Did Jesus think he was the Son of Man?

[PseudoPaul]

https://ehrmanblog.org/at-last-jesus-an ... on-of-man/

This is an interesting issue. First of all the Son of Man can be a confusing term. It can mean "a guy" (the literal meaning) - but after Daniel (circa 164 BCE) it was also used to refer to a cosmic judge figure (not God) who would come and judge the wicked, ushering in the end of normative history and the beginning of the kingdom of God, where the Jewish people would finally get some justice and there would be an end to their oppression.

So did Jesus think he was this cosmic judge? Bart Ehrman argues no. His points in summary:

* Jesus did use the term Son of Man as a central part of his message.

* In doing so he was referring to a cosmic judge of the earth who would come at the end of history to bring a cataclysmic end to the world as we know it, to destroy all the evil forces in the world that are opposed to God and that are making life miserable for his people.

* After this Day of Judgment the Son of Man would bring in a new kingdom on earth, a utopian kingdom of God.

* The ultimate root for this view of the coming Son of Man lies in a passage in the Hebrew Bible, Daniel 7:13-14, one of the earliest apocalyptic passages we have out of ancient Judaism.

* Different Jewish teachers in Jesus’ time understood the passage differently, and various ones of them had a differently nuanced understandings of who this “one like a son of man” was.

* Jesus’ view was distinctive but not entirely unique. Others too thought of the Son of Man as the cosmic judge of the earth.

* To show this was Jesus’ view requires an in-depth study of the way he uses the phrase in the New Testament Gospels, since he uses it in a variety of ways – and one has to determine which of these sayings about the Son of Man actually go back to Jesus himself (just as we have to determine at every point which of Jesus’ sayings are his, and which have been put on his lips by later storytellers after his death, passing along the traditions about him).

* There are several remaining fundamental points:

* When Jesus talked of this Son of Man, he was not referring to himself. Jesus was a man on earth speaking as a prophet about a cosmic judge who was soon to come from heaven above.

* After his death, Jesus’ followers believed that he had been raised from the dead and exalted to heaven.

* They also thought that Jesus was the messiah who had been sent from God in fulfilment of prophecy.

* But the prophecies about the messiah in the Jewish tradition were entirely about his exerting the power of God to destroy his enemies and rule as king over the nation of Israel.

* Jesus obviously never did that. On the contrary, he was a virtual unknown in his day, a rural preacher who offended the ruling authorities, was arrested, tried, condemned, publicly tortured and humiliated, and then executed for crimes against the state.

* His followers could plausibly maintain that he was the messiah only by insisting that he was coming a second time in glory, to fulfill the prophecies of the messiah who would destroy his enemies.

* Jesus was coming again from heaven to judge the earth in power.
Jesus, then, in the views of his followers after his death, was himself the coming Son of Man.

* And so they came to believe that when he had spoken of the Son of Man, he was speaking about himself.

* They adjusted his sayings about the Son of Man accordingly, and put sayings on his lips in which he described himself as the Son of Man.

* And that is why you have the conversation recorded above, in the passage of Matthew, expressed the way it is. In the older version, Mark, Jesus asks his disciples “Who do people say that I am” and when the reply he follows up with “And who do you say that I am.”
Matthew, who used Marks’ version as his source, altered the conversation slightly so there can be no question about Jesus’ identity: he first asks “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” This is a clear self-reference here (i.e., in *Matthew’s* version: he has changed Mark’s wording). When the disciples reply, he responds, “And who do you say that I am”

* Matthew has phrased the conversation in such a way that it is obvious to the reader that Jesus himself is the Son of Man. In that way, in every other place where Jesus refers to the Son of Man, everyone will understand that he’s talking about himself.

* Mark would have agreed that Jesus is the Son of Man, as did all the other Gospels. Mark simply did not make the matter as explicit as Matthew chose to do.

* It was not, though, the view of Jesus himself. It was actually quite contrary to his view.

[drumdude]

Funny enough I’ve never seen a Mormon apologist take on Ehrman.

They tend to use historical-biblical criticism when it suits them in debates against Catholics and Evangelicals, but they ignore it when it cuts against their own beliefs.

Just watch the debate between Kwaku and James White. Kwaku spouts FAIR Mormon talking points about secular historical understanding of the Bible but James tries to get him to see that viewing scripture in that way undercuts Mormonism and most Christian denominations completely.

Just another example of how Mormon apologetics cannot take an internally logically consistent stand on anything.

[huckelberry]

Ehrman has the virtue of being both concise and clear in his writing. He does not wander far from or sort of centrist scholarly view at this time. I think he has good observations to share. He does not have the only view possible however. I do not wish to attach my thinking to one source alone. Even so I have been influenced by N T Wright. He lacks the virtue of being concise and brief unfortunately. He has a few books aimed at being popular, I found them bland. His in depth thinking is interesting but can be prolix./edit this word is too harsh, perhaps long winded is better.

https://ntwrightpage.com/2016/04/05/jes ... rstanding/
quote:
My case has been, and remains, that Jesus believed himself called to do and be things which, in the traditions to which he fell heir, only Israel’s God, YHWH, was to do and be. I think he held this belief both with passionate and firm conviction and with the knowledge that he could be making a terrible, lunatic mistake. I do not think this in any way downplays the signals of transcendence within the Gospel narratives. It is, I believe, consonant both with a full and high Christology and with the recognition that Jesus was a human figure who can be studied historically in the same way that any other human figure can be.

