Son of Man: a fresh call for new categories

One of Jesus' most preferred titles according to the four canonical Christian gospels is "Son of Man". Correction: "THE Son of Man". It is important to savour the definite article, and digest slowly. While scholars have shown no consensus over the centuries of this conundrum, one thing is clear. There are no other pre-Christian usages of the definite article like this. Either Jesus himself or his immediate followers ascribed to Jesus the *title* of: the Son of Man.

Obviously if no-one had managed to solve the puzzle definitively, we're unlikely to make much headway here. However, there might be some important clues here to stock up my ammo on promoting the Triune Hub model. Jesus' exaltation is described by some as "super-exaltation", that is to say that by the time of the writing of Revelation, the Johannine letters and the gospel of John, cultic (religiousu) worship, obeissance, honour and glory were ascribed to Christ along with God. God had given **all** authority to Christ, his Son. Until quite recently, I had put to one side the "the Son of Man" evidence. Dr Hurtado does not want to read too much into it: "son of Man" can simply be a Jewish way of saying "a man". But what about one appearing like a man to whom divine worship and authority is given? How might you want to refer to **that** son of man? Let's read from Daniel 7:13-14:

 In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Dr. Michael Heiser describes this passage in his insightful The Unseen Realm (which I really recommend) as a "second Yahweh figure". Along with a minority of scholars, he believes that the ancient Israelite worldview was of a binitarian Yahweh. In the relevant chapter of Unseen Realm, he develops how Baal and other national deities of ancient middle east nations would be described as "riding on the waves", especially noting the more extensive evidence we have available on the Ugarit practices and beliefs. For someone other than Yahweh to be doing the cloud-riding for Heiser is impossible. It has to be the God of the people the prophet is describing in his vision. Where this view breaks down is the same issue that we find throughout the New Testament, which is totally in line with this striking Old Testament precedent: given authority.

Given authority is no less than inate authority. I was born with British nationality, but I have been given French nationality. So I now have dual citizenship. But the fact that their means of obtention is different has no bearing whatsoever on my power to vote in each of those countries. My British vote is just as important as before, and my French vote has no greater or lesser bearing than that of someone who was born French.

The point for the Triune Hub is that the combination of Daniel 7 and Jesus' designation (probably self-designation) as the Son of Man, seem to suggest that Christ's superexaltation *did* exist as a messianic conceptual category, at least in Jesus' mind. Glorious visions of the risen Christ could - I think we can reasonably speculate - have joined dots in a Jewish eschatological mind, whereby stories would circulate in which just like that Son of Man, that Son of Man of Daniel 7, Jesus also was given divine authority and glory.

Once again we witness how the biblical texts simply will not play ball with the theological categories so often imposed upon them. With that burden in mind, I believe we should feel pressed to finding newer (or older) theological categories that fit the biblical picture more accurately.

Bart Ehrman - mistaken on Judas? (2)

I did receive a reply from Bart Ehrman:

I’m not saying that any of htese terms means any one thing; but I am saying that if you want to say “betray” in Greek you use PRODIDOMI, not PARADIDOMI. If you want to pursue this further, you might look at my discussion in my book on Judas. (I’m out of the country now and can’t remember which scholar convinced me on this point. Was it William Klassen???)

Ok so I got caught short there - neither have I read Bart's book on Judas nor do I know William Klassen, but I wasn't about to admit that was I?!

Another lady responded, then I also replied with a post that was probably too long to be read by him, but you never know. To the faithful of this blog I am SURE that won't be a problem, right?!

Mark 3:19 is an example of the verb applied directly to Judas, and as I said there are multiple examples from all four gospels. It seems to me that Bart is saying that this is not a pure form of betrayal. It speaks more of a (simpler? more descriptive?) “handing over”, even when applied to Judas like in Mk 3:19.

Couple of problems in trying to protect the two Greek words from possibilities of overlap or of flexibility (at least on the part of the one we are probing more deeply, paradidomi). Firstly, if Jesus hands *himself* over, therefore not implying deceit, how can we see “the man” by whom the Son of Man will be “handed over” in Mark 14:21/Luke 22:22 as equally guiltless? We can’t, whether or not Paul was familiar with these accounts. Secondly, as you mention, it seems that many of the Greek reference sources agree that betrayal IS one of the shades of meaning of this word.

