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

Re: [GTh] Son of Man

Expand Messages
  • Jack Kilmon
    ... From: Steven Ring To: Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 6:14 PM Subject: Re: [GTh] Son of Man ... Hi
    Message 1 of 26 , Oct 2, 2008
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Steven Ring" <steven.ring@...>
      To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 6:14 PM
      Subject: Re: [GTh] Son of Man


      > Dear Maurice,
      >
      > As a Syricist, I can help you out here.
      > The term, 'bar nasha' = 'son of man' is idiomatic in Aramaic and unique
      > to that language and its dialects, like Syriac. It has no single
      > translation into English, but it often works the same way as the
      > indefinite pronoun 'one' in an English sentence, for example: 'One has
      > no-where to rest ones head' (Sorry about the pretentious way this
      > sounds, but this is how 'bar nasha' = 'son of man' often works in
      > Aramaic.)
      > In other gospel contexts, 'bar nasha' can mean 'someone' or 'anyone' or
      > even just 'a human being' as it does in the Aramaic OT book of Daniel,
      > (Dan7.13).
      > Although I am a Christian and I agree that many Christians interpret
      > this term just as you say, I would say that the usual Christian
      > definitions of this term are quite wrong.
      > Michael Sokoloff's dictionary of Palestinian Aramaic and Jastrow's
      > dictionary are very useful books. Should you want to look them up these
      > references are:
      >
      > A dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine period / by
      > Michael Sokoloff. 1990
      > A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the
      > Midrashic literature. / by Marcus JASTROW. 1886-1903
      >
      > Best regards,
      > Steven Ring.

      Hi Steven:

      I think the Bar Nasha designation may go a bit deeper than theidiom for "a
      human."

      Forgive me for the length of this and also, as the "follow the Aramaic" guy,
      for use of "Yeshua" instead of "Jesus."

      There is a ton of literature on Yeshua's use of his self-description as the
      bar nasha (Son of Man) and disagreements on what that meant. If the Dead
      Sea Scroll corpus is a good barometer, the late 2nd temple period saw an
      emergence of Daniel-Enochian fervor. In both Daniel and the Enochian
      literature, the "son of man" plays a central role.

      Yeshua himself, NOT ONCE, refers to himself with certainty as the Messiah
      but instead refers to himself as the bar nasha/ben adam of Daniel and
      Enoch..."coming on the clouds, etc." It was Paul of Tarsus...hostile to the
      Nazarenes, who conferred the name of XRISTOS on Yeshua in his reconstruction
      of Yeshua as the Pauline "Christ Crucified."

      The cradle from which both Jewish and Christian "mysticism" arose was
      Enochian apocalypticism, the same cradle from which post-destruction Ma'asei
      Merkavah (which would eventually develop into Kabbala) and the Hekhalot
      literature arose which deals with "mystical" ascents into heaven.

      Anyone pursuing the ancient Jewish sources from which the Nazarenes arose,
      should read the considerable Enochian literary corpus now available thanks
      to the Qumran texts. The Books of Enoch and their related texts, Jubilees,
      Giants, Weeks, Parables, Watchers, Testimonies of the 12 Patriarchs, Dreams,
      etc. Enochian apocalypticism is a reflection of a Mesopotamian alternative
      to Mosaic" Judaism with its focus on Enmeduranki, the 7th antediluvian king
      of Sippar in the Sumerian Chronicles and a counterpart (or model) for Enoch.

      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. The Jerusalem priests at that time hated the
      Enochian Jews (and it is my position that Jesus was an Enochian Jew) who
      supported the Maccabees thereby gaining favor with the Hasmoneans. These
      Enochian Jews became, IMO, the Essenes who subsequently developed serious
      issues with the Hasmonean priest-kings. I don't think anyone would argue
      that the Dead Sea Scrolls are not strongly Enochian.

      The Jewish Nazarenes ("branchers") were heirs, IMO, to the Enochian
      traditions but Gentile Christianity imported a constellation of influences
      from Graeco-Roman sources. That Enochian Judaism was alternative to Mosaic
      nomian Judaeism can explain why Paul appears anti-nomian and why Enoch was
      not included in the Rabbinical canon.

      Quoted in the Book of Jude:

      "And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones To execute
      judgement upon all, And to destroy all the ungodly: And to convict all flesh
      of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, And
      of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him."
      (Enoch 1:9)

      Other references to the SON OF MAN in Enoch:

      "And there I saw One who had a head of days, And His head was white like
      wool, And with Him was another being whose countenance had the appearance of
      a man, And his face was full of graciousness, like one of the holy angels. 2
      And I asked the angel who went with me and showed me all the hidden things,
      concerning that 3 Son of Man, who he was, and whence he was, (and) why he
      went with the Ancient of Days? And he answered and said unto me: This
      is the Son of Man who hath righteousness, With whom dwelleth righteousness,
      And who revealeth all the treasures of that which is hidden, Because the
      Lord of Hosts hath chosen him, And whose lot hath the pre-eminence before
      the Lord of Hosts in uprightness for ever." (Part 8 Chapter 46:1-3)

      1 And in that place I saw the fountain of righteousness Which was
      inexhaustible: And around it were many fountains of wisdom: And all the
      thirsty drank of them, And were filled with wisdom, And their dwellings were
      with the righteous and holy and elect. 2 And at that hour that Son of Man
      was named In the presence of the Lord of Hosts, And his name before the
      Ancient of Days. 3 Yea, before the sun and the signs were created, Before
      the stars of the heaven were made, His name
      was named before the Lord of Hosts. 4 He shall be a staff to the righteous
      whereon to stay themselves and not fall, And he shall be the light of the
      Gentiles, And the hope of those who are troubled of heart. 5 All who dwell
      on earth shall fall down and worship before him, And will praise and bless
      and celebrate with song the Lord of Hosts. 6 And for this reason hath he
      been chosen and hidden before Him, Before the creation of the world and for
      evermore. 7 And the wisdom of the Lord of Hosts hath revealed him to the
      holy and righteous; For he hath preserved the lot of the righteous, Because
      they have hated and despised this world of unrighteousness, And have hated
      all its works and ways in the name of the Lord of Hosts: For in his name
      they are saved, And according to his good pleasure hath it been in regard to
      their life. (Part 8 Chapter 48:1-7)

      The Book of Daniel, like Enoch, was written originally in Aramaic. It
      contains the most famous reference to the SON OF MAN.

      Daniel 7:13-14 (WEB)
      13 חזה הוית בחזוי ליליא וארו עם־ענני שׁמיא כבר אנשׁ אתה הוה ועד־עתיק יומיא
      מטה וקדמוהי הקרבוהי׃ 14 ולה יהיב שׁלטן ויקר ומלכו וכל עממיא אמיא ולשׁניא לה
      יפלחון שׁלטנה שׁלטן עלם די־לא יעדה ומלכותה פ

      13 I saw in the night-visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of
      the sky one like a son of man (כבר אנש [kibar 'anash]), and he came even to
      the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. 14 There was
      given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations,
      and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
      which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be
      destroyed.

      Yeshua spoke of himself, just as above in Daniel, at Matthew 24:30 And
      then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all
      the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in
      the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

      .....and at Matthew 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said:
      nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting
      on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

      As you can see, Yeshua refers to himself as the SON OF MAN (Aramaic bar
      nasha) of Daniel and Enoch andnot, IMO, as simply the bar nash/a idiom for
      "just a guy."


      Now let's see how many times Yeshua calls himself the bar nasha (son of
      man)...he never referred to himself with certainty or non-cryptically as
      the Messiah.

      Matthew 8:20 And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds
      of the air [have] nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay [his]
      head.

      Matthew 9:6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to
      forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy
      bed, and go unto thine house.

      Matthew 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into
      another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities
      of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

      Matthew 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold
      a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But
      wisdom is justified of her children.

      Matthew 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

      Matthew 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall
      be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not
      be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the [world] to come.

      Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's
      belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart
      of the earth.

      Matthew 13:37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed
      is the Son of man;

      Matthew 13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall
      gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do
      iniquity;

      Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked
      his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

      Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with
      his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

      Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which
      shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his
      kingdom.

      Matthew 17:9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them,
      saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from
      the dead.

      Matthew 17:12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew
      him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also
      the Son of man suffer of them.

