Announcement

Collapse

Biblical Languages 301 Guidelines

This is where we come to delve into the biblical text. Theology is not our foremost thought, but we realize it is something that will be dealt with in nearly every conversation. Feel free to use the original languages to make your point (meaning Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). This is an exegetical discussion area, so please limit topics to purely biblical ones.

This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Son of Man

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Son of Man

    Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
    It would be useful to determine what kind of triumph the author had in mind. Did he expect the Jews to win a military victory? There is no mention of it in the interpretation of this chapter. The parallel 2.44 is not explicit. On the one hand God is very clearly the subject of the statement 'the God of heaven will raise up a kingdom which will last for ever'; on the other hand this need not preclude a military victory as the means by which he did so, and this might be suggested by 'it will shatter and destroy all those kingdoms', a statement of which this new kingdom appears to be the subject. 8.25 produces a purely supernatural intervention to bring about the end of Antiochus, an event which in this context clearly involves the deliverance of Israel. 12.1-3 similarly envisages the deliverance of Israel, and this deliverance certainly includes supernatural intervention, though the possibility of military action by earthly or heavenly hosts, or both, cannot be ruled out. In view of these factors, we may conclude that the author of Daniel 7 appears to have envisaged deliverance by supernatural means. It is to be noted, however, that the military view, which will therefore have to come into being after the Maccabean victory, does not directly contradict anything in Daniel 2 or 7, and the difficulties which it ran into at 12.1-3 are chiefly due to its assumption that this record of the Maccabean triumph only, rather that to any direct contradiction between these verses and the notion that a military victory was involved as well.

    From The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (Eerdmans, 1984, 1998), by John J. Collins (page 106):
    The interpretation of the holy ones as angels fits naturally with the identification of the one like a son of man as Michael, leader of the heavenly host. The relation between this figure and the holy ones, then, is not identity, but representation. The three formulations of Daniel 7:14, 18, and 27, in which the one like a son of man, the holy ones of the Most High, and the people of the holy ones are said in turn to receive the kingdom, represent three levels of a multidimensional reality. A closely similar conception is found in the Qumran War Scroll, where God "will raise up the kingdom of Michael in the midst of the gods, and the realm of Israel in the midst of all flesh" (1QM 17:6-8).

    Daniel 7 does not mention Michael by name, as it does not mention any proper names. The suppression of proper names lends an air of mystery to the whole vision. The specific identification of the one like a son of man is not of ultimate importance. What matters is that there is a heavenly saviour figure who represents the righteous community on a supernatural level. This figure is specified in various ways in different texts. Michael is named explicitly in Daniel 10―12 and 1QM. Melchizedek in 11QMelch, "that son of man" in the Similitudes of Enoch, the man from the sea in 4 Ezra 13, and the Son of Man in the New Testament all fill this function with varying nuances. Apocalyptic thought allows for considerable fluidity in it mythological conceptions. Although there is now general agreement that Son of Man was not a title in pre-Christian Judaism, the mysterious figure in Daniel represents a type that is widespread in apocalyptic literature.

    Comment


    • #92
      Son of Man

      Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
      The climax of the chapter, then, comes with the destruction of Antiochus Epiphanes and the triumph of the Jews by means of supernatural intervention. Not only will their kingdom be eternal, but all other nations will serve and obey them. There is no mention of the resurrection of the dead, an idea which does not occur in the book until chapter 12. If the author believed in it, this is rather surprising. It is therefore probable that, if we are right in supposing that 8―12 were written by a different author, the reason why it is not mentioned in chapter 7 is that its author did not believe in it. The idea of a personal resurrection was developing and gaining wider acceptance at this period, so that there is nothing intrinsically improbable about the view, though it may be felt to fall short of certainty. Probably, then, the author's idea of the Jewish triumph is that after the supernatural intervention the Jewish people will continue to live and die in their kingdom which God had established. The important unit which triumphs is thus the nation, which is delivered and survives forever, rather than the individual rising from the dead. This fits well with 'the opposition history' from which the author derived the sequence of four kingdoms and a fifth. It utilizes ancient Israelite ideas of Israel as the people of God. That God will care for his people and look after them, delivering them in time of distress, is writ large over the whole O.T. When the historical context is borne in mind, it is not fanciful to mention also the idea of the righteous remnant. Many in Israel had apostatized, and it was the pious who were left. The author does not explicitly refer to this, but it may lie behind his description of the triumphant group as 'Saints'. It is God's holy ones who have been faithful to him who will be delivered; these are the true Israel, to be described as 'the people of the Saints of the Most High'. The ideas of 'opposition history' have been brought into the framework of traditional Israelite ideas. These traditional ideas constitute the framework and the essence of the author's message.

