Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
counter example
#1
Peers,

Why does Jesus refer to himself as ?????? ?????????? or "the son of the man" although the original Aramaic term for ???man??? is ( ??)????(??) (resh)(bet)? The former term was first employed by Tatian in his Diatessaron, which is a direct translation of the Greek christological title ??? ????????? ??????? ????????????????. Philoxenus of Mabbug comments on this Christological title, saying
???for this reason, then, he was called ???the son of the man??? because he became the son of the new man who preceded the transgression of the commandment.??? Needless to say, Philoxenus did not say that Jesus called himself "the son of the man." Instead, he says that Jesus "was called," which implies that "the son of the man" title surfaced after Jesus' time. Yet we find that Jesus is referring to himself as "the son of the man" in the Aramaic Gospels! Philoxenus identifies the ???man??? as Adam, which makes Jesus ???the son of Adam.??? How do we explain this inconsistency?

It is best illustrated that the "son of Adam" title is doctrinal by the words:

???? ?????? ?????? ???????? ???????????? ?????????? ??????

It is not (a/the) son of man that the virgin was carrying

This passage implies that the virgin was not carrying a normal man, but one with two qnoma: fully divine and fully human---classic theology from Babai the Great.

The existence of this Christological title in the Aramaic Gospels weakens the argument that the Peshitta came down to us unaltered.
Reply
#2
Shlama,

i would strongly disagree that whoever wrote the Diatesseron was the first to employ this.

here's the places i am aware of that use the phrase in the Peshitta NT:

Mark 7:15, 18, 20
Luke 9:25, 11:24
John 10:33
1 Corinthians 2:11, 15:39
Galatians 6:7

how many of those are applied to Messiah? see what i mean? then there is the slight variation of bar-anash to consider which appears often, as well.

but you can go further back, if you want, and really see that the term was used also in the Hebrew/Aramaic T"NK:

most of Daniel, when speaking of "man" uses the term anash, and once it does indeed use Bar-Anash in direct reference to the Messiah, in 7:13. the term anash can be found in many of the other prophetic books, as well.
Psalm 144:3 uses the term Ben-Enosh, which is the direct Hebrew cognate of Bar-Anasha.
the Hebrew cognate Ben-Adam can be found throughout the T"NK in many places, such as:
Numbers 23:19
Job 25:6
Isaiah 51:12

so was it a term used of Messiah? in a few places, yes. but overwhelmingly, the term that was used in both "Testaments" is in reference to men in general.

in reality, therefore, it doesn't weaken the Peshitta argument in any way, shape, or form. rather, in this, the Peshitta exhibits a very common Semitic detail the presence of which actually substantiates it's validity as a source-text, and not a translation.

Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#3
Burning one,

Thank you for replying. I do understand your line of reasoning. But let's test your argument:

1) You argue that we can abundantly find the phrase ?????? ?????????? or its Greek equivalent ??? ????????? ??????? ???????????????? in both the Old and New Testaments. But where in the Old? Remember, ( ??)????(??) (resh)(bet)---or "son of man" has an entirely different connotation than the aforementioned; it is simply an idiom for "man." Son of the man" has a specific tie to the Syriac Church:

???for this reason, then, he was called ???the son of the man??? because he became the son of the new man who preceded the transgression of the commandment??? (Philoxenus).

If you can find a Hebrew equivalent that (1) encompasses this particular meaning and (2) is present in the Old Testament in reference to Jesus, then you may have proven me wrong.
Reply
#4
Kara Wrote:Burning one,

Thank you for replying. I do understand your line of reasoning. But let's test your argument:

1) You argue that we can abundantly find the phrase ?????? ?????????? or its Greek equivalent ??? ????????? ??????? ???????????????? in both the Old and New Testaments. But where in the Old? Remember, ( ??)????(??) (resh)(bet)---or "son of man" has an entirely different connotation than the aforementioned; it is simply an idiom for "man." Son of the man" has a specific tie to the Syriac Church:

???for this reason, then, he was called ???the son of the man??? because he became the son of the new man who preceded the transgression of the commandment??? (Philoxenus).

If you can find a Hebrew equivalent that (1) encompasses this particular meaning and (2) is present in the Old Testament in reference to Jesus, then you may have proven me wrong.

Shlama Kara,


go back to the verse i referenced from Daniel 7:13. the title is a DIRECT reference to Messiah: Bar-Anash. i could possibly be wrong, but if memory serves me well, the emphatic suffix (a) that would create anasha was not yet in use. hence the reason we see Elah for Deity in Daniel, and as language progressed, it eventually developed into Alaha. so if you take into the account how the language developed, i see the term as referencing Messiah right there. and interestingly, Hebrews 2:6 quotes from a passage out of the Psalms that i listed above, and it reads Ben-Adam in the Hebrew, and Bar-Anash in the Peshitta A"NK, which again seems to show the aspect of the development of the language mentioned above.

we also see Yeshuwa Himself use the term in a non-Messianic way, in His own words, in Matthew 16:13.

but as it is, i've NEVER encountered anasha or any of it's inflected forms with an "R" as you've suggested it is, at least not in my readings of the Peshitta. can you direct me to a place that reads RANASHA in the text of the Aramaic? or are you intending the letter Dalet? also, what makes you so sure that Tatian wrote the Diatesseron? the same fella who wrote that Tatian wrote it later contradicted his own statement concerning the author, so i was under the impression that scholars were at a quandry as to who compiled the work.

so anyhow, that is where i see it quite obviously in the T"NK, with reference to Yeshuwa, and then also in the Peshitta NT with reference both to Yeshuwa AND to men in general.

Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#5
Kara Wrote:Peers,

Why does Jesus refer to himself as ?????? ?????????? or "the son of the man" although the original Aramaic term for ???man??? is ( ??)????(??) (resh)(bet)? The former term was first employed by Tatian in his Diatessaron, which is a direct translation of the Greek christological title ??? ????????? ??????? ????????????????. .

Wasn't Tatian a Syrian?
Reply
#6
judge Wrote:Wasn't Tatian a Syrian?

Assyrian.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#7
Burning one,

You have a valid point. I'm going to do more research before I continue our conversation. Thank you for being kind.

Kevin
Reply
#8
Kara Wrote:Burning one,

You have a valid point. I'm going to do more research before I continue our conversation. Thank you for being kind.

Kevin

Shlama,

not a problem. i'll be around here somewhere, i'm sure! <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)