      Matthew 17:22 And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son
      of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men:

      Matthew 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

      Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye
      which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in
      the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the
      twelve tribes of Israel.

      Matthew 20:18 Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be
      betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn
      him to death,

      Matthew 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to
      minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

      Matthew 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even
      unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

      Matthew 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven:
      and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son
      of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. (this is
      right out of Enoch 7)

      Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noe [were], so shall also the coming of
      the Son of man be.

      Matthew 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so
      shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

      Matthew 24:44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think
      not the Son of man cometh.

      Matthew 25:13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour
      wherein the Son of man cometh.

      Matthew 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy
      angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

      Matthew 26:2 Ye know that after two days is [the feast of] the passover,
      and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.

      Matthew 26:24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto
      that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man
      if he had not been born.

      Matthew 26:45 Then cometh he to his disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep
      on now, and take [your] rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of
      Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.

      Matthew 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto
      you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of
      power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

      Yeshua is reported by Matthew alone to have claimed to have been the SON OF
      MAN (bar nasha) of Daniel and Enoch THIRTY TIMES....so why don't we believe
      him? Why do we believe Paul of Tarsus instead?

      An Enochian Jew, in the late second temple period, is one who believed in
      the Enochian apocalyptic such as the Essenes and Yohanan haMatbil.

      Jesus/Yeshua was indeed, IMO, an apocalyptic herald of the imminent malkutha
      d'alaha (Kingdom of God) in the Enochian tradition and, as such, outside of
      "normative" Mosaic Judaism. I think there are other indicators that this
      "Son of Man" from the ancient of days could be "Lord of the Sabbath" as well
      as the Mosaic laws (seen in the formula "It is written" or "You have
      heard"...ABC "but *I* tell you"...XYZ).

      So yes, he was apocalyptic but, in his mind, just not a "sage" but THE bar
      nasha that was expected by Yohanan/John (Matthew 11:3), the apocalyptic
      redeemer of Daniel 7:13-14.

      The Gospel of Thomas, as wisdom literature, shows clear evidence of having
      had an Aramaic pre-cursor which I think was pre-Markan. I think Logion 86
      should be viewed in this aspect.

      shlama

      Jack

      Jack Kilmon
      San Antonio, TX
    • jmgcormier
      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
      Message 2 of 26 , Oct 2, 2008
        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
        Son"?

        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"
        references.
      • Jack Kilmon
        ... From: jmgcormier To: Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 11:48 AM Subject: Re: [GTh] Son of Man ... There is
        Message 3 of 26 , Oct 2, 2008
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "jmgcormier" <cobby@...>
          To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
          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
          > Son"?
          >
          > 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"
          > references.

          'There is a paper called "Enmeduranki and Related Matters" in the Journal of
          Cuneiform Studies. See:

          http://hamblinwj.byu.edu/class/Ascent/03Mesop/03Mtexts/Enmeduranki.pdf

          ...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
          aside."

          Sure gets tricky.

          Jack

          Jack Kilmon
          San Antonio, TX
        • Paul Lanier
          ... is to suggest that Son of Man as used in the New Testament is generally a way of linking up Jesus of Nazareth with the promised Messiah as announced by
          Message 4 of 26 , Oct 2, 2008
            --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "jmgcormier" <cobby@...> wrote:
            >
            > The more traditional interpretation (certainly the Christian one)
            is to suggest that "Son of Man" as used in the New Testament is
            generally a way of linking up Jesus of Nazareth with the promised
            Messiah as announced by the prophets of the Old Testament (especially
            in Ezekiel where the expression is used unsparingly – close to a
            hundred times). The other (less popularized) interpretation of "Son of
            Man" is to suggest that because "Son of Man" literally means "Son of
            Adam" (Ben-Adam), that it is meant to convey the human or material
            nature of Jesus as opposed to his spiritual nature.

            Hi Maurice,

            Thank you for your post. I think the short answer is basically what
            you state, although I believe "son of man" usually means simply
            "person" or "human being" (no contrast with spirit intended). A
            literal rendering would be "descendant of Adam." At least that seems
            to be the clear context in the older Hebrew scriptures. So Job 25:5-6:

            Behold, even the moon has no brightness,
            And the stars are not pure in his sight;
            How much less man ['enowsh], who is a worm!
            The son of man [ben-'adam], who is a worm!

            Let us hope "worm" does not refer to a future messiah! This example,
            and others, are cited in a Wikipedia article that includes many fine
            examples, all interlinear:

            Son of man. (2008, September 25). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.
            Retrieved 16:37, October 2, 2008, from
            http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Son_of_man&oldid=240799337

            (One thing this article lacks is a summary of LXX usage. I have not
            made a complete study, but it appears LXX simply carries over "son of
            man" as "uie anthrwpou").

            In my opinion, usage in more recent Hebrew scriptures reflects the
            same basic meaning: human being. In Ezekiel "son of man," although
            used repeatedly, does not seem to be any sort of title. It seems to
            serve as a constant reminder to Ezekiel that he is a mere human being
            who receives instruction from a superior spiritual being. And despite
            differing Christian interpretation, "son of man" in Daniel (c.
            mid-second century BCE) still refers to a human being:

            * As I watched in the night visions, I saw one like a human being
            coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One and
            was presented before him (Dan 7:13, NRSV).

            * But he said to me, `Understand, O mortal [uie "son" (G5207);
            anthrwpou "of man" (G444)], that the vision is for the time of the
            end' (Dan 8:17).

            Arguments that identify Daniel's "son of man," as Jesus, while
            ubiquitous, do not convince. I would argue that widespread reference
            to Dan 7:13, as if usage there somehow differs from that in Dan 8:17,
            demonstrates only that adherents of this argument have no real case.

            The real trajectory that develops "son of man" as some sort of title,
            possibly messianic, begins in 1 Enoch (c.200 BCE - 50 CE). For example:

            (The translation of 1 Enoch here is that of RH Charles, online at:
            http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/ot/pseudo/enoch.htm)

            And there I saw One who had a head of days,
            And His head was white like wool,
            And with Him was another being whose countenance had the appearance of
            a man,
            And his face was full of graciousness, like one of the holy angels.
            And I asked the angel who went with me and showed me all the hidden
            things, concerning that 3 Son of Man, who he was, and whence he was,
            (and) why he went with the Head of Days? And he answered and said unto me:
            This is the son of Man who hath righteousness,
            With whom dwelleth righteousness,
            And who revealeth all the treasures of that which is hidden,
            Because the Lord of Spirits hath chosen him,
            And whose lot hath the pre-eminence before the Lord of Spirits in
            uprightness for ever.
            (1 Enoch 46:1-3)

            Here the author begins an elaboration of Dan 7:13 that looks like the
            source of a later Christian doctrine of final judgment:

            For from the beginning the Son of Man was hidden,
            And the Most High preserved him in the presence of His might,
            And revealed him to the elect.
            And the congregation of the elect and holy shall be sown,
            And all the elect shall stand before him on that day.
            And all the kings and the mighty and the exalted and those who rule
            the earth
            Shall fall down before him on their faces,
            And worship and set their hope upon that Son of Man,
            And petition him and supplicate for mercy at his hands.
            (1 Enoch 62:7-9)

            However this Son of Man is often associated with a "Lord of Spirits"
            in 1 Enoch. Two examples that illustrate how closely 1 Enoth themes
            resemble those of the New Testament:

            And the Lord of Spirits will abide over them,
            And with that Son of Man shall they eat
            And lie down and rise up for ever and ever.
            And the righteous and elect shall have risen from the earth,
            And ceased to be of downcast countenance.
            And they shall have been clothed with garments of glory,
            And these shall be the garments of life from the Lord of Spirits:
            And your garments shall not grow old,
            Nor your glory pass away before the Lord of Spirits.
            (1 Enoch 62:14-16)

            When the congregation of the righteous shall appear,
            And sinners shall be judged for their sins,
            And shall be driven from the face of the earth:
            And when the Righteous One shall appear before the eyes of the righteous,
            Whose elect works hang upon the Lord of Spirits,
            And light shall appear to the righteous and the elect who dwell on the
            earth,
            Where then will be the dwelling of the sinners,
            And where the resting-place of those who have denied the Lord of Spirits?
            It had been good for them if they had not been born.
            When the secrets of the righteous shall be revealed and the sinners
            judged,
            And the godless driven from the presence of the righteous and elect,
            From that time those that possess the earth shall no longer be
            powerful and exalted:
            And they shall not be able to behold the face of the holy,
            For the Lord of Spirits has caused His light to appear
            On the face of the holy, righteous, and elect.
            (1 Enoch 38:1-4)

            These I think clearly demonstrate that usage of "son of man" as a
            messianic title began with 1 Enoch and was carried into the New
            Testament by the gospel authors. Paul never uses this term.

