[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #513
b-greek-digest Thursday, 15 December 1994 Volume 01 : Number 513
In this issue:
Re: son of man
Learning Greek via computer
Rank?
Re: Learning Greek via computer
Re: Rank?
Learning Greek via Computer
Re: son of man
Re: The Law
Re: protokos in Col. 1:15, 18
Re: The Law
lst cent. monotheism
PRWTOTOKOS in LXX
Re: son of man
son of man
son of man
Re: son of man
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 01:59:48 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: son of man
On Tue, 13 Dec 1994, Pete Cepuch wrote:
> you cited were mostly all Jewish/Hebraic sources. This whole thread got started by
> the statement where you said"huios tou antthrOpou surely emphasizes his
> humanity". Where in all the wonderful sources you cited does the idea of
> humanity appear?.
Greek _anthrOpos_ means "human being, humanity," usually the antonym of
_theos_. Hebrew _enosh_ and Aramaic _enash_ also mean "human being,
humanity." None of the supernatural beings I mentioned were considered
"God" by the perfectly Jewish sources, that is, the one unique focus of
monotheism. My point was to show that sharing some divine
characteristics and prerogatives are not necessarily, are not usually, a
sign that deity is being attributed to a character in a text, according
to many probable NT-contemporary "Judaisms." It may seem shocking to
current readers, with their own assumpions about Israel of Jesus's time,
that Jews could have belived in a messiah who was not God, and yet who was
preexistent, instrument of creation, enthroned next to God, all-powerful,
etc., but this is what period texts suggest to us.
> Finally, I need to emphasize that Jesus refered to Himself as ho huios tou
> anthrOpou i.e. THE son of man. The actual one ,the real article and by
> using this term from Daniel(and as you pointed out so well from other sources)
> we see that by calling Himself HaBaR eNaSH that those who heard Him knew
> exactly who He was claiming to be despite the diversity of opinion about
Yes, he was THE son of man (over all the other sons of man), THE son of
God (over all the other sons of God), etc. What's truly interesting
about the NT among its contemporary and later messianic texts is how it
brings all the threads of superhumanity & messianism and unites them in
Jesus: he is the wisdom, the pre-existent word, the "angel" of the LORD,
all the messiahs wrapped into one, the Son of Man, etc. etc. The only
thing he doesn't seem to displace is the angels, although they are
severely reduced (Jesus seems to take over some of Michael's functions).
The author of the letter to the Hebrews is at great pains to tell his
audience that Jesus as Messiah is *greater* than all those super angels
they had all heard about (Hebrews 1), and the proof texts he/she uses are
the exact kinds contemporary Jews would have chosen, the kind that
Eusebius of Caesarea would choose hundreds of years later, and exactly
the kind a Nicene Trintarian *wouldn't*. Jesus is the son of God (1:5),
the throne of God and companion of creatures (1:8), Kurios ("Master") and
perhaps even ArkhE ("The Beginning") (1:10) etc. The author could have
saved himself a lot of trouble, and many vague OT citations, by simply
saying "Jesus is God."
> the messiah and who he would be and what he might do etc.. As far as
Jesus > claiming to be God he asked those who wanted to stone Him(John
10:33)for > which good works are you stoning me...and they answered
concerning good work > we are not stoning you contrarywise concerning
blasphemy because you being man you are making yourself God(10:34). Why
did they pick up stones? Well, He > said in verse 30 something like...aNI
VaaV eCHaD aNaCHNU. > >
First of all, notice Jesus rephrases their accusation as "son of God"
(10:36) which is probably a key hint that we should render _theos_ in v.
33 as "divine" or "godlike." Jesus's tangent in vv. 34-36 hardly
reinforces any apparent claim to divinity; if anything, it scales it
down. As for 10:30, 38, no matter what you think about Jesus's divinity,
these passages must be considered figurative and not literal
expressions. Tehy are exactly paralleled by 17:21 ff. in reference to
human followers of Jesus:
"...hina pantes hen Osin, kathOs su, pater, en emoi kagO en soi,
hina kai autoi en hEmin Osin, ... kagO tEn doksan hEn dedOkas moi dedOka
autois, hina Osin hen kathOs hEmeis hen: egO en autois kai su en emoi,
hina Osin teteleiOmenoi eis hen, hina ginOskEi ho kosmos hoti su me
apesteilas kai EgaoEsas autous kathOs eme EgapEsas." (John 17:21-23)
"...that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I
am in you. May they also be in us ... I have given them the glory that
you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in
me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you
sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me." (NIV)
The Christian is not to be confused with the person of Christ,
surely, in any theology. And even in usual trinitarianism, as I
understand, although the Father and the Son are both supposed to be God,
the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father, which is the
point of distinguishing them as persons. So "He who has seen me has seen
the Father" and other similar expressions must be interpreted
figuratively even if one wanted to maintain a traditional trinitarian
reading.
