PDA

View Full Version : The "Son of Man" Problem.



Xtian Rabinovich
01-21-2015, 04:44 PM
In fact, the final paragraph/sentence on the front inside dust jacket of the first book (the 1979 publication of Casey's thesis) says, "The book concludes by proposing a complete solution of the Son of Man problem", which = the title of the third book (Casey's last major publication after nearly three decades of debating 'Son of Man' studies with fellow scholars).

Quotation from John Reece thread on the Son of Man.


The problem of the "Son of Man" rises concerning the context where the phrase is used in the Tanakh in general, the Gospel specifically, and most curiously as a term describing Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus of Nazareth is called the "Son of Man" in places and contexts which imply that the term is hiding or revealing some fundamental mystery related to Jesus' person and his uniqueness as a person.

The immediate question arises as to why Jesus, of all persons, should be called the "Son of Man" when if any person in the world should be called the "Son of Woman" it's Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus is the only person in human history born exclusively of a "woman" such that if any term would circumscribe (so to say) his uniqueness in relationship to everyone else it would seem like the phrase, the "Son of Woman" would fit perfectly?

So why, of all persons, is Jesus of Nazareth called the "Son of Man" when he of all person's seems to be less a "son of man" than any of the rest of us?



XR

John Reece
01-21-2015, 06:01 PM
The problem of the "Son of Man" rises concerning the context where the phrase is used in the Tanakh in general, the Gospel specifically, and most curiously as a term describing Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus of Nazareth is called the "Son of Man" in places and contexts which imply that the term is hiding or revealing some fundamental mystery related to Jesus' person and his uniqueness as a person.

The immediate question arises as to why Jesus, of all persons, should be called the "Son of Man" when if any person in the world should be called the "Son of Woman" it's Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus is the only person in human history born exclusively of a "woman" such that if any term would circumscribe (so to say) his uniqueness in relationship to everyone else it would seem like the phrase, the "Son of Woman" would fit perfectly?

So why, of all persons, is Jesus of Nazareth called the "Son of Man" when he of all person's seems to be less a "son of man" than any of the rest of us?

From BDB [emphases added; Aramaic and Greek terms in the New Testament have corresponding semantic ranges]:


אָדָם n.m. man, mankind
1. a man (= Ger. Mensch) = human being; = any one; seldom man opp. woman.
2. coll. man, mankind; distinctly = men + women; given as name; but = warriors; made in God’s image; as feeble, earthly, mortal; as sinful; of men in general, other men (opp. to particular ones);
3. n.pr.m. Adam, first man.
4. n.pr.loc. city in Jordan valley.

From Paul L. Green in the Preface, "The Son of Man Debate: What's the Problem?" in Who is this Son of Man?':


The phrase 'son of man' is strikingly frequent as a means of self-expression on the part of Jesus, in combination with its rarity in the epistolary writings of early Christianity, it is by all accounts the 'title' for Jesus with the most convincing credentials of authenticity. Nearly all scholars admit that this manner of speaking goes back to the historical Jesus.

Xtian Rabinovich
01-21-2015, 06:27 PM
So why, of all persons, is Jesus of Nazareth called the "Son of Man" when he of all person's seems to be less a "son of man" than any of the rest of us?

XR


Like so many difficult questions, the answer to this one requires the exegete or interpreter to immerse himself in the zeitgeist in which the phrase in question was coined. It's there, in the spirit and time of its use, where the truth of the term lies (so to say).

The spirit of the term "Son of Man" is a Jewish spirit and not Christian per se. It was originally to a Jewish audience that Jesus was called the "Son of Man." Therefore Jews should have known what the term implied within the zeitgeist of their myths and symbols. Nevertheless, within the symbols of the Jews, the paradoxical nature of the term grows even larger since circumcision (which is the foundational and central symbol of Israel) is fundamentally a wedding ritual. The bridegroom was circumcised under the chuppah by the father-in-law of the bride to insure that his daughter not be contaminated by un-circumcision.

To this day the Jewish bridegroom wears his kittel, his burial shroud, under the chuppah. He wears his burial clothing on the day he marries his bride and consummates his relationship to the bride.

Since ritual circumcision ritualizes emasculation (ergo the bridegroom wearing his death attire at the very moment his masculinity is to become seminal to his existence), we have the extremely odd case that not only is Jesus born the "Son of Woman" (and not man) but, furthermore, since the man who would become his human father was already circumcised (ritually emasculated) the possibility of the term the "Son of Man" being related to his father is eliminated by the ritual of circumcision where the father's role is literally "cut" milah מול out of the equation.