            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.

            regards,
            Paul Lanier
          • Steven Ring
            Hi Paul, It is not clear to me that the interesting 1 Enoch translations from middle Aramaic you quoted, start to move the meaning of the Aramaic idiom bar
            Message 5 of 26 , Oct 2, 2008
              Hi Paul,

              It is not clear to me that the interesting 1 Enoch translations from
              middle Aramaic you quoted, start to move the meaning of the Aramaic
              idiom 'bar nasha' = 'son of man' away from the semantic range previously
              indicated, i.e. 'one', 'someone' 'anyone' and 'human being'. In
              Christian circles there are other factors at play which we should
              perhaps bear in mind. These make it almost irresistible for Christians
              not to identify 'son of man' in some way or other with the Son, as the
              second person in the trinitarian theological system. Personally I think
              this theological factor has interfered with the way the idiom, 'son of
              man' has come to be understood.

              There, I opened another can of worms. But perhaps it is better to find
              out what scripture really says and struggle with that, than it is to
              seek easy comfort and the company of the many.

              That Paul never uses 'son of man' is (I think) because he wrote his
              letters in Greek, a language where this Aramaic idiom has no meaning.
              The gospels on the other hand are full of Aramaic idioms which have been
              sometimes rendered into Greek literally and sometimes interpreted,
              sometimes differently in different Greek gospels. 'son of man' is one
              such idiom, other examples include;
              Aramaic --------------- English
              'to know visitation' = 'to know' or 'to recognize'
              'the head' = 'the name' This idiom found in Matthew was also embedded in
              Paul's mind as a bilingual and he interpreted it in his Greek letters.
              'the eye' = 'the inner self'' Perhaps Paul got his 'crucify the carnal
              nature' terminology from here.
              'the hand' = 'companion/friend/spouse' How different would the history
              of king Henry VIIIth have been if he had known this one?

              Food for thought anyway.

              All the best,
              Steven.



              Paul Lanier wrote:
              >
              > --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com <mailto:gthomas%40yahoogroups.com>,
              > "jmgcormier" <cobby@...> wrote:
              > >
              > > The more traditional interpretation (certainly the Christian one)
              > is to suggest that "Son of Man" as used in the New Testament is
              > generally a way of linking up Jesus of Nazareth with the promised
              > Messiah as announced by the prophets of the Old Testament (especially
              > in Ezekiel where the expression is used unsparingly – close to a
              > hundred times). The other (less popularized) interpretation of "Son of
              > Man" is to suggest that because "Son of Man" literally means "Son of
              > Adam" (Ben-Adam), that it is meant to convey the human or material
              > nature of Jesus as opposed to his spiritual nature.
              >
              > Hi Maurice,
              >
              > Thank you for your post. I think the short answer is basically what
              > you state, although I believe "son of man" usually means simply
              > "person" or "human being" (no contrast with spirit intended). A
              > literal rendering would be "descendant of Adam." At least that seems
              > to be the clear context in the older Hebrew scriptures. So Job 25:5-6:
              >
              > Behold, even the moon has no brightness,
              > And the stars are not pure in his sight;
              > How much less man ['enowsh], who is a worm!
              > The son of man [ben-'adam], who is a worm!
              >
              > Let us hope "worm" does not refer to a future messiah! This example,
              > and others, are cited in a Wikipedia article that includes many fine
              > examples, all interlinear:
              >
              > Son of man. (2008, September 25). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.
              > Retrieved 16:37, October 2, 2008, from
              > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Son_of_man&oldid=240799337
              > <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Son_of_man&oldid=240799337>
              >
              > (One thing this article lacks is a summary of LXX usage. I have not
              > made a complete study, but it appears LXX simply carries over "son of
              > man" as "uie anthrwpou").
              >
              > In my opinion, usage in more recent Hebrew scriptures reflects the
              > same basic meaning: human being. In Ezekiel "son of man," although
              > used repeatedly, does not seem to be any sort of title. It seems to
              > serve as a constant reminder to Ezekiel that he is a mere human being
              > who receives instruction from a superior spiritual being. And despite
              > differing Christian interpretation, "son of man" in Daniel (c.
              > mid-second century BCE) still refers to a human being:
              >
              > * As I watched in the night visions, I saw one like a human being
              > coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One and
              > was presented before him (Dan 7:13, NRSV).
              >
              > * But he said to me, `Understand, O mortal [uie "son" (G5207);
              > anthrwpou "of man" (G444)], that the vision is for the time of the
              > end' (Dan 8:17).
              >
              > Arguments that identify Daniel's "son of man," as Jesus, while
              > ubiquitous, do not convince. I would argue that widespread reference
              > to Dan 7:13, as if usage there somehow differs from that in Dan 8:17,
              > demonstrates only that adherents of this argument have no real case.
              >
              > The real trajectory that develops "son of man" as some sort of title,
              > possibly messianic, begins in 1 Enoch (c.200 BCE - 50 CE). For example:
              >
              > (The translation of 1 Enoch here is that of RH Charles, online at:
              > http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/ot/pseudo/enoch.htm
              > <http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/ot/pseudo/enoch.htm>)
              >
              > And there I saw One who had a head of days,
              > And His head was white like wool,
              > And with Him was another being whose countenance had the appearance of
              > a man,
              > And his face was full of graciousness, like one of the holy angels.
              > And I asked the angel who went with me and showed me all the hidden
              > things, concerning that 3 Son of Man, who he was, and whence he was,
              > (and) why he went with the Head of Days? And he answered and said unto me:
              > This is the son of Man who hath righteousness,
              > With whom dwelleth righteousness,
              > And who revealeth all the treasures of that which is hidden,
              > Because the Lord of Spirits hath chosen him,
              > And whose lot hath the pre-eminence before the Lord of Spirits in
              > uprightness for ever.
              > (1 Enoch 46:1-3)
              >
              > Here the author begins an elaboration of Dan 7:13 that looks like the
              > source of a later Christian doctrine of final judgment:
              >
              > For from the beginning the Son of Man was hidden,
              > And the Most High preserved him in the presence of His might,
              > And revealed him to the elect.
              > And the congregation of the elect and holy shall be sown,
              > And all the elect shall stand before him on that day.
              > And all the kings and the mighty and the exalted and those who rule
              > the earth
              > Shall fall down before him on their faces,
              > And worship and set their hope upon that Son of Man,
              > And petition him and supplicate for mercy at his hands.
              > (1 Enoch 62:7-9)
              >
              > However this Son of Man is often associated with a "Lord of Spirits"
              > in 1 Enoch. Two examples that illustrate how closely 1 Enoth themes
              > resemble those of the New Testament:
              >
              > And the Lord of Spirits will abide over them,
              > And with that Son of Man shall they eat
              > And lie down and rise up for ever and ever.
              > And the righteous and elect shall have risen from the earth,
              > And ceased to be of downcast countenance.
              > And they shall have been clothed with garments of glory,
              > And these shall be the garments of life from the Lord of Spirits:
              > And your garments shall not grow old,
              > Nor your glory pass away before the Lord of Spirits.
              > (1 Enoch 62:14-16)
              >
              > When the congregation of the righteous shall appear,
              > And sinners shall be judged for their sins,
              > And shall be driven from the face of the earth:
              > And when the Righteous One shall appear before the eyes of the righteous,
              > Whose elect works hang upon the Lord of Spirits,
              > And light shall appear to the righteous and the elect who dwell on the
              > earth,
              > Where then will be the dwelling of the sinners,
              > And where the resting-place of those who have denied the Lord of Spirits?
              > It had been good for them if they had not been born.
              > When the secrets of the righteous shall be revealed and the sinners
              > judged,
              > And the godless driven from the presence of the righteous and elect,
              > >From that time those that possess the earth shall no longer be
              > powerful and exalted:
              > And they shall not be able to behold the face of the holy,
              > For the Lord of Spirits has caused His light to appear
              > On the face of the holy, righteous, and elect.
              > (1 Enoch 38:1-4)
              >
              > These I think clearly demonstrate that usage of "son of man" as a
              > messianic title began with 1 Enoch and was carried into the New
              > Testament by the gospel authors. Paul never uses this term.
              >
              > 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.
              >
              > regards,
              > Paul Lanier
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              >
              >
              > No virus found in this incoming message.
              > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
              > Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.7.5/1702 - Release Date: 01/10/2008 09:05
              >
              >
            • Michael Grondin
              ... 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
              Message 6 of 26 , Oct 2, 2008
                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
              • Steven Ring
                Hi Michael, Syriac and Aramaic nouns don t really take the article anything like the way they do in English, rather in an English translation, the article
                Message 7 of 26 , Oct 2, 2008
                  Hi Michael,