IMO here we have John's usual emphasis on Jesus as unified, by love
and power, with God, showing God to the world perfectly, and wishing to be
so shown by his disciples. This is the "nesting"/"telescoping" image we
encounter in the most unexpected places (John 12:44-45, 14:20; also the
Synoptics Matt. 10:40, 25:37-40, 44-45; Mark 9:37). The disciples or
children stand in for Jesus/the Son of Man, who in turn stands in for God.
Figuratively, or by what is more reifiable, in "pneumatic" connectedness.
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: molsen@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 08:41:24 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Learning Greek via computer
This from a friend in Puerto Rico. Can anyone help?
Forwarded message:
>From jtroest@dprsj1.er.usgs.gov Thu Dec 15 07:53 CST 1994
Message-Id: <199412151353.NAA21205@dprsj1.er.usgs.GOV>
To: molsen@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Cc: "Joseph W. Troester, Hydrologist, San Juan, PR "<jtroest@qvarsx.er.usgs.gov>
Subject: Learning Greek
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.4.1 7/21/94
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 09:53:41 -0400
From: Joe Troester <jtroest@qvarsx.er.usgs.gov>
...
Deborah is wanting to learn Greek (bible Greek not modern Greek).
She is also wanting to buy a computer. She wanted me to
ask you if there are any computer programs to assist someone in learning
Greek and whether they were written for the Apple or IBM. She has heard
of one called HyperGreek for the Apple but doesn't know anything about it.
...
Thanks.
Mari Broman Olsen
Northwestern University
Department of Linguistics
2016 Sheridan Road
Evanston, IL 60208
molsen@astrid.ling.nwu.edu
------------------------------
From: DDDJ@aol.com
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 10:14:01 -0500
Subject: Rank?
David wrote <<Since the idea of Christ *originating* from death would be
absolutely foreign to Paul's thought,>>
However out of the dead partive genitive would work here, and if that same
type of genitive was applied to of creation then Jesus would be a part of the
creation. To my mind that would be the usually way of looking at it. But our
theology does come into play here. It has too
Dennis
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 09:57:46 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Learning Greek via computer
On Thu, 15 Dec 1994 molsen@casbah.acns.nwu.edu wrote:
> This from a friend in Puerto Rico. Can anyone help?
>
> Forwarded message:
> ...
> Deborah is wanting to learn Greek (bible Greek not modern Greek).
> She is also wanting to buy a computer. She wanted me to
> ask you if there are any computer programs to assist someone in learning
> Greek and whether they were written for the Apple or IBM. She has heard
> of one called HyperGreek for the Apple but doesn't know anything about it.
> ...
I haven't seen HyperGreek but I've seen it advertised in the
Intellimation catalog; Intellimation puts out a number of Higher Ed
programs, most of them dependent on the Macintosh HyperCard platform. I
think that HyperGreek is, in fact, fundamentally Koine. I've produced
some stuff myself for Macs, also based on HyperCard, but focused more on
classical Attic: pronunciation, alphabet, and flash cards for use with
the JACT textbook, _Learning Greek_ (essentially Attic, although it
includes some Herodotus and some Homer); I use with my classes also the
very fine HyperCard stacks created by Matt Neuburg of U. of Canterbury in
New Zealand. Mounce has a very nice flash-cards program for the Mac (not
based on HyperCard) that accompanies his Koine textbook. There are other
resources as well, but I'm more familiar with those for the Mac. I should
add that none of these is a complete teaching program in itself, but they
will go a long way to help a student learn Greek with a textbook and a
minimum of assistance from someone who really knows the Greek. Matt
Neuburg's stacks are self-correcting devices for doing the exercises in
the JACT stacks; they include a Greek font developed for use with the
program; so does Mounce's Flash-Card program (which is a shell that can
be used for any language with a text-file of words and meanings).