In almost every case it appears that the term the "Son of Man" is a poor fit for Jesus of Nazareth. Ergo the problematic nature of the phrase.



XR

Xtian Rabinovich
01-21-2015, 06:39 PM
Hi John,


From BDB [emphases added; Aramaic and Greek terms in the New Testament have corresponding semantic ranges]:

אָדָם n.m. man, mankind

. . . The term that's most likely referred to in the Gospels (in relation to Jesus of Nazareth) is found in Daniel 7:13 where the word used is not "Adam" אדם but אנש.



XR

John Reece
01-21-2015, 07:11 PM
Hi John,


From BDB [emphases added; Aramaic and Greek terms in the New Testament have corresponding semantic ranges]:

. . . The term that's most likely referred to in the Gospels (in relation to Jesus of Nazareth) is found in Daniel 7:13 where the word used is not "Adam" אדם but אנש.

Yes, of course; that was the reason for my comment in brackets in the post to which you are responding; i.e., my comment in which you quoted me referencing the corresponding semantic ranges of the different terms in the three languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?5248-The-quot-Son-of-Man-quot-Problem&p=147340&viewfull=1#post147340).

I have been dealing with the Aramaic term you referenced, on a regular basis, as I have been doing research relative to it since I started this thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?4018-Son-of-Man) in last November. See here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?4018-Son-of-Man&p=111284&viewfull=1#post111284).

Xtian Rabinovich
01-21-2015, 07:29 PM
Hi John,


I have been dealing with the Aramaic term you referenced, on a regular basis, as I have been doing research relative to it since I started this thread in last November. See here.

At the link you provide, it's stated that the word אנש doesn't, despite no small research into the word, provide the solution to the problem of the phrase "Son of Man." I propose to give the solution to the problem, but, as the solution is based on some interpretation of Jewish myth and ritual that most people are not aware of, or likely to swallow even if made aware . . . I've no illusion that anyone will appreciate the incredible nature of the solution to the problem of the phrase "Son of Man." BTW . . . I would say that the word אדם is more generic such that it can mean "mankind," while even though אנש can also mean "mankind," it's more likely to refer specifically to a "man" as opposed to "woman." It's more likely to mean that the phrase "Son of Man" means that this "Son of Man" is specifically, and importantly, the "son" of a "man" in a sense that is fundamental to the identity of Jesus of Nazareth (and in a way that distinguishes him from anyone else born the son of a man).

Rabbis Munk, Ginsburgh, with others, point out that the letter ה is used to turn the word for "man" איש into the word for "woman" אשה. In this sense, the word איש specifically speaks of a man as opposite of woman (per Gen. 2:23). . . As will become apparent in answering the problem of the "Son of Man," the letter ה is added to Abram when he enters the covenant through ritual circumcision, which, as ritual emasculation, un-man 's Abram to make him no longer a "man" in relationship to God in the ritual stage of the covenant.

The letter ה has some deep relationships to "woman" and ritual circumcision. This one letter has the power to authenticate the solution to the problem of the "Son of Man" almost single-handedly (so to say).



XR

John Reece
01-21-2015, 09:36 PM
I would say that the word אדם is more generic such that it can mean "mankind," while even though אנש can also mean "mankind," it's more likely to refer specifically to a "man" as opposed to "woman." It's more likely to mean that the phrase "Son of Man" means that this "Son of Man" is specifically, and importantly, the "son" of a "man" in a sense that is fundamental to the identity of Jesus of Nazareth (and in a way that distinguishes him from anyone else born the son of a man).

I acknowledge that much of your argument, which occurred to me after I went to bed and to sleep; I got up out of bed to come make the point myself but you had beat me to it. Thanks.

As for the cabala, we are worlds apart and will remain so.

Xtian Rabinovich
01-21-2015, 09:40 PM
Hi John,


According to the Gospel accounts, you and Jesus are starkly at odds regarding the Aramaic term בַר אֱנָשׁ in Daniel 7:13, and the Greek term ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου in the Gospels.

Jesus is the source of the application of the respective terms to himself.


Absolutely (Jesus is the source of the application of the terms to himself). . . I'm not arguing that Jesus of Nazareth isn't the "Son of Man." I'm offering the solution to the meaning of the term based on the spirit of Jewish symbolism and ritual at the time Jesus played on these symbols and rituals to reveal himself to Jews.

Anyone interested in these things, or things like this, should not be without Rabbi Samson R. Hirsch's Chumash (The Hirsch Chumash). Rabbi Hirsch is one of Judaism's greatest linguists and Hebrew scholars. Furthermore, he understands the symbolism behind Jewish rituals and symbols and shares the underlying meaning in his Chumash.