[PseudoPaul]

Ehrman has the virtue of being both concise and clear in his writing. He does not wander far from or sort of centrist scholarly view at this time. I think he has good observations to share. He does not have the only view possible however. I do not wish to attach my thinking to one source alone. Even so I have been influenced by N T Wright. He lacks the virtue of being concise and brief unfortunately. He has a few books aimed at being popular, I found them bland. His in depth thinking is interesting but can be prolix./edit this word is too harsh, perhaps long winded is better.

https://ntwrightpage.com/2016/04/05/jes ... rstanding/
quote:
My case has been, and remains, that Jesus believed himself called to do and be things which, in the traditions to which he fell heir, only Israel’s God, YHWH, was to do and be. I think he held this belief both with passionate and firm conviction and with the knowledge that he could be making a terrible, lunatic mistake. I do not think this in any way downplays the signals of transcendence within the Gospel narratives. It is, I believe, consonant both with a full and high Christology and with the recognition that Jesus was a human figure who can be studied historically in the same way that any other human figure can be.

I won't claim that there is only one possible view about the Son of Man issue. But, I don't see how Jesus would have thought of himself that way, since the Son of Man was a figure who was supposed to come down from heaven, not a human being born on earth.

A separate question is whether Jesus thought of himself as God - I think we're on even firmer ground saying, no, that can't be supported in our earliest and best sources. That doesn't of course mean that he wasn't God - just that he never made that claim for himself in life.

[huckelberry]

Ehrman has the virtue of being both concise and clear in his writing. He does not wander far from or sort of centrist scholarly view at this time. I think he has good observations to share. He does not have the only view possible however. I do not wish to attach my thinking to one source alone. Even so I have been influenced by N T Wright. He lacks the virtue of being concise and brief unfortunately. He has a few books aimed at being popular, I found them bland. His in depth thinking is interesting but can be prolix./edit this word is too harsh, perhaps long winded is better.

https://ntwrightpage.com/2016/04/05/jes ... rstanding/
quote:
My case has been, and remains, that Jesus believed himself called to do and be things which, in the traditions to which he fell heir, only Israel’s God, YHWH, was to do and be. I think he held this belief both with passionate and firm conviction and with the knowledge that he could be making a terrible, lunatic mistake. I do not think this in any way downplays the signals of transcendence within the Gospel narratives. It is, I believe, consonant both with a full and high Christology and with the recognition that Jesus was a human figure who can be studied historically in the same way that any other human figure can be.

I won't claim that there is only one possible view about the Son of Man issue. But, I don't see how Jesus would have thought of himself that way, since the Son of Man was a figure who was supposed to come down from heaven, not a human being born on earth.

A separate question is whether Jesus thought of himself as God - I think we're on even firmer ground saying, no, that can't be supported in our earliest and best sources. That doesn't of course mean that he wasn't God - just that he never made that claim for himself in life.

PseudoPaul, noting different ways of seeing things:
Daniel 7:13 "New Revised Standard version, As I watched in the night visions, I saw one like a human being coming with the clouds of heaven and he come to the Ancient one"

That reads as human going to heaven as the residence of the ancient one is not here on earth.

I have a study version with notes as follows, "The symbol of the fifth kingdom, a human figure , stands in contrast to the animal symbols from the abyss by being associated with he heavenly realm, the animals were connected with historical events but in these two verses the scene moves beyond history. One like a human being symbolizes a new everlasting kingdom which stand in contrast to those ominous kingdoms symbolized by what looked like animals. The figure is corporate and includes Israel. This human figure would then be coming from earth to God (although some scholars to the contrary see a descent of an angelic being)"

N T Wright agrees with these notes but is more emphatic that the son of man is a prophetic image not a literal man.

[PseudoPaul]

PseudoPaul, noting different ways of seeing things:
Daniel 7:13 "New Revised Standard version, As I watched in the night visions, I saw one like a human being coming with the clouds of heaven and he come to the Ancient one"

That reads as human going to heaven as the residence of the ancient one is not here on earth.

I have a study version with notes as follows, "The symbol of the fifth kingdom, a human figure , stands in contrast to the animal symbols from the abyss by being associated with he heavenly realm, the animals were connected with historical events but in these two verses the scene moves beyond history. One like a human being symbolizes a new everlasting kingdom which stand in contrast to those ominous kingdoms symbolized by what looked like animals. The figure is corporate and includes Israel. This human figure would then be coming from earth to God (although some scholars to the contrary see a descent of an angelic being)"

N T Wright agrees with these notes but is more emphatic that the son of man is a prophetic image not a literal man.