I do know that there is at least one DOS program for Greek also, but, as
I indicated, I'm less familiar with that machine and its resources.
Hope this helps.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 10:09:54 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Rank?
On Thu, 15 Dec 1994 DDDJ@aol.com wrote:
> David wrote <<Since the idea of Christ *originating* from death would be
> absolutely foreign to Paul's thought,>>
> However out of the dead partive genitive would work here, and if that same
> type of genitive was applied to of creation then Jesus would be a part of the
> creation. To my mind that would be the usually way of looking at it. But our
> theology does come into play here. It has too
> Dennis
There's hardly any way that EK TWN NEKRWN could be construed as a
partitive genitive; it's clearly ablatival.
Perhaps I shouldn't say that so absolutely, although I am fairly
confident about it. The problem is that there are equivalent
constructions, as there is really no difference at all between PROS
AYTOUS and AYTOIS with a verb of speaking, and it seems to me that I have
seen in Hellenistic Greek constructions that are very similar to the
Latin substitute for the partitive with quantitative expressions, such as
UNUS EX MILITIBUS which might hypothetically have a Hellenistic Greek
equivalent (I don't know whether this is found): HEIS EK TWN STRATIWTWN.
Nevertheless it certainly would seem that the grammar favors the sense of
PRWTOTOKOS EK TWN NEKRWN as equivalent to 1 Cor 15.20 NUNI DE XRISTOS
EGHGERTAI EK NEKRWN APARXH TWN KEKOIMHMENWN (is my transliteration clear
enough?).
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
------------------------------
From: DDoyle1049@aol.com
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 11:09:56 -0500
Subject: Learning Greek via Computer
I have used a DOS program called "Greek Tools" from Parsons Technology. I
had a vocab drill, some charts showing verb forms, and a mini Greek word
processor.
This wouldn't teach Greek, but might be better in the vocabulary stuff.
------------------------------
From: "Philip L. Graber" <pgraber@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 11:17:43 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: son of man
On Thu, 15 Dec 1994, Gregory Jordan (ENG) wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Dec 1994, Pete Cepuch wrote:
>
> > you cited were mostly all Jewish/Hebraic sources. This whole thread got started by
> > the statement where you said"huios tou antthrOpou surely emphasizes his
> > humanity". Where in all the wonderful sources you cited does the idea of
> > humanity appear?.
>
> Greek _anthrOpos_ means "human being, humanity," usually the antonym of
> _theos_. Hebrew _enosh_ and Aramaic _enash_ also mean "human being,
> humanity." None of the supernatural beings I mentioned were considered
> "God" by the perfectly Jewish sources, that is, the one unique focus of
> monotheism. My point was to show that sharing some divine
> characteristics and prerogatives are not necessarily, are not usually, a
> sign that deity is being attributed to a character in a text, according
> to many probable NT-contemporary "Judaisms."
Your point was abundantly clear the first time, Greg. What I believe Pete
is taking issue with is whether the phrase "son of man" "emphasizes his
humanity" any more than it emphasizes divinity. The meaning of the
particular words is not the issue. The issue that I think Pete was raising
here (at least the issue that needs to be raised here) is whether the
phrase "son of man" is used in the Gospels (and by the "historical"
Jesus?) in the way it is used in Ezekiel (this seems to be your position),
or in a way that alludes to Daniel 7 and other similar texts. I agree with
you that the phrase, in the context of other 2d Temple period texts, does
not imply divinity, but I think it can be said with equal confidence that
it does not "emphasize his humanity." Does any apocalyptic image of
messiah do that?
Philip Graber
Graduate Student in New Testament Graduate Division of Religion
Emory University 211 Bishops Hall, Emory University
pgraber@unix.cc.emory.edu Atlanta, Georgia 30329 USA
------------------------------
From: DDDJ@aol.com
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 11:45:16 -0500
Subject: Re: The Law
I am having a debate on the issue of agape and phileo in E mail
<< I do not feel insulted. I am sorry to but you are wrong and
so is your Greek teacher. It is not a consensus of the Greek
scholars in fact I can find NO scholar that agrees with your
point. The most liberal of scholastic lexicons Strongs, points
out a difference between them. W.E. Vine whose 50 years of work
is inclusive of over twenty of the worlds top scholars makes a
very clear point on this. So does Thayer. I do not know who
your teacher was and this may be his opinion, but it stops there.