Two Jewish symbols are seminal to the issue of Jesus as the "Son of Man." First is circumcision, and second is the Hebrew language whereby the Jewish "firstborn" is to be sanctified unto God. As Rabbi Hirsch points out . . . scratching his head the whole way . . . the Hebrew language says that the Jewish "firstborn" who is sanctified unto God must "open the womb." Rabbi Hirsch wonders out loud why the Hebrew says the "firstborn" will "open the womb" and that "opening the womb" will be the sign of the firstborn (revealing his sanctified status) when . . . as Rabbi Hirsch points out, it seems like this formulaic Hebrew symbol for the sanctified "firstborn" would apply to everyone who leaves the womb?

But not if the womb is closed at the time the "firstborn" is ready to exit it. Only the actual "firstborn" could "open the womb" if it was still sealed by the hymen (e.g., virgin birth), since once the hymenal veil is torn, it is torn once and for all. Only the "firstborn" could mark himself out in this way since it can only happen once, and only the firstborn can do it.

The second symbol that explains why Jesus is the "Son of Man" is ritual circumcision. Without going into all the symbolism that proves that circumcision is ritual emasculation (drawing blood always represents death of the sacrifice and blood is the primary symbol within the Jewish understanding of the ritual) it's the case that if the father in fact emasculates himself prior to the consummation of his wedding to his bride, then the bride's hymenal veil is going to be intact at the birth of their firstborn: he must be virgin born.

"So," someone following these things will say, "if the bridegroom emasculates himself as part of the process, and if the bride's womb remains sealed for the `firstborn' to open it ----therein sanctifying himself as God's son---- how does the mother get pregnant, and why is the offspring of this process the `Son of Man.'"

Within the ideas and symbols taught throughout Judaism, circumcision represents a "theophany" of God. The Jew is taught, throughout Judaism, to see God "face-to-face" at the ritual circumcision. Ritual circumcision ritualizes the feminization of the male so that he can be God's bride. God and the circumcised male consummate a union ritualized and formalized through ritual circumcision. But the ritual circumcision ritualizes something that is real when Jesus of Nazareth is born. Jesus opened his mother's womb (tore the hymenal veil) with the nails in his hand, even as on the cross the veil to the world-to-come was torn with nails in his hand.

Jesus is the offspring of those Jewish men who were circumcised not merely in the flesh --- ritually --- but in the spirit. He is the offspring of the Jewish men who destroyed the serpent of death and had direct intercourse with God. These "men" caused Mary to become pregnant through their intercourse with God. They were God's bride and God was their Groom. They had real, non-phallic intercourse, and Jesus is the result of that intercourse. They had union with God that resulted in an actual rather than a ritual "firstborn" who really rather than ritually "opened" his mother's womb at birth, since it wasn't opened at the consummation of the union through which he was conceived, since ironically that consummation was marked by the death of the organ that typically opens that veil at conception (such that it can't be opened at birth).

Circumcision as emasculation androgynizes the bridegroom and bride such that when the male unmans himself at circumcision, he and his bride are unified as One, such that if the male has intercourse with God it has a direct affect on the androgynous unity between the human bridegroom and bride. When the man unmans himself to consummate his relationship with God, to become God's bride, it affects the reciprocal relationship between the human bride and groom --- making them androgynous --- such that the intercourse between the unmaned male (and God) can cause the pregnancy of his bride, since through circumcision they become an androgynous unity in relationship to God. There is no more male or female after the circumcision. There is the direct union between mankind and God marked out by a pregnancy whereby the "man" gives birth through the woman based on the man's new relationship both with God, and with woman.



XR

Xtian Rabinovich
01-21-2015, 10:57 PM
Hi John,


I acknowledge that much of your argument, which occurred to me after I went to bed and to sleep; I got up out of bed to come make the point myself but you had beat me to it. Thanks.

As for the cabala, we are worlds apart and will remain so.

. . . Here's what's really interesting to me concerning the fact that every use of the term "son of man" but the one in Daniel 7:13 (where it speaks of deity) uses the word אדם instead of אנש. ------If the word אדם is generic and speaks primarily of one born to a human being, or the human race, while אנש speaks specifically of a "man" as opposed to a "woman" (as in Gen. 2:23), then Daniel 7:13 can be read to say that Daniel saw one like a son born to a "man" instead of a "woman."

This changes the entire meaning of the passage in a dramatic and important way. If the "Son of Man" is a man born to a "man" instead of a "woman," then it opens up the scripture to address this dramatic change in interesting and dramatic ways.

