04-09-2025, 10:12 PM
Do you believe "there is fundamental discontinuity between the 'son of man' of Dan 7:13 and the 'son of man' of the NT"?
Michael B. Shepherd, "Daniel 7:13 and the New Testament Son of Man" (2006)
https://www.galaxie.com/article/wtj68-1-07#GWTJ68A071
The linguistic and exegetical tools of modern scholarship have been wielded for every conceivable interpretation of Dan 7:13 with the exception of what has been called by James Montgomery the earliest and past prevailing interpretation among Jews and Christians-- the messianic interpretation.
Although a point of interest will occasionally be addressed by a scholar who holds to the messianic interpretation, a sustained argument based on all the contextual evidence is nowhere to be found.
This situation creates a host of problems for understanding the relationship between Dan 7:13 and the NT.
The overwhelming consensus among critical scholars is that there is fundamental discontinuity between the “son of man” of Dan 7:13 and the “son of man” of the NT.
Here the proposed solution to the problem is that the “son of man” of Dan 7:13 is in fact an individual figure as identified by Jesus and the NT authors.
Whatever else may be said about discontinuity between the testaments, a significant line of continuity is in view with the use of Dan 7:13 in the NT.
Michael B. Shepherd, "Daniel 7:13 and the New Testament Son of Man" (2006)
https://www.galaxie.com/article/wtj68-1-07#GWTJ68A071
The linguistic and exegetical tools of modern scholarship have been wielded for every conceivable interpretation of Dan 7:13 with the exception of what has been called by James Montgomery the earliest and past prevailing interpretation among Jews and Christians-- the messianic interpretation.
Although a point of interest will occasionally be addressed by a scholar who holds to the messianic interpretation, a sustained argument based on all the contextual evidence is nowhere to be found.
This situation creates a host of problems for understanding the relationship between Dan 7:13 and the NT.
The overwhelming consensus among critical scholars is that there is fundamental discontinuity between the “son of man” of Dan 7:13 and the “son of man” of the NT.
Here the proposed solution to the problem is that the “son of man” of Dan 7:13 is in fact an individual figure as identified by Jesus and the NT authors.
Whatever else may be said about discontinuity between the testaments, a significant line of continuity is in view with the use of Dan 7:13 in the NT.