corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Corpus-Paul
List archive
- From: tmcos AT canada.com
- To: corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] RE: son of man
- Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:32:48 -0800 (PST)
This is one I always wondered about too. Is it perhaps
because "son of man" terminology was indigenous to
Aramaic speaking Christians and Hellenistic Jews and
would thus seem odd and irrelevant to Paul's Greek
speaking audience? But then again, we know from Paul's
letters that there were Jewish believers in the
churches he wrote to. (eg. Romans) I don't think there
is any doubt Paul was familiar with the term from
Daniel 7:13, and also the book of Enoch, but his
silence on the subject is interesting.
Tony Costa
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 17:17:21 -0500, "Richard H.
Anderson" wrote:
>
> Why does Paul not use "son of man" terminology?
>
> Richard H. Anderson
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Corpus-Paul mailing list
> Corpus-Paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/corpus-paul
-
[Corpus-Paul] RE: son of man,
Richard H. Anderson, 12/08/2003
- Re: [Corpus-Paul] RE: son of man, Anthony Buglass, 12/13/2003
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: [Corpus-Paul] RE: son of man, tmcos, 12/08/2003
-
Re: [Corpus-Paul] RE: son of man,
Jim West, 12/08/2003
- [Corpus-Paul] Re: son of man, jucci, 12/08/2003
-
RE: [Corpus-Paul] RE: son of man,
Given, Mark Douglas, 12/13/2003
- Re: [Corpus-Paul] RE: son of man, Anthony Buglass, 12/14/2003
- RE: [Corpus-Paul] RE: son of man, Jeff Peterson, 12/13/2003
- [Corpus-Paul] RE: son of man, tmcos, 12/14/2003
- Re: [Corpus-Paul] RE: son of man, Jeff Peterson, 12/14/2003
-
[Corpus-Paul] RE: son of man,
tmcos, 12/14/2003
- RE: [Corpus-Paul] RE: son of man, David C. Hindley, 12/14/2003
- [Corpus-Paul] RE: son of man, tmcos, 12/14/2003
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.