                  Syriac and Aramaic nouns don't really take the article anything like the
                  way they do in English, rather in an English translation, the article
                  (definite or indefinite) can normally be worked out from the Aramaic
                  context. The definite article would normally be attached to an Aramaic
                  noun in an English translation, unless there are signs in the context
                  that this would be inappropriate. Where we would insist on the
                  indefinite article in English, there are less direct ways of doing the
                  same thing in Aramaic. I have put an example below..

                  If GT started from, or was transmitted through the Syriac language, it
                  may not be very secure to build an argument on the article appearing in
                  a subsequent English translation!

                  Best regards,
                  Steven.

                  Aramaic can express ideas like a single instance of something or a
                  particular kind of something which, depending on the context, would
                  demand the indefinite article when translated into English. An adjective
                  or a number can be associated with a noun to convey the indefinite
                  article, for example;
                  'naphsha kina' = 'upright man' This would normally attract the
                  indefinite article in a translation, 'an upright man' if the context was
                  trying to distinguish him from the others using the adjective 'kina' =
                  'upright'
                  'nasha _h_ad' = 'one man' or 'a man' i.e a particular man in a group of men.
                  There are also other, more subtle ways to convey the indefinite article
                  idea in Aramaic using the absolute state of a noun.

                  Michael Grondin wrote:
                  >
                  > 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
                  >
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  >
                  >
                  > No virus found in this incoming message.
                  > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
                  > Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.7.5/1703 - Release Date: 02/10/2008 07:46
                  >
                  >
                • Michael Grondin
                  ... Thanks for the information, Steven. No, I wasn t arguing from an English translation. I never do. In Coptic, the letter p attached to a masculine noun
                  Message 8 of 26 , Oct 2, 2008
                    > If GT started from, or was transmitted through the Syriac language, it
                    > may not be very secure to build an argument on the article appearing
                    > in a subsequent English translation!

                    Thanks for the information, Steven. No, I wasn't arguing from an English
                    translation. I never do. In Coptic, the letter 'p' attached to a masculine
                    noun
                    like 'rwme' ('man') represents the definite article 'the'. But if the noun
                    isn't
                    qualified by a who-phrase (as in, e.g., 'the man who came to dinner'),
                    then the definite article functions as an untranslated capitalizer. Thus, in
                    my
                    note, whenever I used 'Man' instead of 'man', the capital 'M' indicated that
                    the word in that context was 'p-rwme', and that it was unqualified.

                    The difference between Coptic and Greek, which had the definite article,
                    and the Syriac languages (also Latin, I think), which didn't, may account
                    for some interesting twists of interpretation. It seems fairly clear,
                    however,
                    that what the GThom authors were trying to say was that anyone could
                    become a "son/child of Man", which apparently for them meant an
                    itinerant preacher/healer on the model of Jesus.

                    Regards,
                    Mike
                  • Paul Lanier
                    ... middle Aramaic you quoted, start to move the meaning of the Aramaic idiom bar nasha = son of man away from the semantic range previously indicated,
                    Message 9 of 26 , Oct 2, 2008
                      --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, Steven Ring <steven.ring@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > It is not clear to me that the interesting 1 Enoch translations from
                      middle Aramaic you quoted, start to move the meaning of the Aramaic
                      idiom 'bar nasha' = 'son of man' away from the semantic range previously
                      indicated, i.e. 'one', 'someone' 'anyone' and 'human being'. In
                      Christian circles there are other factors at play which we should
                      perhaps bear in mind. These make it almost irresistible for Christians
                      not to identify 'son of man' in some way or other with the Son, as the
                      second person in the trinitarian theological system. Personally I think
                      this theological factor has interfered with the way the idiom, 'son of
                      man' has come to be understood.

                      Hi Steven,

                      I completely agree theology has distorted 'son of man' by using the
                      phrase as a title rather than an idiom for 'human being.' In the NT
                      this peculiar usage begin with Mark, but I think it has strong roots
                      in 1 Enoch. That is the way I read the context in 1 Enoch, but I agree
                      it is not always clear. For example:

                      * When they see that Son of Man Sitting on the throne of his glory (62:5)

                      * And he sat on the throne of his glory, And the sum of judgement was
                      given unto the Son of Man (69:27)

                      * And he (i.e. the angel) came to me and greeted me with His voice,
                      and said unto me ' This is the Son of Man who is born unto
                      righteousness, And righteousness abides over him (71:14)

                      In these 'son of man' carries attributes later applied to Jesus.
                      Interestingly, it is not clear that 'messiah' is one of those attributes.

                      I do think it is interesting that some very early
                      church fathers apparently approved of 1 Enoch. I would suggest their
                      doctrines of hell are difficult to derive from the NT, but obvious in
                      1 Enoch. And of course Jude 14-15 parallels 1 Enoch 1:9. All of this
                      indicates 1 Enoch was authoritative for some early church leaders.

                      This leads me to wonder how doctrines of 1 Enoch became authoritative
                      for some communities. Was 1 Enoch authoritative for some Jewish
                      Christian communities, but not for Thomas? And why would that be? Did
                      early Jewish Christians who held 1 Enoch authoritative, but who never
                      met Jesus, adapt Enochian theology? Even Paul uses several Enochian
                      themes. But not apparently 'son of man.' I would suggest Paul was
                      unfamiliar with that designation (although his opponents may have used
                      it, if the Enochian 'son of man' title derives from a Qumran community
                      of righteousness). LXX repeatedly renders 'son of man' as 'uie
                      anthrwpou,' so Paul must have been familiar it. Paul's title for
                      Jesus, of course, is 'Christos.'

                      regards,
                      Paul Lanier
                    • Paul Lanier
                      ... 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
                      Message 10 of 26 , Oct 2, 2008
                        --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Grondin" <mwgrondin@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > 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.")

                        Thanks, Mike, for this, and also for your convincing observation on
                        p-rwme (post 8247). Back to the drawing board!

                        regards,
                        Paul Lanier
                      • Steven Ring
                        Hi Paul, In the vast literature surrounding the DSS, I remember reading somewhere that the book of Enoch (amongst other DSS messianic works) plays upon the
                        Message 11 of 26 , Oct 3, 2008
                          Hi Paul,

                          In the vast literature surrounding the DSS, I remember reading somewhere
                          that the book of Enoch (amongst other DSS messianic works) plays upon
                          the imagery and terminology of the OT book of Daniel. Anyway, in my
                          view, this could explain the interpretive elements around 'son of man'
                          in the further quotations you cite. In other words, in the post-Daniel
                          but still pre-Christian period, the author of 1 Enoch explores who this
                          person described by Daniel might be. The gospels also employ the imagery
                          of Daniel and Isho` directly quotes Daniel in his teaching, e.g. in
                          Mt24, so 1 Enoch and the gospels come from a similar Aramaic cultural
                          context.

                          So, coming to the quotations you mentioned. These appear to me to be
                          closely linked to ideas in Daniel and not any attempt in Aramaic to turn
                          'son of man' into a proper noun associated with a specific person.