      Comment


      • #93
        Son of Man

        Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
        With the identification of the Saints of the Most High established and the forthcoming Jewish triumph clarified, we can now deal with some of the details of the interpretive section of the dream. The description of the fourth beast in Daniel's question says of the little horn 'and its appearance was bigger than that of its companions' (verse 20). This is not inconsistent with the evidence of 7.8. Like the little horn of 8.9f., this little horn came up and up and up, and 7.20 tells us that it finally became the biggest of all. The symbolism is natural and unforced. Some would prefer the author to have said it all at 7.8, but it is intelligible that he should have sought after dramatic effect by leaving something for his second lengthy description of the fourth beast and its little horn.

        Comment


        • #94
          Son of Man

          Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
          Verses 23-7 give the detailed angelic interpretation. An outline has already been supplied in 17-18, and in response to the dreamer's desire the angel can now concentrate on the fourth beast. Its identification is not specific, but will have escaped no one. The ten horns are identified as kings, and then a more prolonged account of the little horn is given. Again there is no direct identification, possibly because our author's group saw the events of their time in old prophecies which they had to reinterpret for that purpose (e.g. Daniel 9, cf. e.g. 1QpHab). Seen like this the old prophecies were imprecise,and it may be this that our author was imitating.

          Comment


          • #95
            Son of Man

            Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
            Verse 28 forms the concluding narrative framework. This time Daniel really has woken up. The concluding phrase is still in the first person and is no doubt intended deliberately as part of Daniel's account referred to say in verse 1.

            Comment


            • #96
              Son of Man

              Conclusion of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
              This concludes our study of Daniel 7 in itself. It has emerged as a thoroughly Jewish chapter in a thoroughly Jewish book. When its Jewish basis, principles, and beliefs are taken for granted, its symbolism becomes clear and its structure for the first time genuinely intelligible as the work of a single author. It contains no 'Son of man concept', and its man-like figure does not suffer. An understanding of its symbolism and structure has removed all ground for supposing that the author ever knew a Son of man concept. Finally we have been able to see how this chapter was interpreted in 166-163 B.C. This provides a terminus a quo for correct interpretations. When they recur in late sources, the terminus ad quem thus provided will enable us to argue that these interpretations were in existence at the time of Jesus.

              This is a good place for me bring an end to my transcription of Casey's thesis, as he has just summed it up in brief above. If anyone is interested in giving it further consideration, Casey's updated version of his thesis is available in print in the #3 book listed in the OP.

              I will end this thread with two comments by scholars whose quotations below are relevant to Casey's thesis.

              From pages 154-155 of Cosmology and Eschatology in Jewish and Christian Apocalypticism (Leiden: Brill), by Adela Yarbro Collins [brackets added]:
              A number of scholars [including Casey, per footnote] have argued that, during and prior to Jesus' lifetime, "Son of Man" was not a title in Jewish circles and that there was no widespread expectation of the coming of a heavenly being called Son of Man. This argument is dubious.

              It is well known that the community at Qumran and at least some early Christians believed that the scriptures were written for their benefit and prophesied events which they were experiencing and other events which they expected to occur in the near future. E. P. Sanders has recently restated, in a cogent way, the case for viewing Jesus as an eschatological prophet. If one accepts this case in general outline, it is likely that Jesus understood the Book of Daniel to refer to his own time and to the near future. He need not have been a scribe or a professional interpreter of scripture to have known the major characters and basic content of the text.