John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan:

...But these specific references to Yahweh's years are not the only places where he is depicted as an aged god. As J.A. Emerton was the first to note, Dan 7.9 also has this concept and has appropriated it from El. In Daniel's apocalyptic vision God is there entitled the 'Ancient of Days', a term reminiscent of 'Father of Years' [an epithet of El], and we read that 'the hair of his head was like pure wool', which likewise reminds one of El. In keeping with this, the one like a son of man who comes with the clouds of heaven and reigns for ever after being enthroned by the Ancient of Days (Dan. 7.13-14) derives ultimately from Baal, 'the rider of the clouds', and the beasts of the sea, whole rule is succeeded by that of the one like a son of man, reflect Yam, Leviathan, and others, who were defeated by Baal.

The first full-blown apocalyptic work in the Old Testament, the book of Daniel, has a most interesting reinterpretation of the Canaanite myth in Daniel 7. Although apocalyptic is a complicated phenomenon with a multifaceted background, a good case can be made, as was first argued by J.A. Emerton, that the Canaanite dragon conflict myth is the single most important contributor to the background of Daniel 7, since it can explain well the combination of the following three factors: (i) Daniel 7 is one of the few places in the Old Testament where Yahweh is depicted as an aged god: he is named 'the Ancient of Days' and he has white hair. As has been noted in Chapter 1, this is reminiscent of the supreme Canaanite deity El, who was called 'the Father of Years' and has grey hair (cf. KTU2 1.4.IV.24; 1..V.4). (ii) Just as Baal's kingship was ultimately dependent on and subordinate to that of El, so the one like a son of man in Daniel 7 owes his rule to the Ancient of Days. Moreover, the one like a son of man comes with the clouds of heaven, just as Baal's stock epithet was 'rider of the clouds' (rkb 'rpt) by virtue of his role as a storm god. (iii) Baal's kingship was dependent on his victory over Yam, the god of the sea, just as the one like a son of man's rule takes the place of that of the beasts of the sea, especially the fourth one.

Probably the one like a son of man in Daniel 7 is to be equated with the angel Michael. Similar terms are used elsewhere for angels (Dan. 8.15, 10.16, 18), and the angel Michael is explicitly mentioned in Dan. 12.1 in a role comparable to that of the one like a son of man in Daniel 7. Implicitly we are to understand that this figure overcomes the fourth beast in Daniel 7.

Even in the New Testament, the dragon conflict has clearly exercised its influence on the book of Revelation. In Revelation 12 the angel Michael defeats the dragon, symbolizing Satan, with seven heads and ten horns. The seven heads clearly derive from the seven-headed dragon Leviathan, whilst the ten horns identify the figure with the fourth beast of Daniel 7, whose implicit vanquisher there, as has been noted, was Michael (the one like a son of man). The fact that it is Michael, not Christ, who defeats the dragon in Revelation 12, suggests that a Jewish source equating the one like a son of man with Michael underlies the passage.

Per Day, the Son of Man in Daniel is an angelic figure, and the story is influenced by Baal's mythology.

[Alphus and Omegus]

Per Day, the Son of Man in Daniel is an angelic figure, and the story is influenced by Baal's mythology.

The Book of Daniel is one of several that provide a great look into the fact that Judaism was a polytheistic religion. There are other gods mentioned in the book as well such as in Chapter 10, where an angel is discussing how he was prevented from visiting Daniel by another god, the "Prince of Persia." A Prince of Greece is mentioned later as well.

12 Then he continued, “Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them. 13 But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia....

20 So he said, “Do you know why I have come to you? Soon I will return to fight against the prince of Persia, and when I go, the prince of Greece will come; 21 but first I will tell you what is written in the Book of Truth. (No one supports me against them except Michael, your prince.

It's really unfortunate how modern-day Christians and Jews have erased this rich history of their faiths' true polytheism. And for no good reason. What harm does it do to say that Yahweh and El are separate gods and that the universe is big enough for multiple gods? If you're going to believe in the existence of one god-being, why not believe in more than one?

The Daniel passages make complete sense when you think of them in their original polytheistic tones. But if you reject this truth, then you have to invent new characters like the Son of Man/Messiah that are real perversions of the text.

[Kishkumen]

Excellent point, Alphus and Omegus. I agree.

[msnobody]

“If you're going to believe in the existence of one god-being, why not believe in more than one?”
In that case, why believe in any god?

[huckelberry]

I am no expert on Greco-Roman literature but I have read and enjoyed the Iliad more time than I have read the Book of Mormon. I cannot help but have some feelings for Athena. There is some inspiration there. However I do not attend an Athenian temple and offer sacrifices. I find that I view Athena as fiction. That of course does not make her meaningless and does not prevent her name and idea from being able to be used by people like me who no longer take her literally.

I think the language of semetic deities carried poetically useful meaning past the time or in a larger sphere than where they were literally believed. It is difficult I think to judge usage in some Biblical texts. It is true there is a past when they were believed and polytheism has a real presence in Israel I gather. Yet it is also clearly true that monotheism became the normative belief. Than transition is not as clear as the ends of the process.