The Solution To The Son Of Man Problem

The title 'Son of Man' in the Gospel of John is an apocalyptic reference that highlights, among a number of things, that Jesus is a heavenly figure. Benjamin E. Reynolds analyzes the background of 'Son of Man' from the 'one like a son of man' in Daniel 7 and the interpretations of this figure in Jewish apocalyptic and early Christian literature. Although there is no established 'Son of Man concept', the Danielic son of man is interpreted with common characteristics that suggest there was at least some general understanding of this figure in the Second Temple period. The author shows that these common characteristics are noticeable throughout the Son of Man sayings in John's Gospel. The context and the interpretation of these sayings point to an understanding of the Johannine Son of Man similar to those in the interpretations of the Danielic figure. However, even though these similarities exist, the Johannine figure is distinct from the previous interpretations, just as they are distinct from one another. One obvious difference is the present reality of the Son of Man's role in judgment and salvation. The Johannine Son of Man is an apocalyptic figure, and thus 'Son of Man' does not function to draw attention to Jesus' humanity in the Gospel of John. Nor is the title synonymous with 'Son of God'. 'Son of Man' may overlap in meaning with other titles, particularly 'Son of God' and 'Messiah', but 'Son of Man' points to aspects of Jesus' identity that are not indicated by any other title. Along with the other titles, it helps to present a richer Christological portrait of the Johannine Jesus.

The opening chapter surveys the history of scholarship regarding the problematic use of the phrase 'son of man' in the New Testament. It also explains why this problem could not be solved until recently. Casey then presents the relevant Aramaic evidence. He offers a careful discussion of the use of the Aramaic term 'son of man' in the light of over 30 examples of the use of this term by speakers who are referring to themselves. Chapters 4-9 discuss authentic examples of this idiom in the teaching of Jesus, with Aramaic reconstructions of each saying. All but one of these sayings is found in Mark or 'Q'. There is then a full discussion of secondary sayings in the Synoptic Gospels. The first ones dependent on Daniel 7.13 belong to the earliest Gospel, which also contains the results of translating genuine sayings of Jesus from Aramaic into Greek. There is a discussion of the transition process between authentic Aramaic sayings of Jesus and Greek 'son of man' sayings in the synoptic Gospels. This argument builds on work in the field of translation studies, and the work of ancient translators, especially of the Septuagint. Casey argues that Gospel translators deliberately translated both literally and creatively to produce a new Christological title. It is this tradition that is evident in the Fourth Gospel: its 'son of man' sayings fit perfectly into Johannine theology. The final chapter draws together a complete solution to this difficult problem.

A comprehensive, two-volume reassessment of the quests for the historical Jesus that details their origins and underlying presuppositions as well as their ongoing influence on today's biblical and theological scholarship. Jesus' life and teaching is important to every question we ask about what we believe and why we believe it. And yet there has never been common agreement about his identity, intentions, or teachings—even among first-century historians and scholars. Throughout history, different religious and philosophical traditions have attempted to claim Jesus and paint him in the cultural narratives of their heritage, creating a labyrinth of conflicting ideas. From the evolution of orthodoxy and quests before Albert Schweitzer's famous "Old Quest," to today's ongoing questions about criteria, methods, and sources, A History of the Quests for the Historical Jesus not only chronicles the developments but lays the groundwork for the way forward. The late Colin Brown brings his scholarly prowess in both theology and biblical studies to bear on the subject, assessing not only the historical and exegetical nuts and bolts of the debate about Jesus of Nazareth but also its philosophical, sociological, and theological underpinnings. Instead of seeking a bedrock of "facts," Brown stresses the role of hermeneutics in formulating questions and seeking answers. Colin Brown was almost finished with the manuscript at the time of his passing in 2019. Brought to its final form by Craig A. Evans, this book promises to become the definitive history and assessment of the quests for the historical Jesus. Volume One (sold separately) covers the period from the beginnings of Christianity to the end of World War II. Volume Two covers the period from the post-War era through contemporary debates.

When scholars have set Jesus against various conceptions of the "messiah" and other reemptive figures in early Jewish expectation, those questions have been bound up with the problem of violence, whether the political violence of a militant messiah or the divine violence carried out by a heavenly or angelic figure. Simon J. Joseph enters the wide-ranging discussion of violence in the Bible, taking up questions of Jesus of Nazareth's relationship to the violence of revolutionary militancy and apocalyptic fantasy alike, and proposes an innovative new approach. Missing from past discussions, Joseph contends, is the unique conception of an Adamic redeemer figure in the Enochic material--a conception that informed the Q tradition and, he argues, Jesus' own self-understanding.

In Mark's Gospel, the Shema language of Deut 6.4 is not merely reiterated in a traditional sense but reinterpreted in a striking way that links Jesus directly and inseparably with Israel's unique God. Such an innovative rereading of the Shema must be understood in light of (a) various elements involved in and surrounding each of the three monotheistic references (Mark 2.7; 10.18; 12.29) relating to their respective literary contexts, and (b) Mark's nuanced, complex, and even paradoxical portrait of Jesus' relationship to God throughout his gospel. John J.R. Lee shows that Mark's use of the one-God language implies that his Jesus is not merely one who, as a Shema-observant Jew, speaks on behalf of God but also one whose status and significance fundamentally correspond to those of Israel's unique deity.

Contemporary Gospel studies have recently taken increasing interest in the Jewish context of Jesus and the gospels. Judaism, Jewish Identities and the Gospel Tradition offers an overview of the ways in which Judaism is used in the canonical gospels and how this relates to the idea of a 'Jewish Jesus'. The essays bring together a range of influential scholars to analyse the role of Judaism in gospel studies. The book explores constructions of gender, the impact of the historical Jesus, and the significant steps toward Christian distinctiveness made in the gospel of John. The essays cover a range of biblical texts: from the Lord's Prayer to Mark's Christology and the Gerasene Demoniac to themes of poverty in Luke

Did Jesus claim to be the long-awaited "messiah"? Going against much contemporary scholarship, Australian scholar Michael Bird argues that he did. He begins by exploring the messianic expectations in the Old Testament and Second Temple Jewish literature. Next, Bird points out weaknesses in current arguments that "Messiah," or "Christ," was a title given to Jesus by the early church but not used by Jesus himself. Bird then examines the Gospels and related literature, finding in Jesus's words and actions evidence that he saw himself as the messiah described in the Scriptures of Israel and believed that Israel's restoration hinged on the outcome of his ministry.

Did Jesus exist? In recent years there has been a massive upsurge in public discussion of the view that Jesus did not exist. This view first found a voice in the 19th century, when Christian views were no longer taken for granted. Some way into the 20th century, this school of thought was largely thought to have been utterly refuted by the results of respectable critical scholarship (from both secular and religious scholars). Now, many unprofessional scholars and bloggers ('mythicists'), are gaining an increasingly large following for a view many think to be unsupportable. It is starting to influence the academy, more than that it is starting to influence the views of the public about a crucial historical figure. Maurice Casey, one of the most important Historical Jesus scholars of his generation takes the 'mythicists' to task in this landmark publication. Casey argues neither from a religious respective, nor from that of a committed atheist. Rather he seeks to provide a clear view of what can be said about Jesus, and of what can't.