              If we conclude that Jesus alluded to Daniel 7:13 in his teaching, the shift from the indefinite or generic use of the phrase "son of man" to its definite or quasi-titular use is explained. In Daniel 7:13, the phrase is used generically. The seer speaks of one "like a son of man," meaning one "in the form of a man" or "one with the appearance of a man." the noun אנשׁ, the second noun, is indefinite. Therefore, the whole phrase in the Aramaic text is indefinite. In order to refer to that figure, Jesus probably used a definite form as a way of referring to the figure known on the basis of that text. A similar phenomenon is evident in a text roughly contemporary with Jesus, the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch, 37-71). There a heavenly figure similar to the one in Daniel 7 is called "that Son of Man," presumably in reference to the older text which was already known to the audience.

              If Jesus had already associated his activity and teaching with the heavenly figure in Daniel 7:13, it is more understandable that some of his followers would have identified the two after Jesus' death.

              From The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (Eerdmans, 1984, 1998), by John J. Collins (pages 107-108):
              Daniel 7 does not stand alone. Its picture of the Antiochan crisis is complemented by three parallel revelations that go over the same event in slightly different ways. ....

              In fact, the juxtaposition of the complementary revelations is a typical feature of apocalyptic literature. It can be seen in the Similitudes of Enoch, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch. An elaborate example is found in the book of Revelation. In none of these cases can the multiplicity of revelatory units be taken as evidence of multiplicity of authorship. Repetition of a structural pattern with variations of specific detail is a basic means of communication, well attested in myth and folklore as well as in modern communication theory. The English anthropologist Edmond Leach has explained this phenomenon by the analogy of electronic communications. If a message has to be communicated in the face of distractions or "noise," the communicator must use "redundance" by repeating the message several times in slightly different ways. In this way the basic structure of the message gets through. This use of redundance is crucially important to our understanding of apocalyptic language. It implies that the apocalypses are not conveying a "literal" or univocal truth that can be expressed precisely in one exclusive way. Rather, they share the poetic nature of myth and allude symbolically to a fullness of meaning that can never be reduced to literalness.

              Please do not neglect to click on the links behind the names of Adela and John Collins to see their qualifications and experience as scholars. See (and hear) especially the link within the link behind John's name; i.e. re the Dead Sea Scrolls: that is, the second inner link (the first one is dead, or was so when I clicked on it). In an interview, contained within that second inner link, Collins is especially interesting in his comments re the Catholic Church, his relationship with it, and his attitude toward it.

              I do not expect to have anything further to add in this thread, except by way of response to others who may contribute to it.

              Comment


              • #97
                Son of Man

                Contrary to my last statement in this thread, I wish to add another relevant comment by John J. Collins, this from his book, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other Ancient Literature (The Anchor Bible Reference Library: Doubleday, 1995), pages 37-38:
                .... The only savior figure, under God, in the book of Daniel, is the archangel Michael, the "prince" (שׂר) of Israel (Dan 12:1). The kingdom that is given to the "one like a son of man" in 7:13 is also given to the "holy ones of the Most High" (7:18). The holy ones, in the vast majority of instances in ancient Hebrew and Aramaic literature, are the heavenly host. I have argued at length elsewhere [in his Hermeneia commentary on Daniel -JR] that "the one like a son of man" is not a collective symbol for Israel, as many scholars [including Maurice Casey -JR] hold, but should be identified as Michael, the leader of the heavenly host. Even though Daniel anticipates that "the kingdom and dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the holy ones of the Most High" (7:27), there is no unambiguous reference in the book to a restored Davidic king. The nature of the earthly kingdom remains vague. Daniel, like the early Enoch apocalypses, looks beyond this world to the triumph of Michael and the holy ones, and ultimately to the resurrection and exaltation of the righteous (Dan 12:1-3). There is no reason, then, to call the future kingdom messianic.

