In fact, the final paragraph/sentence on the front inside dust jacket of the first book (the 1979 publication of Casey's thesis) says, "The book concludes by proposing a complete solution of the Son of Man problem", which = the title of the third book (Casey's last major publication after nearly three decades of debating 'Son of Man' studies with fellow scholars).
Quotation from John Reece thread on the Son of Man.
Quotation from John Reece thread on the Son of Man.
The immediate question arises as to why Jesus, of all persons, should be called the "Son of Man" when if any person in the world should be called the "Son of Woman" it's Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus is the only person in human history born exclusively of a "woman" such that if any term would circumscribe (so to say) his uniqueness in relationship to everyone else it would seem like the phrase, the "Son of Woman" would fit perfectly?
So why, of all persons, is Jesus of Nazareth called the "Son of Man" when he of all person's seems to be less a "son of man" than any of the rest of us?
XR
Comment