                          The subject of the use of 1 Enoch in early Christianity is a very
                          interesting one and I agree, it appears to have been an influential
                          text. In slow-time I will have a look around to see if there is any
                          evidence of 1 Enoch leaking into the Syriac tradition. It would not
                          surprise me if such evidence does exist, but I have never seen anything
                          published on that subject. The clincher in this case would be to find
                          precise quotations from surviving DSS Aramaic book of 1 Enoch embedded
                          in a Syriac patristic text. This would be further evidence, (and I have
                          already found plenty anyway) that the Syriac tradition preserves
                          primitive Semitic Christian texts from the pre-AD 70 period.

                          Best regards,
                          Steven.

                          Paul Lanier wrote:
                          >
                          > --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com <mailto:gthomas%40yahoogroups.com>,
                          > Steven Ring <steven.ring@...> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > It is not clear to me that the interesting 1 Enoch translations from
                          > middle Aramaic you quoted, start to move the meaning of the Aramaic
                          > idiom 'bar nasha' = 'son of man' away from the semantic range previously
                          > indicated, i.e. 'one', 'someone' 'anyone' and 'human being'. In
                          > Christian circles there are other factors at play which we should
                          > perhaps bear in mind. These make it almost irresistible for Christians
                          > not to identify 'son of man' in some way or other with the Son, as the
                          > second person in the trinitarian theological system. Personally I think
                          > this theological factor has interfered with the way the idiom, 'son of
                          > man' has come to be understood.
                          >
                          > Hi Steven,
                          >
                          > I completely agree theology has distorted 'son of man' by using the
                          > phrase as a title rather than an idiom for 'human being.' In the NT
                          > this peculiar usage begin with Mark, but I think it has strong roots
                          > in 1 Enoch. That is the way I read the context in 1 Enoch, but I agree
                          > it is not always clear. For example:
                          >
                          > * When they see that Son of Man Sitting on the throne of his glory (62:5)
                          >
                          > * And he sat on the throne of his glory, And the sum of judgement was
                          > given unto the Son of Man (69:27)
                          >
                          > * And he (i.e. the angel) came to me and greeted me with His voice,
                          > and said unto me ' This is the Son of Man who is born unto
                          > righteousness, And righteousness abides over him (71:14)
                          >
                          > In these 'son of man' carries attributes later applied to Jesus.
                          > Interestingly, it is not clear that 'messiah' is one of those attributes.
                          >
                          > I do think it is interesting that some very early
                          > church fathers apparently approved of 1 Enoch. I would suggest their
                          > doctrines of hell are difficult to derive from the NT, but obvious in
                          > 1 Enoch. And of course Jude 14-15 parallels 1 Enoch 1:9. All of this
                          > indicates 1 Enoch was authoritative for some early church leaders.
                          >
                          > This leads me to wonder how doctrines of 1 Enoch became authoritative
                          > for some communities. Was 1 Enoch authoritative for some Jewish
                          > Christian communities, but not for Thomas? And why would that be? Did
                          > early Jewish Christians who held 1 Enoch authoritative, but who never
                          > met Jesus, adapt Enochian theology? Even Paul uses several Enochian
                          > themes. But not apparently 'son of man.' I would suggest Paul was
                          > unfamiliar with that designation (although his opponents may have used
                          > it, if the Enochian 'son of man' title derives from a Qumran community
                          > of righteousness). LXX repeatedly renders 'son of man' as 'uie
                          > anthrwpou,' so Paul must have been familiar it. Paul's title for
                          > Jesus, of course, is 'Christos.'
                          >
                          > regards,
                          > Paul Lanier
                          >
                          >
                          > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          >
                          >
                          > No virus found in this incoming message.
                          > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
                          > Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.7.5/1703 - Release Date: 02/10/2008 07:46
                          >
                          >
                        • Jack Kilmon
                          ... From: Michael Grondin To: Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 2:42 PM Subject: Re: [GTh] Re: Son of Man
                          Message 12 of 26 , Oct 3, 2008
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: "Michael Grondin" <mwgrondin@...>
                            To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
                            Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 2:42 PM
                            Subject: Re: [GTh] Re: Son of Man


                            > 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

                            Hi Mike:

                            In Biblical and Judean Aramaic, in addition to the absolute and construct
                            state there is a determined state. The emphatic -a is postfixed rather than
                            prefixed as in the hebrew "ha-" as an aleph or a heh to act as the definite
                            article. In later dialects...to a lesser degree in Judean..and Steven can
                            talk about Syriac...the post-fixed determinative lost its "definite
                            articleness" in some cases to become the normal state of the noun. Son of
                            Man = Bar Nash; THE Son of Man = Bar Nasha.

                            Jack Kilmon
                          • Judy Redman
                            Mike you say ... Isn t this a bit too definitive? I think you need to say that when there is no who-phrase, the p (or t for a feminine noun) *may* function or
                            Message 13 of 26 , Oct 3, 2008
                              Mike you say
                              >
                              > Thanks for the information, Steven. No, I wasn't arguing from
                              > an English translation. I never do. In Coptic, the letter 'p'
                              > attached to a masculine noun like 'rwme' ('man') represents
                              > the definite article 'the'. But if the noun isn't qualified
                              > by a who-phrase (as in, e.g., 'the man who came to dinner'),
                              > then the definite article functions as an untranslated
                              > capitalizer. Thus, in my note, whenever I used 'Man' instead
                              > of 'man', the capital 'M' indicated that the word in that
                              > context was 'p-rwme', and that it was unqualified.

                              Isn't this a bit too definitive? I think you need to say that when there is
                              no who-phrase, the p (or t for a feminine noun) *may* function or maybe even
                              *often* or *usually* funcitons as an untranslated capitalizer, depending on
                              the context. It is certainly possible to use prwme and tpolis in a sentence
                              that would be translated "the man visited his brother in the city". To
                              translate this as "Man visited his brother in City" would clearly not be
                              sensible.

                              I think that the problem here is that both translations appear to be
                              possible and even in regular use in particular places and times, so the
                              reader needs to make decisions about which is the right one in the
                              particular context. Although I have not had time to look at the texts in
                              question, it would seem to me entirely possible that Thomas might sometimes
                              use it as a title and sometimes to indicate "a human being". And, of
                              course, what we decide makes more sense in any given context will depend on
                              our particular understandings of what kind of text Thomas is - gnostic,
                              mystic etc.

                              Judy

                              --
                              "Politics is the work we do to keep the world safe for our spirituality" -
                              Judith Plaskow, Phoenix Rising, 2000

                              Rev Judy Redman
                              Uniting Church Chaplain
                              University of New England Armidale 2351
                              ph: +61 2 6773 3739
                              fax: +61 2 6773 3749
                              web: http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~jredman2 and
                              http://judyredman.wordpress.com/
                              email: jredman2@...
                            • Michael Grondin
                              ... Agreed. From within Thomas, I m reminded of L.78.1 ( Why did you come out to the wilderness? ). ... If we re talking about p-rwme , then I think Man ,
                              Message 14 of 26 , Oct 3, 2008
                                Hi Judy, you wrote:

                                > I think you need to say that when there is no who-phrase, the p
                                > (or t for a feminine noun) *may* function or maybe even *often*
                                > or *usually* funcitons as an untranslated capitalizer, depending
                                > on the context.

                                Agreed. From within Thomas, I'm reminded of L.78.1 ("Why did
                                you come out to the wilderness?").

                                > I think that the problem here is that both translations appear to be
                                > possible and even in regular use in particular places and times, so the
                                > reader needs to make decisions about which is the right one in the
                                > particular context. Although I have not had time to look at the texts in
                                > question, it would seem to me entirely possible that Thomas might
                                > sometimes use it as a title and sometimes to indicate "a human being".

                                If we're talking about 'p-rwme', then I think 'Man', 'Humanity', 'Human
                                beings', even 'the human being' are pretty much interchangeable, but
                                not '_a_ human being', which I wouldn't use for that.

                                > And, of course, what we decide makes more sense in any given context
                                > will depend on our particular understandings of what kind of text Thomas
                                > is - gnostic, mystic etc.