He has a right to his opinion and so do you. But that is not a
consensus of the worlds scholars.>>
The particular issue at hand is whether agape and phileo are words with
entirely differnet meanings. I say no. He says yes. So scholars out there
what is your view? are these words symnanyms (sic) or are they completely
different. and what is the scholarly consensous today. I would apprecate that
if you respond that you add your credentials.
Dennis
My own understanding of teh issue is that the two words are almost totally
symnanymous (sic)
------------------------------
From: Dvdmoore@aol.com
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 12:15:56 -0500
Subject: Re: protokos in Col. 1:15, 18
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu (Gregory Jordan (ENG)) quoted and wrote:
>>Since the idea of Christ *originating* from death would
>>be absolutely foreign to Paul's thought, the interpretation that
>> He was the first to issue out of death to eternal life would hold in v. 18
>> even if we were to consider EK (omitted by P46 and by the original hand of
>> Aleph) as not part of the original text. Since the context provided by
vv.
>> 16 and 17 indicate that PRWTOTOKOS in v. 15 should be understood as a
>> genitive of rank, it would be a mistake to demand that PRWTOTOKOS in v. 15
>> be interpreted in the same sense as in v. 18.
>Be careful! The Greek says _ek tOn nekrOn_: not "from death" but "from
>among the dead people." That is, Jesus is not resurrected from some
>abstract death, but he is selected from among the company of all who have
>died as the first to be resurrected (first in order or rank or
>whatever). This is in line with Jesus being called "the firstfruits" of
>the general resurrection. I think it is entirely possible that vv. 15 &
>18 could bear a similar interpretation of _prOtotokos_.
The point about EK TWN NEKRWN is well taken. Blass-DeBrunner's grammar
says that when the concept of death, rather than the collective dead is under
discussion, the article would normally be omitted (Bl-DeB, 254, 2).
Nevertheless, the emphasis is not on Christ's being *chosen* from among the
dead - that is not the idea at all - . The emphasis is on His leaving those
that are in that state and issuing out into life. In this sense he is the
Firstborn of all who come out of death, into life (Cf. Eph. 5:14.). In his
commentary on Colossians, C. D. F. Moule says it well.
Ancient commentators [attempted] to interpret PRWTOTOKOS
PASHS KTISEWS in v. 15... of God's *new* creation the Church,
rather than of the 'cosmos'. But it is generally agreed that they
were mistaken there; and it is better to reckon with the two
themes - creation in v. 15, re-creation (that is salvation) in v. 18 -
and so to find a striking instance of how 'cosmology' and
'soteriology' are interlaced (C. D. F. Moule, _The Epistle to the
Colossians and Philemon_, [Cambridge: University Press,
1957], p. 69).
This sort of a scenario seems more in line with what the text under
discussion is saying than any interpretation that would attempt to force
PRWTOTOKOS in v. 15 and in v. 18 both into the same strict mold.
David Moore
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 11:23:42 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: The Law
OK, I'll bite, albeit against my better judgment (about having which I am
sometimes skeptical!).
We argued the issue at some length on the b-greek list not so terribly
long ago with regard to the dialogue between Jesus and Peter in John 21.
As I recall, the upshot was less than crystal clear, some holding that
Jesus was indeed hoping for a response 'AGAPW SE' and could get nothing
but a 'PHILW SE' in response from Peter, who felt he wanted to use the
more personal term for affection, while others held that the difference
was rather slight and that it is mistaken to make too much theologically
about the difference between the two verbs in this passage (and this is
just about the only NT passage, isn't it, where the difference, if there
is one, is important?).
BGD seem to show AGAPAW ranging all over the spectrum of affective
commitments: human beings to each other, to God, to things, God to human
beings, etc. Of PHILEW one can certainly say that it retains from
classical Attic and even Homeric Greek the fundamental sense of kindred
affection, of feeling for another as one feels for one's kin; the verb
that both of these ought to be most sharply distinguished from is ERAW or
ERAMAI which refers distinctly to sexual attraction or its metaphorical
sense in Hellenistic mysticism. There is the classic work of the Swedish
theologian, Anders Nygren, _Eros and Agape_ (way off base, it seems to
me, in setting NT AGAPH off sharply from Platonic ERWS).