If Daniel 7:13 speaks of one born of a "man" instead of a "woman" (and keep in mind that only here, speaking of a divine entity does אדם get replaced with אנש in the phrase "son of man") then it lends weight to the idea that by cutting off the serpent through whom original sin passes along through phallic-sex, i.e., circumcision, the male androgynizes his relationship to his bride such that they become an androgynous unity so that when the male has intercourse with God, by sacrificing the organ through whom sin passed into the world, and death by that sin, the man's androgynous unity with his bride is directly affected by his intercourse with God, such that a pregnancy can occur in the woman without the veil representing her sanctity being destroyed by the serpentine process through which the union of man and woman has . . . since the fall . . . always taken place.

I believe Daniel 7:13 speaks of one born of a man instead of a woman ----- though the woman's body is the vehicle of exchange for the one born of the man's relationship with God.



XR

John Reece
01-22-2015, 06:14 AM
Hi John,

. . . Here's what's really interesting to me concerning the fact that every use of the term "son of man" but the one in Daniel 7:13 (where it speaks of deity) uses the word אדם instead of אנש. ------If the word אדם is generic and speaks primarily of one born to a human being, or the human race, while אנם speaks specifically of a "man" as opposed to a "woman" (as in Gen. 2:23), then Daniel 7:13 can be read to say that Daniel saw one like a son born to a "man" instead of a "woman."

This changes the entire meaning of the passage in a dramatic and important way. If the "Son of Man" is a man born to a "man" instead of a "woman," then it opens up the scripture to address this dramatic change in interesting and dramatic ways.

If Daniel 7:13 speaks of one born of a "man" instead of a "woman" (and keep in mind that only here, speaking of a divine entity does אדם get replaced with אנש in the phrase "son of man") then it lends weight to the idea that by cutting off the serpent through whom original sin passes along through phallic-sex, i.e., circumcision, the male androgynizes his relationship to his bride such that they become an androgynous unity so that when the male has intercourse with God, by sacrificing the organ through whom sin passed into the world, and death by that sin, the man's androgynous unity with his bride is directly affected by his intercourse with God, such that a pregnancy can occur in the woman without the veil representing her sanctity being destroyed by the serpentine process through which the union of man and woman has . . . since the fall . . . always taken place.

I believe Daniel 7:13 speaks of one born of a man instead of a woman ----- though the woman's body is the vehicle of exchange for the one born of the man's relationship with God.

Many thanks, XR, for starting your own thread for presenting such esoterica, rather than doing so in my "Son of Man" thread.

John Reece
01-22-2015, 06:34 AM
. . . Here's what's really interesting to me concerning the fact that every use of the term "son of man" but the one in Daniel 7:13 (where it speaks of deity) uses the word אדם instead of אנש. ------If the word אדם is generic and speaks primarily of one born to a human being, or the human race, while אנם speaks specifically of a "man" as opposed to a "woman" (as in Gen. 2:23), then Daniel 7:13 can be read to say that Daniel saw one like a son born to a "man" instead of a "woman."

Perhaps the case is no more complicated or esoteric than the fact that Daniel 7:13 is located in the midst of an Aramaic discourse, rather than in a Hebrew discourse.

Perhaps בַר אֱנָשׁ in the Aramaic discourse of Daniel 7:13 is simply an equivalent of בֶּן־אָדָם in Hebrew discourse.

Xtian Rabinovich
01-22-2015, 08:48 PM
Hi John,


Perhaps בַר אֱנָשׁ in the Aramaic discourse of Daniel 7:13 is simply an equivalent of בֶּן־אָדָם in Hebrew discourse.

. . . I assume you've looked at Gesenius:


אֵנֶשׁ a primitive word, in sing. not used, signifying A MAN, vir, hence homo, man in general. The Hebrews used for it the contracted and softer form אִישׁ (comp. Gr. εἱς for ἑνς, gen. ἑνος), a man, vir, also the prolonged form אֱנוֹשׁ homo. From the primary form is the fem. אִשָּׁה for אִנְשָׁה, and pl. אֲנָשִׁים. The signification of sickness and disease which is found in the root אָנַשׁ, is taken from another source (from the theme נשׁ) altogether foreign to this noun as a root.

Gesenius, W., & Tregelles, S. P. (2003). Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

According to Gesenius, the Aramaic word is a version of the Hebrew word used to distinguish between "man" איש and "woman" אשה in Genesis chapter 2. . . If this is the case, then Daniel 7:13 can be read to say he saw one born (or conceived as it were) from a man rather than a woman.