                                Oh, I don't know about that. I think one can make these decisions based
                                on thematic consistency with other sayings whose meaning is pretty clear,
                                without having any particular understanding of what kind of text Thomas is.
                                At least, that's what I think I'm doing (:-)

                                Regards,
                                Mike
                              • Judy Redman
                                Mike, ... I was actually thinking about son of man, but you re right. I don t think p-rwme can be *a* human being. ... Sorry - what I was trying to say (I m
                                Message 15 of 26 , Oct 3, 2008
                                  Mike,
                                  >
                                  > > I think that the problem here is that both translations
                                  > appear to be
                                  > > possible and even in regular use in particular places and times, so
                                  > > the reader needs to make decisions about which is the right
                                  > one in the
                                  > > particular context. Although I have not had time to look
                                  > at the texts
                                  > > in question, it would seem to me entirely possible that
                                  > Thomas might
                                  > > sometimes use it as a title and sometimes to indicate "a
                                  > human being".
                                  >
                                  > If we're talking about 'p-rwme', then I think 'Man',
                                  > 'Humanity', 'Human beings', even 'the human being' are pretty
                                  > much interchangeable, but not '_a_ human being', which I
                                  > wouldn't use for that.

                                  I was actually thinking about son of man, but you're right. I don't think
                                  p-rwme can be *a* human being.

                                  >
                                  > > And, of course, what we decide makes more sense in any
                                  > given context
                                  > > will depend on our particular understandings of what kind of text
                                  > > Thomas is - gnostic, mystic etc.
                                  >
                                  > Oh, I don't know about that. I think one can make these
                                  > decisions based on thematic consistency with other sayings
                                  > whose meaning is pretty clear, without having any particular
                                  > understanding of what kind of text Thomas is.
                                  > At least, that's what I think I'm doing (:-)

                                  Sorry - what I was trying to say (I'm fighting a head cold and not thinking
                                  as clearly as I might) is that we bring particular assumptions about a text
                                  to the text and they influence how we translate it because, I think, they
                                  can influence what we see as pretty clear meanings. At the most general
                                  level, as was pointed out in the Thomas and Tatian thread, people who
                                  assume that Thomas is dependent tend to see as obvious that any verbatim
                                  bits demonstrate that Thomas follows the synoptics, when all that can really
                                  be said is that the passages are the same. I'm not accusing you of doing
                                  this, Mike, just saying that we need to be very careful to examine our
                                  preconceptions when we need to make choices about translation and, indeed,
                                  in deciding which passages are actually thematically consistent.

                                  Judy
                                • rj.godijn
                                  ... verbatim ... really ... Hi Judy, I realize your post wasn t really about synoptic-thomas relationship, but I really must respond to what you are saying
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Oct 4, 2008
                                    --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "Judy Redman" <jredman@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > At the most general
                                    > level, as was pointed out in the Thomas and Tatian thread, people who
                                    > assume that Thomas is dependent tend to see as obvious that any
                                    verbatim
                                    > bits demonstrate that Thomas follows the synoptics, when all that can
                                    really
                                    > be said is that the passages are the same.

                                    Hi Judy,

                                    I realize your post wasn't really about synoptic-thomas relationship,
                                    but I really must respond to what you are saying here.

                                    Scholars who argue for Thomas' dependence on one or more of the
                                    Synoptics for some of the parallels between Thomas and the Synoptics do
                                    not necessarily do this because of a canonical bias, they do this
                                    because the redactional work of one or more of the evangelists can be
                                    found in Thomas. Obviously it is not always that easy to determine what
                                    is redactional and therefore it is often possible to come up with
                                    alternative solutions. Even Stephen Patterson (who favors an
                                    independence view) agrees that Markan, Matthean or Lukan redaction can
                                    be found in Thomas in about 10 places (a proponent of the Farrer
                                    hypothesis would add many more to this list). This should not be
                                    brushed away so easily. The question of course remains what explains
                                    these instances? Patterson would favor late scribal harmonization or
                                    perhaps secondary orality.

                                    Finding Thomas to be influenced by one or more of the Synoptics also
                                    does not mean that one considers every parallel between them as a sign
                                    that Thomas is secondary. It can very well be the case that some of the
                                    sayings in Thomas are prior to their synoptic parallel. Given the
                                    popularity of the Synoptic Gospels in the second century it would not
                                    be at all surprising that some of their sayings were then added to the
                                    Thomas collection.

                                    Having said all this I must agree that some (evangelical or
                                    conservative) scholars are biased against Thomas and will favor Thomas'
                                    dependence on the Synoptics. The positive and uncritical manner in
                                    which they responded to Nicholas Perrin's work nicely illustrates this.
                                    However, this is to be expected, and should not lead to the counter-
                                    reaction of assuming independence without good evidence.

                                    Regards, Richard Godijn
                                  • Judy Redman
                                    Hi Richard, ... I realise this. What I wanted to do was raise awareness of the ways in which the perspective from which people approach a text, the questions
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Oct 4, 2008
                                      Hi Richard,

                                      You say:
                                      >
                                      > Scholars who argue for Thomas' dependence on one or more of
                                      > the Synoptics for some of the parallels between Thomas and
                                      > the Synoptics do not necessarily do this because of a
                                      > canonical bias, they do this because the redactional work of
                                      > one or more of the evangelists can be found in Thomas.
                                      > Obviously it is not always that easy to determine what is
                                      > redactional and therefore it is often possible to come up
                                      > with alternative solutions. Even Stephen Patterson (who
                                      > favors an independence view) agrees that Markan, Matthean or
                                      > Lukan redaction can be found in Thomas in about 10 places (a
                                      > proponent of the Farrer hypothesis would add many more to
                                      > this list). This should not be brushed away so easily. The
                                      > question of course remains what explains these instances?
                                      > Patterson would favor late scribal harmonization or perhaps
                                      > secondary orality.

                                      I realise this. What I wanted to do was raise awareness of the ways in
                                      which the perspective from which people approach a text, the questions they
                                      bring to it, if you like, can influence the way they interpret it. So, if
                                      you approach Thomas asking "what evidence can I find that Thomas is
                                      dependent on the synoptic material?" you will potentially reach different
                                      conclusions to the ones you will reach if you ask "are there any passages in
                                      Thomas that are similar to and/or the same as those in the synoptics and if
                                      so, what might that mean?" The answer you give, especially to the first
                                      question will be further influenced by whether or not you have anything
                                      invested in the outcome. That is, if you want the answer to be "lots of
                                      evidence" you are more likely to include tenuous evidence. If you want it
                                      to be "none at all", then you will discard anything that could reasonably be
                                      considered tenuous.

                                      > Finding Thomas to be influenced by one or more of the
                                      > Synoptics also does not mean that one considers every
                                      > parallel between them as a sign that Thomas is secondary. It
                                      > can very well be the case that some of the sayings in Thomas
                                      > are prior to their synoptic parallel. Given the popularity of
                                      > the Synoptic Gospels in the second century it would not be at
                                      > all surprising that some of their sayings were then added to
                                      > the Thomas collection.

                                      I think it is possible to go back further than this, though, and say that
                                      the fact that there are parallels between Thomas and the synoptics does not
                                      mean that Thomas is necessarily influenced by one or more of the synoptics.
                                      It may be that the influence went in the other direction, or that they
                                      shared a common source for that particular passage. Of the material that I
                                      am studying (ie the parables of the kingdom/reign in Thomas that have
                                      parallels in the synoptics) only one is close to verbatim - the parable of
                                      the mustard seed - and it is an anomally. It is the only one in Thomas that
                                      compares the kingdom/reign to an object rather than to a person.

                                      >
                                      > Having said all this I must agree that some (evangelical or
                                      > conservative) scholars are biased against Thomas and will
                                      > favor Thomas'
                                      > dependence on the Synoptics. The positive and uncritical
                                      > manner in which they responded to Nicholas Perrin's work
                                      > nicely illustrates this.
                                      > However, this is to be expected, and should not lead to the
                                      > counter- reaction of assuming independence without good evidence.

                                      No, indeed. Good evidence is essential, but I think you get good evidence
                                      by asking the right questions in the first place. That's certainly true
                                      when you're questioning eyewitnesses.

                                      Judy
                                    • Paul Lanier
                                      ... influence how we translate it because, I think, they can influence what we see as pretty clear meanings. Hi Judy, I agree, and would add that two biases
                                      Message 18 of 26 , Oct 4, 2008
                                        --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "Judy Redman" <jredman@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > we bring particular assumptions about a text to the text and they
                                        influence how we translate it because, I think, they can influence
                                        what we see as pretty clear meanings.

