Son of man: both–and, please
Alan Bandy has two posts on the phrase “son of man” making a case for the Danielic background of the phrase. This seems to be the main either-or debate about it nowadays: is it a fundamentally drawn from apocalyptic imagery, or is it a translation of an Aramaic phrase meaning “one, I”? Go back two or three decades, and the main (related) either-or question was: which go back to Jesus, the present or future “son of man” sayings?
Surely these are not opposites where one answer must be pressed to the exclusion of the other. The lack of attestation of the phrase in any messianic context, and the diversity of the ways in which Jesus uses it in apparent self-reference point towards an essential ambiguity in the phrase, an ambiguity that seems not only to tease modern scholarship into seeking to resolve it, but which seems equally to fit the teasing, riddling parabolic style of Jesus’ teaching. Whether the Matthean question “Who to people say the son of man is?” (16:13 - Mark and Luke read “I”) is original – and the possible ambiguity in its being heard to refer to someone other than Jesus may imply that it is, this Matthean version does suggest that the phrase is part of the riddle of Jesus’ identity.
Having no fixed meaning, while being open to several, “son of man” comes to mean whatever Jesus’ actions and words fill it out to mean. It is intentionally ambiguous, and either-or questions are precisely the wrong ones to ask.
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:59 am
Doug, back in April I wrote this post:
http://drjimwest.wordpress.com/2007/04/17/a-very-important-monograph/
Both you and Alan (and everyone really) would be immensely benefited by reading it when it comes out (which should be shortly).
It is incredibly thorough (and I speak from first hand experience with the manuscript).
Honestly, for researchers looking into the whole ‘Son of man” question- it is indispensible.
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Sorry- ‘it’ being the book mentioned in the post…
I apologize for the ambiguity. I knew what I was thinking…
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:30 pm
The just released ‘The Solution to the ‘Son of Man’ Problem’ T&T Clark, 2007, by Maurice Casey, has what the title promises.
November 2nd, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Doug,
Thanks for your post. I would agree that the either/or distinction has muddied the issue. While it is not as explicitly stated, that was actually the point of my post. In short, I was responding to the position that it has nothing to do with the Daniel 7:13. I do think that Larry Hurtado has made an excellent case, but in need of some fine tuning in light of the apocalyptic background.
Thanks again,
Alan
November 2nd, 2007 at 1:52 pm
[...] way of follow-up, Doug (i.e., metacatholic) has posted a response to my arguments and contends that we should avoid making [...]
November 2nd, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Perhaps with those contacts Jim, you could get me a free copy? Sounds good.
Steph, I shall be surprised if I agree with you that Maurice Casey’s book does indeed provide “the solution”.
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:57 pm
So skeptical? I just hope you read it. You might be surprised.
November 3rd, 2007 at 12:09 am
I might well read it (though this isn’t one of my major current topics of interest), but at that price I won’t be buying it. From the blurb it doesn’t look like Maurice has changed the main line of his thought since a) his previous book and b) the days when I was one of his students. He’s a firm either-or man on both questions.
November 3rd, 2007 at 12:25 am
I’d lend you mine but it’s down here with me in NZ for the summer. But libraries will have it soon no doubt.
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:25 am
…and I’ve just been told that the paperback edition is due by April for 24 pounds.