Son of Man and Son of God
- Rikk Watts wrote:
***Actually, I think Moule said that though SoM is often claimed to be a
unusual construction it was in fact no more cumbersome than ho huios tou
theou (Moule, "Facts").***
The expression 'Son of Man' is not an invention of Jesus or his disciples.
It exists in the Aramaic language. What is interesting is the way this
expression was used in the gospels as a title for Jesus.
Here there are two ways of discussing the question. We can look for external
evidence and scriptural antecedents, and go back for instance to Daniel.
This is how historians tend to act. There is nothing wrong with this
approach. The second approach will concentrate rather on an internal study
of the gospels, in view of ascertaining what is going on there. The second
approach lets the texts speak for themselves. This is a more literary
I think that the historical approach has been thoroughly discussed. I have
nothing to contribute to it. I have something to say, however, on the
literary approach. Is it permissible to discuss this new approach on a list
reserved for historians? Would anyone be interested in an internal study of