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

Son of Man and Son of God

Expand Messages
  • Joseph Codsi
    Rikk Watts wrote: ***Actually, I think Moule said that though SoM is often claimed to be a most unusual construction it was in fact no more cumbersome than ho
    Message 1 of 1 , May 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Rikk Watts wrote:

      ***Actually, I think Moule said that though SoM is often claimed to be a
      most
      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
      approach.
      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
      the gospel?

      Peace,
      Joseph
      ===============
      Joseph Codsi
      Beirut, Lebanon
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.