Regarding the whole issue of “the twelve” – I don’t see why, if I put myself temporarily in Bart’s shoes (big and very respectable shoes that I shouldn’t be toying with probably), then I don’t see why I would be so heavily leaning on a book like Acts and its historicity about precisely when the twelfth member was re-appointed. There are waaaay to many “what ifs” that could come into play to explain Paul saying “the 12”. What if Judas did betray Jesus but Jesus also was known to have appeared to him as one of the 12 before Judas banished himself to another country in perpetual shame (hence discordant death stories)? What if Paul made a mistake (hardly anyone would have remembered the very short period when people went around talking about the “eleven”)? What if the only person who EVER mentioned “the Eleven” like that was Luke telling his story decades later in a Tolkienian fashion to engage his readership (before the Mark long-ending-writer grabbed it from Luke) (Luke IS the only one to mention "The Eleven" in the NT)? What if Luke made a mistake about the timings of the replacement apostle, and would it be the first time he fitted events and stories into a timeline he applies to keep a narrative feel? What if Paul really didn’t know much about what happened in terms of the technicalities of the betrayal/handing-over (like Judas’ name)? What if saying Judas’ name (for some) for a relatively short period of early church history was sooo bad that it was like exposing yourself spiritually to similar betrayal? What if… well I’m not as good as Bart is for the what-if scenarios, but I am sure he and probably many others on this blog could come with a really good list if they really wanted to.

Theology really is quite crazy. I just forgot why this Judas-betrayal question even matters! I guess the familiarity of Paul with the gospels is a big one.

BTW I still loved the “spilling the messianic secret beans” post. Seems more and more plausible each time I think about it, unlike this one, which I think has to remain open. I am grateful for being made to think about it quite deeply and discover more of the nuances here in the Greek.

Final thought on Paul’s remarkable ignorance – I can’t find another mention of him after Acts. So it’s not just Paul who does not focus on this key gospel figure.

More reflections on Luke's passionless passion...jury is not just out but on holiday!

In my previous post, I outlined my brief exchange with Dr. Bart Ehrman on the question of why Luke might have stripped from Jesus' brutal death the emphases on suffering and agony. I pointed out why the argument for a textual corruption on the drops of blood seems highly probable (for me I am as certain as you can be about these things), but the resulting and obvious question is still begging. Why would Luke do that? Why would he want to portray a suffering-free, calm, collected, reflective Jesus all the way up to his death? Initially I put forward a hypothesis: could it be that Luke was wanting to differentiate Jesus from the Son of Man, who WOULD suffer?

Although I got Ehrman's initial interest on that idea, I proceeded to shoot down my own idea in flames, on the basis that the Lukan text would have had to be subject to a huge conspiracy of corruption to end up with what we have now, because there are many passages that DO associate Jesus with the Son of man.

Ehrman's next response is: It was probably (to give it in its shortest version) to show those suffering that they too did not really need to suffer if God was on their side.  They too could be calm and in control.

But how does this account for Luke's idea that Jesus is the Son of man who must "suffer and die"?

For me this is a mystery indeed that I think I will simply put on hold until I hear a more developed explanation. I do not have one.

Drops of blood

[Translation from recent post in French]

Thanks to a conversation today with a French-speaking friend, who read the blog but gave up because of the language, I propose[d] to do an article in French! Truly I am sorry to have been such an English-lover up until now. One reason for that is that I write better in English - after all, it's my mother tongue. But a second reason is that the sources and references I am examining come for the mostpart from English persons and scholars. However, that is not an excuse, and I hope to do more articles in French, including one this week (on a worship song in the continuation of the series I started on theology in worship).

But my subject for today is the question of the Son of man according to Luke's gospel. This expression THE son of man is radical and innovative. Indeed, this expression (combined with its definite article) is present nowhere else in antiquity, including in the texts of the Old Testament, which contains a hundred or so references to "A son of man" or "sons of man".

Some readers will already have heard of the "historical Jesus". It is a movement that developed in the field of history that applies to Jesus the same criteria of historical research applied to any other historical event or figure. These historians do not apply faith-based or religious criteria, but historical criteria. Some of them are believers, although many are not, and many debates have been held over the issue of the "historical Jesus". One of the most distinguished scholars of our time, who is no longer a believer himself, is Bart Ehrman. No-one seriously undertaking critical Biblical study will be unaware of his contributions to the field. Ehrman is one of those who believes that by applying historical criteria to the data and research we currently hold (for example on the workings of oral transmissions of stories and human memory) that there is a wide variety of historical preciseness in Jesus' recorded words.

Indeed, even some of the more conservative scholars can concede that some stylistic wording can be considered as likely added by the gospel writer, i.e. not exactly word by word what Jesus really said, and this is what interests historians (see Just Bass in his debate with Bart Ehrman on 18 September 2015). Ehrman is in agreement that given the diversity of the multiple and independent sources quoting Jesus talking of "THE son of man" that he really did teach about this a lot, and that it was new. But, what is most surprising, is that if you accept that there can be a difference between the true unfolding of historical events and wording and what is reported by the four gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and you also accept that Jesus spoke a lot about the Son of man, you are not obligated to take the position of Jesus having historically appropriated the title himself. According to certain verses, it seems totally obvious that Jesus did appropriate this title. However, for some historians, it is just as possible or even probable that it is the gospel writers who at times make Jesus appropriate that title. Let us look at an example that does not at all require such appropriation:

Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. (Luke 9:26)
For historians, this saying might be closer to the actual statement Jesus made than certain other statements recorded by the gospel writers concerning the Son of man.

