8242Re: [GTh] Son of Man
- Oct 2, 2008
----- Original Message -----
From: "jmgcormier" <cobby@...>
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 11:48 AM
Subject: Re: [GTh] Son of Man
> Thank you Steven and Jack for your thoughts on the "Son of Man". I
> hope other members will be just as forthcoming as both of you have
> been while I struggle to keep pace with your flood of "great leads"
> On Steven's points, could I perhaps ask your opinion on the effect
> you see in Thomas having dropped the "of Man" part of "Son of Man"
> in logion 44 from its likely sources in Matt 12:31 and Luke 12:10 to
> the average Aramaic / Syriac reader . in short, if "Son of Man"
> rings of "someone" or perhaps "anyone" (essentially "a" person
> largely unspecified) in these early languages, then, as logion 44
> reads from the pen of Thomas, who might "the" Son (more specifically
> designated) sound as though its referring to when read by the same
> Aramaic / Syriac raders? Thomas does not mention anyone specific
> as "a" or "the" son throughout his gospel, so we have no reason to
> believe that "son" necessarily refers to Jesus except for the
> capitalized "S" later utilized by the manuscript's translators . in
> fact, in logion 16, "Father" and "Son" are not even in agreement in
> their persuasions, which suggests even further that we might not be
> talking here of God the Father and Jesus the Son ! So what might you
> think Thomas is implying in logion 44 (if anything) when he drops
> the "of Man" part of his source material and simply refers to "the
> And on Jack's point about "There was a considerable influence by
> Zoroastrianism on Judaism as a result to the Babylonian Captivity
> after which they brought the Enochian traditions to Jerusalem upon
> the return." (which I think may be very closely related to Steven's
> explanation), I am left wondering if Zoroastrianism in turn might
> have had an idiomatic grammatical expression or perhaps a "son of
> deity designation" similar to that of the Aramaic / Syriac's "Son of
> Man" which was brought back to Jerusalem following the captivity,
> and which might have given a prominent rise to this expression and
> its use in the Judeo-Christian milieu ? Thoughts Jack ? (or from
> any of the other members on the list ?)
> Maurice Cormier
> PS - thank you Steven for your source material and dictionary
> references, and Jack for your Matthean incidence of "Son of Man"
'There is a paper called "Enmeduranki and Related Matters" in the Journal of
Cuneiform Studies. See:
...and see if you think that the......."Foremost son, [....], king of
justice, reliable shepherd, who keeps the land's foundations secure,"
...might sound like Enoch's (counterpart to Enmeduranki) Bar Nasha.
Idioms are cultural and often change over time and geographically. Daniel
and Enoch were originally written in "Biblical Aramaic" a form of Achaeminid
Imperial and Old Judean Aramaic...as was the language of Jesus and the
lingua franca of the 1st century was a Western Dialect. I don't know if
"bar nasha" later meant the same in Syriac which is a later Eastern form.
That could explain the "just a regular guy" meaning in Syriac into which I
think the original Western Aramaic "proto-Thomas" may have been translated
somewhere around Edessa. If that is the case, the GoT may have had a
trajectory and editing life from Judean Aramaic to Syriac to Greek to Coptic
and that is tough on idiom...sort of like the Logion 55 "HATE (Coptic
Meste/Greek Misei) your mom and dad.." thing for Aramaic SANAH for "set
Sure gets tricky.
San Antonio, TX
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>