                                        Hi Judy,

                                        I agree, and would add that two biases apply to any historical
                                        reconstruction: the bias of the historian, and the general social
                                        paradigms of the intended readers. I think most historians would agree
                                        there is no such thing as a truly objective history. Recognizing the
                                        bias of the historian and her or his culture is a necessary basis for
                                        interpretation of the historian's work.

                                        Of course, by the law of accretion, texts which elaborate on a simpler
                                        text are probably later. This can lead to a reasonable presumption of
                                        dependency.

                                        It is of course possible (although far less likely) that an elaborated
                                        text is the earlier one. I would suggest that sort of argument is more
                                        of an apologetic, because it seeks to preserve doctrine by proposing
                                        how a much less likely event could still have occurred.

                                        regards,
                                        Paul Lanier
                                      • rj.godijn
                                        ... ways in ... questions they ... So, if ... different ... passages in ... synoptics and if ... first ... anything ... be lots of ... want it ... reasonably
                                        Message 19 of 26 , Oct 4, 2008
                                          --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "Judy Redman" <jredman@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > Hi Richard,
                                          >
                                          > You say:
                                          > >
                                          > > Scholars who argue for Thomas' dependence on one or more of
                                          > > the Synoptics for some of the parallels between Thomas and
                                          > > the Synoptics do not necessarily do this because of a
                                          > > canonical bias, they do this because the redactional work of
                                          > > one or more of the evangelists can be found in Thomas.
                                          > > Obviously it is not always that easy to determine what is
                                          > > redactional and therefore it is often possible to come up
                                          > > with alternative solutions. Even Stephen Patterson (who
                                          > > favors an independence view) agrees that Markan, Matthean or
                                          > > Lukan redaction can be found in Thomas in about 10 places (a
                                          > > proponent of the Farrer hypothesis would add many more to
                                          > > this list). This should not be brushed away so easily. The
                                          > > question of course remains what explains these instances?
                                          > > Patterson would favor late scribal harmonization or perhaps
                                          > > secondary orality.
                                          >
                                          > I realise this. What I wanted to do was raise awareness of the
                                          ways in
                                          > which the perspective from which people approach a text, the
                                          questions they
                                          > bring to it, if you like, can influence the way they interpret it.
                                          So, if
                                          > you approach Thomas asking "what evidence can I find that Thomas is
                                          > dependent on the synoptic material?" you will potentially reach
                                          different
                                          > conclusions to the ones you will reach if you ask "are there any
                                          passages in
                                          > Thomas that are similar to and/or the same as those in the
                                          synoptics and if
                                          > so, what might that mean?" The answer you give, especially to the
                                          first
                                          > question will be further influenced by whether or not you have
                                          anything
                                          > invested in the outcome. That is, if you want the answer to
                                          be "lots of
                                          > evidence" you are more likely to include tenuous evidence. If you
                                          want it
                                          > to be "none at all", then you will discard anything that could
                                          reasonably be
                                          > considered tenuous.

                                          RG: Absolutely! I think we can all agree on this. We should simply be
                                          looking for the model that best accounts for the data (with the
                                          strongest constraints - something typically neglected in New
                                          Testament Studies). Why should we 'want' any kind of answer? That is
                                          of course completely unscientific. Coming from experimental
                                          psychology I must say that the common desire to find certain answers
                                          in this field has been quite shocking for me. While many seem to want
                                          Thomas to be late and secondary others seem to want Thomas to be
                                          early and independent of the canonical Gospels. Both groups appear to
                                          be neglecting (perhaps downplaying is a better word) part of the
                                          evidence (which gives away my position - if that was not already
                                          clear - that part of it is early, pre-synoptic, and part of it is
                                          late, post-synoptic)


                                          >
                                          > > Finding Thomas to be influenced by one or more of the
                                          > > Synoptics also does not mean that one considers every
                                          > > parallel between them as a sign that Thomas is secondary. It
                                          > > can very well be the case that some of the sayings in Thomas
                                          > > are prior to their synoptic parallel. Given the popularity of
                                          > > the Synoptic Gospels in the second century it would not be at
                                          > > all surprising that some of their sayings were then added to
                                          > > the Thomas collection.
                                          >
                                          > I think it is possible to go back further than this, though, and
                                          say that
                                          > the fact that there are parallels between Thomas and the synoptics
                                          does not
                                          > mean that Thomas is necessarily influenced by one or more of the
                                          synoptics.
                                          > It may be that the influence went in the other direction, or that
                                          they
                                          > shared a common source for that particular passage. Of the
                                          material that I
                                          > am studying (ie the parables of the kingdom/reign in Thomas that
                                          have
                                          > parallels in the synoptics) only one is close to verbatim - the
                                          parable of
                                          > the mustard seed - and it is an anomally. It is the only one in
                                          Thomas that
                                          > compares the kingdom/reign to an object rather than to a person.

                                          RG: It is not just verbatim agreement that suggests influence, it is
                                          finding an evangelists redaction in Thomas. Thus, if there is
                                          evidence that in a certain pericope one of the evangelists has
                                          redacted one of his sources and that piece of redaction is also found
                                          in Thomas then the data can best be accounted by the hypothesis that
                                          Thomas has somehow been influenced by that evangelists Gospel. This
                                          cannot be explained by a common source.

                                          One further point: you can have influence without having any verbatim
                                          agreement. It just becomes harder (if not sometimes virtually
                                          impossible) to detect. That is why we start with the strongest cases
                                          and look at those instances where there is verbatim agreement and
                                          (this is very important) when one author's redaction can be found in
                                          the other Gospel.

                                          Examples would obviously help here (although the literature is filled
                                          with good examples), but I will save these for a later time when my
                                          work load is reduced (I am teaching two new courses for a cognitive
                                          neuropsychology masters) and I have more time to go into specifics.


                                          >
                                          > >
                                          > > Having said all this I must agree that some (evangelical or
                                          > > conservative) scholars are biased against Thomas and will
                                          > > favor Thomas'
                                          > > dependence on the Synoptics. The positive and uncritical
                                          > > manner in which they responded to Nicholas Perrin's work
                                          > > nicely illustrates this.
                                          > > However, this is to be expected, and should not lead to the
                                          > > counter- reaction of assuming independence without good evidence.
                                          >
                                          > No, indeed. Good evidence is essential, but I think you get good
                                          evidence
                                          > by asking the right questions in the first place.

                                          RG: Agreed, but I'm curious as to what you mean by 'asking the right
                                          questions'? What kind of questions do you have in mind?

                                          Richard
                                        • Judy Redman
                                          Richard, ... JR: Indeed. But if you come from within a theological framework that has been built on a particular set of texts and that is likely to be called
                                          Message 20 of 26 , Oct 4, 2008
                                            Richard,

                                            > RG: Absolutely! I think we can all agree on this. We should
                                            > simply be looking for the model that best accounts for the
                                            > data (with the strongest constraints - something typically
                                            > neglected in New Testament Studies). Why should we 'want' any
                                            > kind of answer? That is of course completely unscientific.

                                            JR: Indeed. But if you come from within a theological framework that has
                                            been built on a particular set of texts and that is likely to be called into
                                            question if a particular non-canonical text is found to be "more authentic"
                                            (whatever that means), then you have quite a lot invested in finding that
                                            the problematic text is "less authentic", whereas if you are researching to
                                            discredit the prevailing theological framework, you are invested in finding
                                            the problematic text "more authentic".

                                            > > > Finding Thomas to be influenced by one or more of the
                                            > Synoptics also
                                            > > > does not mean that one considers every parallel between them as a
                                            > > > sign that Thomas is secondary. It can very well be the case that
                                            > > > some of the sayings in Thomas are prior to their synoptic
                                            > parallel.
                                            > > > Given the popularity of the Synoptic Gospels in the
                                            > second century
                                            > > > it would not be at all surprising that some of their sayings were
                                            > > > then added to the Thomas collection.
                                            > >
                                            > > I think it is possible to go back further than this, though, and
                                            > say that
                                            > > the fact that there are parallels between Thomas and the synoptics
                                            > does not
                                            > > mean that Thomas is necessarily influenced by one or more of the
                                            > synoptics.
                                            > > It may be that the influence went in the other direction, or that
                                            > they
                                            > > shared a common source for that particular passage. Of the
                                            > material that I
                                            > > am studying (ie the parables of the kingdom/reign in Thomas that
                                            > have
                                            > > parallels in the synoptics) only one is close to verbatim - the
                                            > parable of
                                            > > the mustard seed - and it is an anomally. It is the only one in
                                            > Thomas that
                                            > > compares the kingdom/reign to an object rather than to a person.
                                            >
                                            > RG: It is not just verbatim agreement that suggests
                                            > influence, it is finding an evangelists redaction in Thomas.
                                            > Thus, if there is evidence that in a certain pericope one of
                                            > the evangelists has redacted one of his sources and that
                                            > piece of redaction is also found in Thomas then the data can
                                            > best be accounted by the hypothesis that Thomas has somehow
                                            > been influenced by that evangelists Gospel. This cannot be
                                            > explained by a common source.