                Rather than messianic expectation, then, what we have in Daniel is a transformation of the royal mythology. The Maccabees are, at most "a little help" (Dan. 11:34). There is a deliverer under God, but he operates on the heavenly level: the fate of Israel is determined by the battle between Michael and the princes of Greece and Persia (Dan 10:21-21). This kind of transcendent, heavenly deliverer plays an increasingly important role in Jewish eschatology in the following centuries. It also provides a paradigm for messianic expectation that is quite different from the Davidic paradigm, although the two are sometimes combined. In this paradigm the "messiah" is a heavenly figure, more like an angel than a human being. This paradigm is developed in the Similitudes of Enoch and in the apocalypse of 4 Ezra in the first century. It is a paradigm that would be crucially important for the Christian affirmation of Jesus as messiah, despite his evident failure to restore the earthly kingdom of Israel.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Son of Man

                  Another unanticipated random comment comes to mind with regard to this thread.

                  By far the best scholarly commentary on the Book of Daniel is that by John J. Collins, in the Hermeneia series published in 1993 by Augsburg Fortress.

                  It is not immediately obvious that, although John J. is presented as the author, the book is really the product of a matchless team: Adela and John Collins. Excerpts from the Preface:
                  This volume is the fruit of more than two decades of research on the Book of Daniel. Much of the commentary was written in 1987-1988, with the aid of a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities and sabbatical leave from the University of Notre Dame, for which we are grateful. .... The volume is dedicated to our former colleagues at Notre Dame, where most of the work on this commentary was done, with fond memories of the community we enjoyed.

                  January 1993

                  Adela Yarbro Collins
                  John J. Collins

                  Chicago, Illinois

                  John J. Collins is Holmes Professor of Old Testament Criticism and Interpretation at Yale.
                  Adela Yarbro Collins is Buckingham Professor of New Testament Criticism and Interpretation at Yale.

                  They are a remarkable team of scholars covering both the OT and the NT.

                  In the Hermeneia commentary on Daniel, of which John is the primary author, Adela authored a section titled "The Influence of Daniel on the New Testament" which has this introduction:
                  The most conspicuous and important influence of Daniel on the New Testament lies in the role of Dan. 7:13 in the development and transmission of the "Son of Man" tradition. Although this is a disputed issue, it is probable that Dan. 7:13 was a formative influence on this tradition. The Book of Daniel as a whole, especially chapters 7―12, served as one of several models for the author of Revelation in shaping that work's form and content. A number of terms, notions, themes, and motifs throughout the New Testament also manifest the influence of Daniel.

                  Following that introduction, Adela presents three sections, the first being titled "The Son of Man Tradition", which begins with this paragraph:
                  The reconstruction of the Son of Man tradition has been one of the most controversial topics in New Testament studies in this century. As noted above in the treatment of the Son of Man in the history of the Jewish interpretation of Daniel, one of the major issues has been whether there was a concept of the "Son of Man" in ancient Judaism independent of the Book of Daniel. In the first half of this century, it was widely assumed that there was such a concept. More recently, a number of scholars have argued that, during and prior to Jesus' lifetime, "Son of Man" was not a title in Jewish circles and that there was no widespread expectation of the coming of a heavenly being called "Son of Man." [In a footnote, Maurice Casey is included in the list of said scholars who have presented such arguments -JR]. It is certainly crucial to keep in mind the diversity of eschatological ideas in Judaism at the turn of the era. As was pointed out above, however, in the treatment of the one like a son of man of Daniel 7:13 in the Similitudes of Enoch and in 4 Ezra, there were certain common features in the interpretation and use of Daniel 7 in Jewish circles. These were the identification of the "one like a son of man" with the messiah, although the notion "messiah" may be reinterpreted in a heavenly rather than a royal sense; the notion that this figure is preexistent; the expectation that he will take an active role in the destruction of the wicked; and the implication that he acts in God's stead. The existence of these common features implies that the emergence of an apocalyptic concept of "Son of Man" need not be seen as a Christian development in response to the experience of Jesus as raised from the dead, as some have argued. It is just as likely that Jesus presupposed these common features in the interpretation of Daniel 7 and gave them his own, innovative twist in his teaching (this point will be discussed below).

                  Comment

                  widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                  Working...
                  X