In earlier Greek, AGAPAW seems to have a sense "be satisfied with," "find
to one's liking." I recall being shocked, after hearing all about how
AGAPAW must refer only to divine love for humanity, at reading the line
in the Iliad where Achilles speaks of his affection for Briseis as every
bit as deep as Agamemnon's for Chryseis (Agamemnon had said, recall, that
he much preferred Chryseis to his lawful-wedded-wife Clytemnestra, for
which statement he may be forgiven, although Clytemnestra did not forgive
him). At any rate Achilles remarks sarcastically,
H MOUNOI AGAPWS' ALOXOUS MEROPWN ANTHRWPWN/ATREIDAI?
"Is it only the sons of Atreus that love their bed-mates?"
My own inclination is to feel that the distinction in John 21 is not
really very important. But there is a goodly body of people who feel
otherwise.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 11:23:31 -0600 (CST)
Subject: lst cent. monotheism
It is true, I think, that lst cent. Jewish religion was
characteristically "monotheistic" (our term). But two observations:
1) What does "monotheism" mean? It certainly does not mean only one
heavenly/divine being in the lst century, for the evidence indicates
beliefs in a host of heavenly/divine beings, classified often in various
ranks/orders. The God of Israel is characteristically pictured as being
vastly superior to the other beings (who are usually portrayed as God's
courtiers or servants, or armies, etc.), and is sometimes portrayed as their
creator.
But, most characteristically and emphaticially, "God" is
distinguished from other beings at the level of cultic practice
(worship): The characteristic position is that worship is to be given to
God alone (not to any other gods, not even to the other legitimate
heavenly beings [angels]).
I refer readers to my essay, "What Do We Mean by 'First Century
Jewish Monotheism?'" _Society of Biblical Literature 1993 Seminar
Papers_, ed. E. H. Lovering (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), pp. 348-68,
for discussion and for ample references.
2) With the above-mentioned cultic scruple observed, ancient Jews were
otherwise ready to bestow on other divine/heavenly beings the most
astonishing heaps of divine perogatives, powers, etc., including even
bearing the divine name. I have identified a recurring pattern in
ancient Jewish tradition in which a particular figure is portrayed as
uniquely distinguished from all other servants of God, bearing the status
of vizier or second only to God, often a principal angel but sometimes
other figures. "Monotheism" of the lst cent. was certainly not
unitarianism! It was not the stark thing we are familiar with, but was a
tapistry of heavnely beings, with the God of Israel distinguished most
essentially in reserving worship for God.
In this Jewish religious context, I have argued that the
emergence of the cultic devotion to Christ amounts to a most remarkable
and apparently unique adaptation ("mutation") in Jewish religious
practice. See my book, _One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and
Ancient Jewish Monotheism_ (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988).
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: Dvdmoore@aol.com
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 18:23:24 -0500
Subject: PRWTOTOKOS in LXX
dturner@cornerstone.edu (David L. Turner) wrote:
>Leo Percer asked for some references so here goes (from Hatch/Redpath):
>
> prOtotokein- 1 Kgs 6:7, 10; Jer 4:31
> prOtotokei/ion- Gen 25:31-34; 27:36; Deut 21:17; 1 Chron 5:1
> prOtotokeuein- Deut 21:16
> prOtotokia- Aq. Gen 25:34; Deut 21:17; Sm.,Th. Deut 21:17;
> Al. Gen 43:33
> prOtotokos- About 115x all told, including 16 in Gen, 22 in Num, 9 in
> Deut, 8 in Kings, 29 in Chron, and 5 in Psa
>
>Among the prOtotokos texts I suspect we're interested in non-temporal
>situations, e.g. Gen 27:32 ff.; Exod 4:22-23; Psa 88[Eng 89]:27; Jer
>38[Eng 31]:9 in the LXX...
The reference among these that is probably most applicable to Col.
1:15ff. is Ps. 89:27 (LXX 88:28; _BHS_ 89:28). _NIV_ translates, "I will also
appoint him my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth." The
Hebrew, looks as if it, would also support "I will give (i.e. establish) Him
[as] firstborn." "Firstborn" in the Hebrew text has no modifying pronoun,
although the first person singular "I" is emphatic "I, even I, will give...."