XR

John Reece
01-23-2015, 07:58 AM
. . . I assume you've looked at Gesenius:


אֵנֶשׁ a primitive word, in sing. not used, signifying A MAN, vir, hence homo, man in general. The Hebrews used for it the contracted and softer form אִישׁ (comp. Gr. εἱς for ἑνς, gen. ἑνος), a man, vir, also the prolonged form אֱנוֹשׁ homo. From the primary form is the fem. אִשָּׁה for אִנְשָׁה, and pl. אֲנָשִׁים. The signification of sickness and disease which is found in the root אָנַשׁ, is taken from another source (from the theme נשׁ) altogether foreign to this noun as a root.

Gesenius, W., & Tregelles, S. P. (2003). Geseniusí Hebrew and Chaldee lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

According to Gesenius, the Aramaic word is a version of the Hebrew word used to distinguish between "man" איש and woman אשה in Genesis chapter 2.

No, I did not look at Gesenius, because Gesenius is a long time way out of date and therefore not reliable. Gesenius died in 1842, so the 2003 date of your reference is a bit misleading.

Also, you are referencing a Hebrew word in (an unreliable) Hebrew lexicon, whereas you should be referencing an Aramaic word in an Aramaic lexicon.

"Gesenius" was out of date when ― 47 years ago ― I purchased the version thereof that had been updated by Brown, Driver, and Briggs (BDB) in 1906 and published by Oxford University Press in 1907. In the back of BDB is an Aramaic lexicon in which the Aramaic word אֱנָשׁ is defined thus:


אֱנָשׁ man, mankind

1. man, human being, Daniel 2:10; 3:10; 4:13, 5:5, 7, ,7; 7:4, 4, 8; so בַר אֱנָשׁ Daniel 7:13 a son of man, human being

2. colloquial men, people Ezra 4:11; Daniel 4:14s, 22, 22, 29, 29, 30; 5:21, cf. pl. 4:14; זְרַע אֱנָשׁ 2:43 i.e. human offspring; בְּנֵי אֲנָשָׁא sons of men, = men, 2:38; 5:21

Xtian Rabinovich
01-23-2015, 10:14 AM
Hi John,


"Gesenius" was out of date when ― 47 years ago ― I purchased the version thereof that had been updated by Brown, Driver, and Briggs (BDB) in 1906 and published by Oxford University Press in 1907. In the back of BDB is an Aramaic lexicon in which the Aramaic word אֱנָשׁ is defined thus:

אֱנָשׁ man, mankind

1. man, human being, Daniel 2:10; 3:10; 4:13, 5:5, 7, ,7; 7:4, 4, 8; so בַר אֱנָשׁ Daniel 7:13 a son of man, human being

2. colloquial men, people Ezra 4:11; Daniel 4:14s, 22, 22, 29, 29, 30; 5:21, cf. pl. 4:14; זְרַע אֱנָשׁ 2:43 i.e. human offspring; בְּנֵי אֲנָשָׁא sons of men, = men, 2:38; 5:21

I'm sure you'll agree that being out of date on these things is not a matter of chronological time but requires that new insights determine whether an older idea is outdated. I think Gesenius remains an invaluable tool.

Nevertheless it's clear that Daniel uses the word אנש in places in the Aramaic text that suggests it's being employed as אדם would be used if he were writing in Hebrew. So I'll give you that.



XR

Xtian Rabinovich
01-23-2015, 10:15 PM
"So," someone following these things will say, "if the bridegroom emasculates himself as part of the process, and if the bride's womb remains sealed for the `firstborn' to open it ----therein sanctifying himself as God's son---- how does the mother get pregnant, and why is the offspring of this process the `Son of Man.'"

A similarly important question is who is Jesus' actual father if he's the son of a particular man and not the son of a man and a woman, or merely a woman? ----- Abraham is Jesus' actual father. Jesus is the first son born to Abraham through the covenant Abraham established through intercourse with God.

Since God knew there would be a protracted interval between the intercourse with Abraham and the birth, he tells Abraham to ritually emasculate himself and all the males of his natural posterity so that the ritual emasculation will continue right up until the time that God determines to allow his son to come into the world through a sealed womb. Once a male child opens the womb (the hymen) with his hand rather than it being opened by the organ ritually removed on all Abraham's natural posterity (right up to the birth of Jesus), from then on ritual circumcision is no longer necessary since the actuality it foretold occurred the moment a hand opened what would naturally be opened by the organ God had Abraham ritually remove from all his natural born sons.

Jesus is Abraham's unnaturally born son; his supernaturally born son. He's Abraham's spiritual firstborn. Isaac is only a type of Jesus. His father's organ was only scathed, marked, but not cut through to the bone of the truth of emasculation and virgin birth.



XR