                                            JR: Having spent quite a lot of time recently reading psychological
                                            eyewitness literature, I am no longer convinced that all the differences
                                            that have been attributed to redaction actually are due to redaction ie a
                                            deliberate decision by an editor to make additions, subtractions etc..
                                            Quite a number could as easily be attributed to the sorts of changes that
                                            can be expected when eyewitnesses retell their stories over time. Then, I
                                            think, a common source is still a tenable explanation.

                                            > One further point: you can have influence without having any
                                            > verbatim agreement. It just becomes harder (if not sometimes virtually
                                            > impossible) to detect. That is why we start with the
                                            > strongest cases and look at those instances where there is
                                            > verbatim agreement and (this is very important) when one
                                            > author's redaction can be found in the other Gospel.
                                            >
                                            > Examples would obviously help here (although the literature
                                            > is filled with good examples), but I will save these for a
                                            > later time when my work load is reduced (I am teaching two
                                            > new courses for a cognitive neuropsychology masters) and I
                                            > have more time to go into specifics.

                                            JR: I am in a similar situation - too busy to produce specific examples.

                                            > > >
                                            > > > Having said all this I must agree that some (evangelical or
                                            > > > conservative) scholars are biased against Thomas and will favor
                                            > > > Thomas'
                                            > > > dependence on the Synoptics. The positive and uncritical
                                            > manner in
                                            > > > which they responded to Nicholas Perrin's work nicely illustrates
                                            > > > this.
                                            > > > However, this is to be expected, and should not lead to the
                                            > > > counter- reaction of assuming independence without good evidence.
                                            > >
                                            > > No, indeed. Good evidence is essential, but I think you get good
                                            > evidence
                                            > > by asking the right questions in the first place.
                                            >
                                            > RG: Agreed, but I'm curious as to what you mean by 'asking
                                            > the right questions'? What kind of questions do you have in mind?

                                            JR: Simply the kinds of things you've mentioned - instead of asking "What
                                            evidence do we have for dependence/independence?" we should ask "What
                                            differences and similarities do we see in these texts and what is the best
                                            explanation for the available data?"

                                            Judy

                                            --
                                            Rev Judy Redman
                                            Uniting Church Chaplain
                                            University of New England
                                            Armidale 2351 Australia
                                            ph: +61 2 6773 3739
                                            fax: +61 2 6773 3749
                                            web: http://www.une.edu.au/chaplaincy/uniting/ and
                                            http://blog.une.edu.au/unitingchaplaincy/
                                            email: jredman@...
                                          • jmgcormier
                                            Hello Richard .... In your post # 8255 on Thomas vs the Synoptics, you point out Even Stephen Patterson (who favors an independence view) agrees that Markan,
                                            Message 21 of 26 , Oct 5, 2008
                                              Hello Richard ....

                                              In your post # 8255 on Thomas vs the Synoptics, you point out "Even
                                              Stephen Patterson (who favors an independence view) agrees that
                                              Markan, Matthean or Lukan redaction can be found in Thomas in about 10
                                              places (a proponent of the Farrer hypothesis would add many more to
                                              this list)"

                                              Might it be possible for you (in just a few words) to capsulize for
                                              those of us who are unfamiliar with Farrer the essential jist of his
                                              hypothesis ????

                                              Maurice Cormier
                                            • Judy Redman
                                              Hi Maurice, Wikipedia (which in this case is quite reliable) says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farrer_hypothesis): The Farrer theory (also called the
                                              Message 22 of 26 , Oct 5, 2008
                                                Hi Maurice,

                                                Wikipedia (which in this case is quite reliable) says
                                                (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farrer_hypothesis):

                                                "The Farrer theory (also called the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis) is a possible
                                                solution to the synoptic problem. The theory is that the Gospel of Mark was
                                                written first, followed by the Gospel of Matthew and then by the Gospel of
                                                Luke.

                                                "It has mainly been advocated by English biblical scholars. It is named for
                                                Austin Farrer, who wrote _On Dispensing With Q_ in 1955, but it has been
                                                picked up by other scholars including Michael Goulder and Mark Goodacre.

                                                "The Farrer theory has the advantage of simplicity, as there is no need for
                                                hypothetical sources to be created by academics. Instead, advocates of the
                                                Farrer theory argue, the Gospel of Mark was used as source material by the
                                                author of Matthew. Lastly, Luke used both of the previous gospels as sources
                                                for his Gospel."

                                                And if you are interested in a summary of the multiplicity of theories about
                                                the sources of the gospels, you can visit Stephen Carlson's blog which has
                                                colour-coded summaries, complete with diagrams.

                                                http://www.hypotyposeis.org/synoptic-problem/2004/09/overview-of-proposed-so
                                                lutions.html

                                                Incidentally, whilst searching for something succinct on google, I came
                                                across a site that offers the following:

                                                "For over seven years, our Farrer Hypothesis term paper experts have helped
                                                university students worldwide by providing the most extensive, lowest-priced
                                                service for Farrer Hypothesis thesis papers and research paper writing.
                                                Regardless of your deadline, budget, specifications, or academic level, we
                                                can provide immediate help for your Farrer Hypothesis essay, term paper,
                                                book report, research paper, dissertation, thesis, or university
                                                coursework."
                                                (http://www.essaytown.com/topics/farrer_hypothesis_essays_papers.html)

                                                Judy

                                                --
                                                Rev Judy Redman
                                                Uniting Church Chaplain
                                                University of New England
                                                Armidale 2351 Australia
                                                ph: +61 2 6773 3739
                                                fax: +61 2 6773 3749
                                                web: http://www.une.edu.au/chaplaincy/uniting/ and
                                                http://blog.une.edu.au/unitingchaplaincy/
                                                email: jredman@...


                                                > -----Original Message-----
                                                > From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
                                                > [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of jmgcormier
                                                > Sent: Monday, 6 October 2008 8:29 AM
                                                > To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
                                                > Subject: [GTh] Re: Thomas vs Synoptics
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > Hello Richard ....
                                                >
                                                > In your post # 8255 on Thomas vs the Synoptics, you point out
                                                > "Even Stephen Patterson (who favors an independence view)
                                                > agrees that Markan, Matthean or Lukan redaction can be found
                                                > in Thomas in about 10 places (a proponent of the Farrer
                                                > hypothesis would add many more to this list)"
                                                >
                                                > Might it be possible for you (in just a few words) to
                                                > capsulize for those of us who are unfamiliar with Farrer the
                                                > essential jist of his hypothesis ????
                                                >
                                                > Maurice Cormier
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > ------------------------------------
                                                >
                                                > Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
                                                > Interlinear translation:
                                                > http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/x_transl.htm
                                                >
                                                > ------------------------------------
                                                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                              • rj.godijn
                                                ... Hi Maurice, I agree with Judy that wikipedia gives a good description here. Mark Goodacre s website http://www.ntgateway.com/Q/ is an excellent place to
                                                Message 23 of 26 , Oct 5, 2008
                                                  --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "jmgcormier" <cobby@...> wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > Might it be possible for you (in just a few words) to capsulize for
                                                  > those of us who are unfamiliar with Farrer the essential jist of his
                                                  > hypothesis ????
                                                  >
                                                  > Maurice Cormier
                                                  >

                                                  Hi Maurice,

                                                  I agree with Judy that wikipedia gives a good description here. Mark
                                                  Goodacre's website http://www.ntgateway.com/Q/ is an excellent place to
                                                  learn more about this source hypothesis.

                                                  Richard
                                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.