Also, the meaning of the second part of the verse is probably that this king
will be set on high *over* all the kings of the earth. The Hebrew reads
`ELYON LeMALKEY 'AREC. Notice the preposition Le, meaning "for," or "in
reference to." Delitzsch explains it thus:
And as, according to Deut. xxviii.1, Israel is to be high (`ELYON)
above all nations of the earth, so David, Israel's king, in whom
Israel's national glory realizes itself, is made as the high one
(`ELYON) with respect to the kings, _i.e._ above the kings, [sic]
of the earth (K&D, _Commentary on the Old Testamet_, [Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, reprint 1986], _ad loc._).
The use of PRWTOTOKOS in the LXX rendering of this verse is probably
best understood as in reference to rank and dignity. The Greek here reads
KAGW PRWTOTOKON QHSOMAI AUTON, U(YHLON PARA TOIS BASILEUSIN THS GHS.
Evidently God's king is put in another category from those who rule the
earth. The meaning of the preposition PARA (=Heb. Le) here should probably be
taken from renderings with the dative that indicate how one is seen by
observers, i.e. how God's king is seen by those who rule the earth. Cf. Luke
2:52 (BAGD s.v. PARA II:2:b).
Since David is considered, by the prophetic writers, as the model and
type of the coming Ruler of Israel (e.g. Mic. 5:2), it would not be unreasonab
le to consider that the NT writers drew on such texts as Ps. 88:27 in giving
form to the concept of the Firstborn in relation to Christ.
David L. Moore
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 18:08:16 CST
Subject: Re: son of man
On Thurs, 15 Dec 1994, Greg Jordan (ENG) wrote:
>The author could have saved himself a lot of trouble, and many vague OT
>citations, by simply saying "Jesus is God."
Greg--
Why do I have the feeling that if the text said theos ho Iesous estin you would
translate it "Jesus is divine"?
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Pete Cepuch <pcepuch@diag1.iac.honeywell.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 94 18:59:59 MST
Subject: son of man
On Thursday 15 Dec 1994 Philip Graber wrote:
"...The issue that I think Pete was raising here(at least the issue that
needs to be raised here)is whether the phrase "son of man" is used in the
Gospels(and by the "historical" Jesus?)in the way it is used in Ezekiel...
or in a way that alludes to Daniel 7 and other similar texts."
Yes, that is the issue I was originally trying to approach. Of course, in
the LXX we have both in Daniel and Ezekiel huios tou anthrOpou. However, in
the TaNaCH we have BaR 'eNaSH( Aramaic) in Daniel and BeN ADaM(Hebrew)in
Ezekiel and other places. In the latter case,it is used as more generic
sense i.e. son of man, prophesy against the shepards of Israel...Ez. 34:2(NAS)
But in Daniel 7:13,14 we have the Aramaic:
13 I kept looking in the night visions, and behold,with the clouds of
heaven one like a son of man(KeVaR 'eNaSH--possibly could be rendered
as son of man)was coming, and he came up to the Ancient of Days and was
presented before Him.
14 And to him was given dominion,glory and a kingdom, that all the peoples,
nations and language might serve him. His dominion is an everlasting
dominion which will not pass away; and his kingdom is one which will
not be destroyed.(NAS)
Now, Jesus uses this term son of man of himself around 81 times(my count
could be a bit off, I'll go back and count again:) ). Again,in our
Greek text we have ho huios tou anthrOpou THE son of man with the definite
article. So,if we look up every occurance in the gospels we can get an
idea as to whom Jesus, by using this term from Daniel,is claiming to be.
He is claiming to be THIS particular son of man in Daniel. The key terms
in these two verses in Daniel have to do with:
1- dominion(everlasting)
2-glory
3-kingdom(never to be destroyed)
I won't bother to list all 81 +/- occurences, but a few highlites should
be cited(by the way if perchance anyone does look up all these verses
it's interesting to recall 1,2,3 above):
Mt 8:20 ...the son of man has nowhere to lay his head. (great irony!)
Mt 9:6 ...the son of man has AUTHORITY on earth to forgive sins...
Mt 12:8... the son of man is LORD of the sabbath.
