs & Israel,
          and unclean/ wild animals symbolized the wicked/ Gentiles. Furthermore
          in the AA, *men* symbolized angels or superhuman beings (e.g. 1En.87:2,
          89:1,36). I think that same symbolism was intended in Dan.7:13. That
          is, the *Son of Man* was a superhuman figure, as the later NT books
          similarly interpreted - e.g. Stephen in Acts 7, Hebrews 2, & Revelation
          (to which I referred in my previous post). The angel-like figure of
          Dan.7 13 recalls to mind Is.9:6 (LXX), "For a child is born to us...and
          his name is called the Messenger (or Angel) of great counsel...."

          Margaret Barker wrote in *The Lost Prophet* (Enoch), "Thus in Daniel 7
          'one like a son of man' is only a human figure. But in Enoch 'men' are
          archangels. It is therefore likely that an angelic vision in Daniel will
          have used similar terminology. 'A man' was an angel figure, or one who
          had become angelic.... in other words, the son of man figure was a human
          being who became divine and was given dominion. Like Enoch, Daniel also
          has animals; in his vision they are the four fearful beasts."

          I agree. *Beast* & *man* in Daniel 7 did not mean *animal* & *human* -
          the symbolic intent differed from the literal. Where an animal was the
          written term, a human was meant. Where *man* was the written term, an
          angel being was meant. You might find interesting reading in Barker's
          book the chapter entitled, "The Son of Man".

          Furthermore, it seems the early Christian interpretation of *Son of Man*
          may well have resembled the original image.

          Have a good week,

          Doug Kincaid
          Nashville



          ___________________________________________________________________
          You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
          Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
          or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
        • Ian Hutchesson
          ... This is mainly because the work shows a knowledge of the pollution of the temple (167) at the hands of Antiochus IV who died in 164. The work was written
          Message 4 of 8 , Nov 5, 1998
            Doug wrote:

            >most scholars think the book of Daniel was written
            >around 165 BCE, when much of the known world was under Greek influence.

            This is mainly because the work shows a knowledge of the pollution of the
            temple (167) at the hands of Antiochus IV who died in 164. The work was
            written before his death for it moves out of history and gives a prophecy of
            his death -- which was wrong, hence it was definitely written before his death.

            >Some of the musical instruments mentioned in Dan.3:5 are said to be of
            >Greek origin (not of an earlier Babylonian or Persian) - Strongs #6460
            >psalterion and #5481 cyphonya or bagpipe.

            I have heard arguments for said instruments very reasonably being used by
            the Greeks centuries before and that the Greeks had contacts in Persia long
            before Alexander conquered it. There is no reason according to the line of
            thought that the instruments hadn't reached Persia early.

            >D.S. Russell relates in his *Between the Testaments* the view of
            >Mowinckel, "the Jewish conception of 'the Man' or 'the Son of Man' is a
            >Jewish variant of the oriental, cosmological, eschatological myth of
            >Anthropos."

            Any thought about Dan7:13 that doesn't take into consideration the fact that
            the phrase "son of man" is used only as a simile misses the whole point. The
            figure is not messianic, for the notion of "messianic" at that time was very
            different. You must note Dan 9:24-27 which deals with post exilic history,
            referring to the two most important priests as "an anointed one, a prince",
            and "an anointed one". It was par for the course that priests were anointed
            -- and I fear that any biblical reference to kings being anointed are
            actually Hasmonean. Being anointed for Daniel basically meant being
            priestly, priests after all being the chosen messengers of God.

            To separate the use of "son of man" in 7:13 from that of 8:17 means to
            arbitrarily claim different usage in each case. There is no reason to
            believe so from the text of Daniel or from the Jewish tradition up to the
            time of Jesus. The Dead Sea Scrolls clearly show the traditional use of "son
            of man" that follows in the wake of Ezekiel, Psalms and Dan 8:17. Why should
            Dan 7:13 be such an aberration? I see no evidence that it was.

            >Peter Lemesurier in his *The Armageddon Script* referred to
            >the Jews', "...the Messianic 'man' figure prefigured by the book of
            >Daniel at 7:13." From Rudolph Otto's *The Kingdom of God and the Son of
            >Man*, "The book of Enoch did not invent the mysterious figure found near
            >God, for it already existed. Perhaps long previously he had actually
            >been called 'the Man'.... the words 'Son of Man' had the force of a
            >title...."
            >
            >So in Daniel 7 where the terms *beasts* (7:3-ff - lion, bear,etc.) &
            >*Man* (7:13) occur, were literal animals and a natural human being like
            >you or I meant? I don't think so.