But why am I telling you all this?

On his blog via several posts, Ehrman has explained why two verses from Luke chapter 22, verses 43-44, we can observe a real corruption of the text ("corruption" in the technical sense, not in the mean-spirited way), that is to say, an insertion. It is the passage that explains how an angel comforted Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane and how Jesus was "in agony":

An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.

Wow, a very famous passage indeed. But it is an insertion; it was added by a copyist in the second or third century. It is a verifiable fact that the human beings who copied these texts always made small (although occasionally larger) changes. For the vast majority of cases these were accidental and without serious consequence. This is one of the very few larger changes that is neither accidental nor without significant consequence, and can be shown by

1. its absence from the best and oldest manuscripts
2. the otherwise symmetrical structure of the paragraph
3. the context of Jesus' "suffering" in Luke.

We can sometimes have the unfortunate habit of flattening the events of the life, and especially the death and resurrection of Jesus into one single account comprising four sources. This prevents us sometimes from some quite remarkable discoveries. Here's a whopper: if you only read Christ's passion in Luke, you can arrive at the astonishing conclusion that - WITH THE EXCEPTION OF LUKE 22:43-44 - Jesus didn't really have to suffer. Every time that Mark stresses that the situation was heavy and painful for Jesus, Luke, who has access to the Markan text, removes the agony and shows a Jesus who is in control, capable of conversation, reflective, profound exhortations, who does not cry out to God about why he has been forsaken, and so on. Honestly, the arguments for a corruption of this passage are coherent on multiple levels.

But one question remains, and I asked it to Dr. Ehrman: why would Luke have so intentionally described an absence of Jesus in his "passion"? I also made a fated suggestion, that I myself do not really believe but I just want to find an explanation for this reality if I can:

If in other parts of Luke we can indeed observe a connection between the Son of man and suffering, and if Jesus was referring to another, apocalyptic character such as observed in Daniel chapter 7, could not Luke have been avoiding the confusion between Jesus and the Son of man?

Ehrman's first response was "good idea". But the problem with my suggestion was that if Luke was the culprit for making Jesus appropriate the title of The Son of man, why would he seek to remove any trace of the Son of Man's suffering, since the Son of Man, for Luke, IS Jesus? Surely that could not be attributed to scribal corruptions!

Ehrman responded a second time with a brief alternative explanation I can give in the next post...
 

Grumeaux de sang

Grâce à une conversation aujourd'hui avec un ami francophone, qui lisait le blog mais qui s'est arrêté à cause de la langue, je propose tout de suite un article en français! Vraiment je m'excuse d'avoir été si anglophile jusqu'à là. Une raison pour cela est que j'écris mieux en anglais - après tout, c'est ma langue maternelle. Mais une deuxième raison existe aussi, ce qui est que les sources et références auxquelles je réponds et que j'examine proviennent, pour la plupart, de personnes et chercheurs anglophones. Cependant, cela ne m'excuse pas, et je compte à faire plus d'articles en français, dont un cette semaine (sur un chant de louange dans la suite de la séquence que j'ai entamée sur la théologie dans l'adoration).

Mais mon sujet pour aujourd'hui c'est la question du Fils de l'homme selon l'évangile de Luc. Cette expression LE fils de l'homme est radicale et très innovatrice. Puisque cette expression (avec son article défini) n'existe en aucun texte d'antiquité, y compris les textes de l'Ancien Testament, qui contient une centaine de références à UN ou DES fils de l'homme.

Certains lecteurs auront déjà entendu parlé du "Jésus historique". C'est un mouvement qui s'est développé dans le domaine de l'histoire, et qui applique donc les mêmes critères que nous appliquons à tout autre événement et personnage historique à la personne centrale de la foi chrétienne, à savoir Jésus Christ. Ces historiens appliquent non des méthodes de la foi mais de l'histoire. Certains sont croyants, et beaucoup non, et beaucoup de débats ont eu lieu sur la question du "Jésus historique". Un des grands chercheurs de notre temps, qui n'est plus croyant, s'appelle Bart Ehrman. Personne qui a étudié sérieusement les textes bibliques selon l'approche critique ne serait ignorant de ces publications. Ehrman fait partie de ceux qui estiment qu'en appliquant un certain nombre de critères historiques et de recherches plus récentes (par exemple sur les effets de la transmission orale d'histoires et la mémoire humaine) qu'il existe dans les textes une riche diversité dans l'exactitude en ce qui concerne les paroles de Jésus.

