Son of Man

clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Thu Aug 17 12:39:11 EDT 2000


on 08/17/00 4:06 AM, Wieland Willker wrote:

> Although this is slightly off-topic, it might be a good idea if some
> knowledgable person can give us a short review of the state of the
> Son-of-Man research.
> What is the current majority view? Latest review article? Is Enoch the
> solution? Do we really know, what it means in Enoch? And in Daniel? For Jews
> in 1BCE - 1CE?
> How should we trans - late this term today?

Wieland,

Does J.A. Fitzmyer* qualify as a  "knowledgeable person?" If he does then

>a short review of the state of the Son-of-Man research

is not possible and even if there is anything like a "majority view" the
history of biblical studies has proven over and over again that the
"majority view" is almost invariably wrong.

The recent (1990's) writings by Fitzmyer on this topic begin to make one
suspect that looking for the historical antecedents of hO hUIOS TOU ANQRWPOU
outside of Judaism is a dead end project. Furthermore, the use of this
constituent in the NT seems to significantly transcend the  historical
antecedents such as Daniel, Enoch, and Ezekiel. Fitzmyer's latest statements
give one the impression that  hO hUIOS TOU ANQRWPOU in the NT may be
something new and different. There may be no antecedent use of hO hUIOS TOU
ANQRWPOU / hUION ANQRWPOU in the way it is employed in the NT. This concept
will not go down well with those who are steeped in historicism.

   
Clay

--  
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

*J. A. Fitzmyer, S.J. has some things to say on this topic. In his book "The
Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins, Eerdmans 2000




More information about the B-Greek mailing list