            Obviously they were not. One was merely *like* a lion. One *like* a bear.
            One *like* a leopard. And finally one *like* a human. It is the mere
            appearance that is necessary in the similes, making clear that "son of man"
            meant "human" in Dan 7:13, although the "one *like* a son of man" was
            probably not human, only "like a son of man".

            >Dan.7:17 continues with, "These great
            >*beasts*, which are four, are four *kings*." So we read in Daniel 7 that
            >those animals symbolized humans (not literal animals).

            But naturally it is not this simple. For example, the four great beasts came
            up out of the sea. Why, if they were merely human? There are a number of
            other layers of significance operating in this complex passage, including
            Ba'al Shamayin's victory over the sea and chaos, and the idea that a people
            had a guardian -- we would normally say a guardian angel, but what about
            godless nations? When Dan 10:13 has the angel say "the prince of the kingdom
            of Persia withstood me for 21 days", is that prince a human prince? Not too
            long after Daniel was written the Dead Sea Scrolls were talking of the
            prince of evil, Mastema, Belial, who struggles against the angels of God.

            >James VanderKam says in *Enoch: A Man for All Generations*, "Around the
            >time of the Hellenistic reforms in Jerusalem...the first Jewish
            >historical apocalypses made their appearance. These are the Apocalypse of
            >Weeks (1Enoch 93:1-10, 91:11-17), the visions in Daniel 7-12, and the
            >Animal Apocalypse (1Enoch 85-90).... Daniel's visions may be dated to the
            >time of the Maccabean revolt (ca. 165) and the Animal Apocalypse perhaps
            >a couple of years later."
            >
            >According to VanderKam, Daniel 7 and the Enochic Animal Apocalypse were
            >written at about the same time. In the AA, as in Daniel 7, animals
            >symbolized humans. Clean animals represented the patriarchs & Israel,
            >and unclean/ wild animals symbolized the wicked/ Gentiles. Furthermore
            >in the AA, *men* symbolized angels or superhuman beings (e.g. 1En.87:2,
            >89:1,36).

            Let's say that the two could be confused: at Sodom the people were very
            interested in an angel; Tobias traveled with an angel as a companion,
            thinking that he was a man. The Dead Sea Scrolls makes comparisons between
            angels and priests. Enoch has angels mingling with the daughters of men.

            >I think that same symbolism was intended in Dan.7:13. That
            >is, the *Son of Man* was a superhuman figure,

            You don't consider the nature of the simile here. it is not "the *Son of
            Man*" at all, but "one like a son of man". The difference is extremely
            important. You are giving the "son of man" from Mk13:26 and not Dan 7:13.
            You must not confuse the two -- as was done in antiquity.

            It is the simile that reinforces the humanness of the term "son of man", for
            the one referred to was not a son of man, only like one -- and Daniel shows
            us what a son of man is in 8:17.

            We are left with the fact that a messianic use of "son of man" is not
            definitely attested to until we find it in Christian literature. The
            Similitudes of Enoch which has a figure called "the Son of Man" are not
            attested to among the DSS, though much of the rest of Enoch can be found there.

            Josef Milik, the editor of the Qumran Enoch fragments believes that the
            Similitudes are a second century effort. The "standard" usage of "son of
            man" in the DSS requires a late messianic use of "son of man", so Milik may
            be correct, although VanderKam goes for the first century. Paul shows no
            knowledge of the usage of the term son of man at all, suggesting that the
            expression was not even a messianic term in the earliest stratum of
            Christianity.


            Ian


            >as the later NT books
            >similarly interpreted - e.g. Stephen in Acts 7, Hebrews 2, & Revelation
            >(to which I referred in my previous post). The angel-like figure of
            >Dan.7 13

            (Not "angel-like", but "human-like". The "one like a son of man" was
            probably thought of in antiquity *as* an angel.)

            >recalls to mind Is.9:6 (LXX), "For a child is born to us...and
            >his name is called the Messenger (or Angel) of great counsel...."
            >
            >Margaret Barker wrote in *The Lost Prophet* (Enoch), "Thus in Daniel 7
            >'one like a son of man' is only a human figure. But in Enoch 'men' are
            >archangels. It is therefore likely that an angelic vision in Daniel will
            >have used similar terminology. 'A man' was an angel figure, or one who
            >had become angelic.... in other words, the son of man figure was a human
            >being who became divine and was given dominion. Like Enoch, Daniel also
            >has animals; in his vision they are the four fearful beasts."
            >
            >I agree. *Beast* & *man* in Daniel 7 did not mean *animal* & *human* -
            >the symbolic intent differed from the literal. Where an animal was the
            >written term, a human was meant. Where *man* was the written term, an
            >angel being was meant. You might find interesting reading in Barker's
            >book the chapter entitled, "The Son of Man".

            If it is not about Dan 7:13 then you might be right.
          • Bernard Muller
            Douglas W Kincaid wrote: So in Daniel 7 where the terms *beasts* (7:3-ff - lion, bear,etc.) & *Man* (7:13) occur, were literal animals and a natural human
            Message 5 of 8 , Nov 5, 1998
              Douglas W Kincaid wrote:


              So in Daniel 7 where the terms *beasts* (7:3-ff - lion, bear,etc.) &
              *Man* (7:13) occur, were literal animals and a natural human being like
              you or I meant? I don't think so. Dan.7:17 continues with, "These
              great *beasts*, which are four, are four *kings*." So we read in
              Daniel that those animals symbolized humans (not literal animals).

              Bernard write:
              I studied extensively the Book of Daniel and I agree with the beasts
              symbolizing kings.
              Here is the correspondence according to my research:
              a) Lion, Belshazzar the last ruler over Babylon.
              b) Bear, Cyrus of Persia.
              c) Leopard, Alexander the Great.
              d) The fourth beast, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the Seleucid king.

              Bernard
              For explanations, see http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/danrv.shtml
            • KWhitt@aol.com
              In a message dated 11/5/98 7:32:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, mc2499@mclink.it ... Maurice Casey, Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7
              Message 6 of 8 , Nov 5, 1998
                In a message dated 11/5/98 7:32:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, mc2499@...
                writes:

                > We are left with the fact that a messianic use of "son of man" is not
                > definitely attested to until we find it in Christian literature. The
                > Similitudes of Enoch which has a figure called "the Son of Man" are not
                > attested to among the DSS, though much of the rest of Enoch can be found
                > there.
                >

                Maurice Casey, Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7
                (London: SPCK, 1979) examines this issue (originally his Ph.D. dissertation)
                to determine the origin of the "Son of man" sayings. The work is composed of:
                1. Introduction - setting forth the problem, method and outline of the work,
                2. a survey of Dan. 7 itself, 3. evidence from the Syrian church concerning
                the saying, 4. Western thought, 5. Jewish evidence, 6. Book of Revelation, 7.
                NT epistles, 8. main attack of the Son of man problem, 9. His theory and
                solution.

                Casey notes that there are 2 main problems of methodology: 1) use of materials
                whose date is questionable and often unascertainable, and 2) determining true
                literary dependence, i.e., determining which sources drew from Dan. 7 & those
                that may just be similar.

                He determines that there are 2 levels to the saying: 1) a general reference to
                humanity, and 2) a personal reference made to the speaker (an Aramaic
                idiomatic way of saying "I," see p. 228).

                Keith Whitt
              • Ian Hutchesson
                ... Casey probably got #2 from Geza Vermes. But it is not attested to in the times prior to the first century, so I can t see that it is particularly relevant
                Message 7 of 8 , Nov 5, 1998
                  >Casey... determines that there are 2 levels to the saying: 1) a general
                  >reference to humanity, and 2) a personal reference made to the speaker (an
                  >Aramaic idiomatic way of saying "I," see p. 228).

                  Casey probably got #2 from Geza Vermes. But it is not attested to in the
                  times prior to the first century, so I can't see that it is particularly
                  relevant to Dan 7:13. The interest in this discussion was in the
                  significance of the Daniel passage, not what came from it.


                  Ian
                • joe baxter
                  ... so, who can say that something so specific is meant?
                  Message 8 of 8 , Nov 6, 1998
                    >Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 21:37:22
                    >To: Bernard Muller <Mullerb@...>
                    >From: joe baxter <joseph@...>
                    >Subject: Re: The Man/Son of Man
                    >
                    >At 05:52 PM 11/5/98 -0700, you wrote:
                    >>Douglas W Kincaid wrote:
                    >>
                    >>
                    >> So in Daniel 7 where the terms *beasts* (7:3-ff - lion, bear,etc.) &
                    >> *Man* (7:13) occur, were literal animals and a natural human being like
                    >> you or I meant? I don't think so. Dan.7:17 continues with, "These
                    >> great *beasts*, which are four, are four *kings*." So we read in
                    >> Daniel that those animals symbolized humans (not literal animals).
                    >>
                    >>Bernard wrote:
                    >>I studied extensively the Book of Daniel and I agree with the beasts
                    >>symbolizing kings.
                    >>Here is the correspondence according to my research:
                    >>a) Lion, Belshazzar the last ruler over Babylon.
                    >>b) Bear, Cyrus of Persia.
                    >>c) Leopard, Alexander the Great.
                    >>d) The fourth beast, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the Seleucid king.
                    >>
                    >
                    >The text says these are the product of an dream. Sure sounds like one. If
                    so, who can say that something so specific is meant?
                    >
                    >With kind regards,
                    >
                    >Joe
                    >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.