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

8245Re: [GTh] Re: Son of Man

Expand Messages
  • Michael Grondin
    Oct 2, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Paul writes to Maurice:
      > I agree with your important observations on "son of man" in Thomas.
      > L.44 could have employed the term but does not. L.86 observes the
      > irony that animals have homes but people do not. L.106 usage is not
      > messianic. Apparently the author is unfamiliar with "son of man" as a
      > messianic title.

      I would say rather that the author has used 'sons of Man' (capital 'M') as
      a designation for both Jesus and his disciples. In L.86, for example, it
      surely would have been seen as patently false that people in general
      don't have homes. But itinerants don't, and that seems to have been
      the recognized life-style of Jesus and his early disciples, and one that
      was recommended in GTh. (L.42 can be read as "Become itinerant.")

      In Thomas, the definite article 'the' apparently tells us when the authors
      were thinking of human beings, and when they were thinking of this special
      class of (holy) itinerants. In L.28.3, for example, it's just 'sons of men',
      so that's anybody. But in saying in L.106 that "You will become sons of Man"
      (capitalization indicating presence of definite article), it's doubly
      apparent that what's being talked about is becoming something that one
      is _not_ to begin with. But since everyone is a child of small-m man to
      begin with, being a child of big-m Man must be something else. This is
      reinforced by the theme that when one is born, he/she is "two", but that
      by "making the two one", one becomes a "son of Man". If "the two" be
      identified as materiality versus spirituality, then the GTh advice is
      plainly to choose the spiritual over the material, rather than attempt to
      satisfy both. A natural result of this advice would be to have no fixed
      home, but rather to become an itinerant preacher (the speaking against
      whom, since that person would presumably be a voice of the holy spirit,
      would be unforgiveable, ala L.44.)

      What would be important to know, in terms of this analysis, is whether
      Aramaic or the Syriac family had a definite article, or something that
      functioned as such. Hopefully, Steven or Jack can advise.

      Mike Grondin
      Mt. Clemens, MI
    • Show all 26 messages in this topic