Friday, October 26, 2007

Son of Man as Messiah?

‘We professors have been taught and have taught that “the Son of Man” is a term or title that is to be distinguished from the term or title Messiah. Now, with the recognition that the Parables of Enoch are clearly Jewish, Palestinian, and probably pre-70, we should re-think this assumption.’

James H. Charlesworth, ‘From Messianology to Christology: Problems and Prospects.’ In The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992., p. 31.


Matt said...

M. Black's article, “The Messianism of the Parables of Enoch: Their Date and Contribution to Christological Origins” (also from "The Messiah"), puts forward a similar argument to that of Charlesworth.

I also found C. C. Caragounis, The Son of Man: Vision and Interpretation (WUNT 38; Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1986), 93-94, gave me somethink to think about:

“Were it not for the silence of Qumran – a negative argument of dubious value – there would hardly be any reason to deny the pre-Christian date of the Parables and [...] that this work reflects a part of Jewish thought at the time of Jesus."

Geoff Hudson said...

I suggest that Mark 2.10 originally had: 'that the Spirit of God has power on earth to cleanse', not 'that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins'. And that in 2.11, the Spirit's command through the prophet was 'take your lamb and go home'. The men were priests who had brought a sacrificial lamb in a cage, not a paralytic on a mat. Some 'lawyers', probably high priests, had said (2.7) 'what can cleanse but sacrifice alone?, not 'who can forgive sins, but God alone?' The issue was cleansing byt the Spirit versus cleansing by sacrifice. The priests took their lamb and walked out in full view of them all - they had rejected animal sacrifices.

So here 'Son of Man' is merely a Pauline editor's substitution pulled out of a hat.

Geoff Hudson said...

Now my little Possum, if you don't believe the issue in Mark was an entirely Jewish one of cleansing, then try to get your head around this rendering of Mk.1.14b-18:

{JUDAS} went into {Galilee] {THE TEMPLE}, PROCLAIMING the [good news] {SPIRIT} of God.

1.15."The [time] {LORD} has come," he said. "The [kingdom] {SPIRIT} of God is near.

[Repent] {HEAR} and [believe] {OBEY} the [good news] {SPIRIT}!"

1.16.As [Jesus] {JUDAS} walked beside the [Sea of Galilee] {ALTAR},

He saw [Simon] {ME} and [his] {MY} brother [Andrew] {SIMON} casting a [net] {SACRIFICE} into the [lake] {FIRE}

[, for they were fishermen].

1.17."Come, [follow] {OBEY} [me] {THE SPIRIT}," [Jesus] {JUDAS} said, "and [I] {HE} will MAKE YOU [fishers of men] {CLEAN}."

1.18.At once [they] {WE} left [their] {OUR} [nets] {SACRIFICES} and [followed] {OBEYED} [him] {THE SPIRIT}.

Why say 'for they were fishermen'? I mean what sort of person casts nets, if not fishermen. No the editor wanted to make sure that the reader understood these two were fishermen, just in case it might be thought they were something the editor didn't want us to know, that in fact they were priests. And what about those critical words 'make you': make you what I ask?