Effectivement, même des apologistes bien conservateurs peuvent céder quelques petites tournures des rédacteurs des évangiles qui ne seraient pas mot par mot ce que Jésus à réellement dit, la tache qui intéresse les historiens (voir Justin Bass dans son débat avec Bart Ehrman le 18 septembre 2015). Ehrman est d'accord qu'au vu des sources diverses et indépendantes, que Jésus avait réellement beaucoup parlé du Fils de l'homme, avec ce fameux article défini. Mais, ce qui est très étonnant, c'est que si tu acceptes qu'il peut y avoir une différence entre le vrai déroulement des événements et ce que nous apportent les quatre évangiles, Mathieu, Marc, Luc et Jean, et que tu acceptes aussi que Jésus parlait beaucoup du Fils de l'homme, tu n'es pas obligé de prendre la position que Jésus parlait de lui-même. Selon certains versets, il parait plus qu'évident que Jésus s'approprie ce titre, mais pour certains historiens, c'est tout aussi possible ou probable que c'est le rédacteur qui lui font approprier ce titre là. Regardez un exemple qui ne nécessite pas une telle appropriation:

Car quiconque aura honte de moi et de mes paroles, le Fils de l'homme aura honte de lui, quand il viendra dans sa gloire, et dans celle du Père et des saints anges. (Luc 9:26)

Pour des historiens, cette phrase serait éventuellement plus proche aux dires de Jésus que d'autres passages.

Alors pourquoi je vous parle de tout ça?

Sur son blog à travers un nombre d'articles, Ehrman a expliqué pourquoi deux versets en Luc chapitre 22, aux versets 43 et 44, nous pouvons constater une vraie corruption du texte ("corruption" au sens technique, non au sens malsain), c'est à dire une insertion. C'est le passage qui parle de comment un ange a réconforté Jésus dans le Jardin de Gethsémani et aussi comment Jésus a été "en agonie":

Alors un ange lui apparut du ciel, pour le fortifier.
Étant en agonie, il priait plus instamment, et sa sueur devint comme des grumeaux de sang, qui tombaient à terre.

Wow, un passage très connu, c'est vrai. Mais, c'est une insertion; c'était ajouté par un scribe dans le deuxième ou troisième siècle. C'est un véritable fait que les êtres humains qui copiaient ces textes faisaient toujours d'erreurs, dont la plupart sont sans conséquences lourdes. Cela est attesté par l'appui de très anciens manuscrits qui manquent ces versets, par la construction sinon symétrique du péricope et par le contexte de "la souffrance" de Jésus en Luc.

En effet, nous avons l'habitude d’aplatir les événements de la vie, et surtout de la mort et de la résurrection de Jésus à un seul récit constitué de quatre sources. Cela nous empêche des fois de remarquer certaines choses étonnantes. Voici une qui est énorme: si tu lis uniquement la passion de Christ en Luc, tu peux arriver à la conclusion étonnante que - MISE A PART LUC 22:43-44 - Jésus n'aurait pas vraiment souffert. A chaque fois que l'écrit de Marc donne l'impression d'une situation lourde et douloureuse pour Jésus, Luc, qui a accès à ce texte, enlève l'agonie, et montre un Jésus est au contrôle, capable de conversation, réflexions et exhortations approfondies, qui ne crie pas à Dieu pourquoi il l'aurait abandonné, etc. Honnêtement, les arguments pour une corruption de ce passage sont cohérentes à de nombreux niveaux.

Mais une question reste, et je l'ai posé à Dr Ehrman: pourquoi aurait Luc été si intentionnel à montrer l'absence de souffrance pour Jésus dans sa "passion"? J'ai aussi fait une petite proposition (alors, s'il vous plaît croyez-moi que je suis très loin d'être convaincu, j'essaie juste de vérifier la cohérence des arguments auxquels je suis sensibilisés):
Si dans d'autres endroits dans le livre de Luc nous pouvons constater un lien entre la souffrance et "Le Fils de l'homme", et si Jésus faisait allusion à un tiers, un personnage apocalyptique tel que celui vu par Daniel au chapitre 7 du livre attribué à ce prophète de l'Ancien Testament, alors est-ce qu'un hypothèse pour cette approche de Luc ne serait-il pas justement d'éviter la confusion entre Jésus et le Fils de l'homme. La réponse d'Ehrman est simplement "bonne idée", et reste bien sûr à développer.

Un problème initial pour cet hypothèse et qui serait à vérifier: les autres citations du Fils de l'homme où il parait une identification de Jésus par Luc avec le Fils de l'homme, peuvent-elles s'expliquer par d'autres corruptions telles que celle constaté pour les grumeaux de sang? Sinon, pourquoi voudrait Luc éliminer la trace de la souffrance de Jésus si son objectif était de ne pas confondre Jésus et le Fils de l'homme?