MT 13:41.. the son of man will send forth his angels...will gather out
of HIS KINGDOM...
Mt 16:27...the son of man is going to come in the GLORY of his Father...
Mt 26:64...shall see the son of man at the right hand of power and coming
on the clouds of heaven.
ds of heaven.
and on and on. I think anyone who will look up all the occurances of
Jesus's seemingly favorite name for Himself will not be disapointed!
Peter Cepuch
ances
------------------------------
From: Pete Cepuch <pcepuch@diag1.iac.honeywell.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 94 20:44:50 MST
Subject: son of man
On 15 Dec 1994 Greg Jordan wrote: "The author could have saved himself a lot of trouble and many vague OT citations, by simply saying "Jesus is God"
I suppose the writer of Hebrews could of said that without the OT citations
but of course there would always be someone who would say : prove it :).
Actually, I have you to thank for calling my attention to Hebrews chap. 1
because I never really saw the full implications there untill now after
this discussion on second temple period theology. Because here we have
the definitve answer to these questions. Looking up citations such as these
in their original context is usually very rewarding. "but of the Son:
Thy throne o God is forever and ever,and the righteous scepter is the scepter
of His Kingdom. Thou hast loved righteosness and hated lawlessness;Therefore
God, Thy God, Hath annointed thee with gladness above thy companions.(Heb.
1:8,9 from psalm 45
it's also interesting to note in verse 8 that when speaking of the Son the greek has: ho thronos sou ho theos eis ton aiOna tou aiOnos..The throne of you
THE God....:)
Anyway, I can't respond to the rest of your post from last night, right now,
but hopefully will get back to this tommorrow. I think that Jesus' response
to the would be stone-throwers is very interesting in John 10...
Peter Cepuch
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 23:24:37 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: son of man
On Thu, 15 Dec 1994, Philip L. Graber wrote:
> is taking issue with is whether the phrase "son of man" "emphasizes his
> humanity" any more than it emphasizes divinity. The meaning of the
> particular words is not the issue. The issue that I think Pete was raising
> here (at least the issue that needs to be raised here) is whether the
> phrase "son of man" is used in the Gospels (and by the "historical"
> Jesus?) in the way it is used in Ezekiel (this seems to be your position),
> or in a way that alludes to Daniel 7 and other similar texts. I agree with
> you that the phrase, in the context of other 2d Temple period texts, does
> not imply divinity, but I think it can be said with equal confidence that
> it does not "emphasize his humanity." Does any apocalyptic image of
> messiah do that?
>
I do see Daniel 7 behind the NT usage, at least as one contributing
source, and it sets up the figure of an earthly king(-dom). By saying
that the phrase emphasizes his humanity, I was focusing on the exact
terms, and the absence of equation with deity in any usage.
It might be interesting to note that God (if that is how we are to
interpret LXX Palaios HEmerOn "Ancient of Days" in 7:9) is himself
heavily anthropomorphized: he sits down on a throne, he has hair, he
wears clothes, and he holds court in the manner of a human king. The
myriad courtiers serve him and stand by him: _etherapeuon, pareistEkeisan,
eleitourgon_. So there is little left for the one like the son of a
human being (hOs huios anthrOpou, k'var enash) - that is, apparently
looking like a human being (?) - except that God should give him
broad derivative authority:
Kai edothE autOi eksousia, kai panta ta ethnE tEs gEs kata genE kai
pasa doksa autOi latreuousa: kai hE eksousia autou eksousia aiOnios,
hEtis ou mE arthEi, kai hE basileia autou, hEtis ou mE phtharEi. (7:14)
He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples,
nations and men of every language worshipped him. His dominion is an
everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that
will never be destroyed. (NIV)
Note the term _latreuousa_ is expanded in 7:27 _...kai pasai <hai>
eksousiai autOi hupotagEsontai kai peitharkhEsousin autOi (or ..
douleusousin kai hupakousontai).
I think we have here what must be political "worship" rather than
religious, although the Persian-style despotic imagery works against any
rigorous distinction between "worship" of human kings and worship of
gods. Of course, this is a whole other can of worms. The same imagery
of Jesus as a son and/or apointee of a king, who has been given all the
king's authority & who is in turn served by his subjects ("worshipped")
reoccurs throughout the NT.
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #513
*****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu