From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: Did Jesus Claim to be God (Finally?)
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
	<MIB.92Jul28142610@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
	<1992Jul28.193933.12793@cs.yale.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 17:35:12 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.193933.12793@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

   In article <MIB.92Jul28142610@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
   >In article <1992Jul27.203850.493@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
   >
   >   Hence, neither Son of Man nor Son of God is really a direct claim
   >   to be the deity.  Not that you implied otherwise. Just trying to
   >   clear things up a bit.
   >
   >The term Son of God, as used in the Gospels, clearly identifies Jesus
   >as unique.
   Quite true. He's the Messiah.

The difference, as I noticed last night, is that other Hellenistic
authors used the term without a definite article.  (Greek has no
indefinite article, so you can't distinguish between "Son of God" and
"a Son of God".)  Where the Gospel narrators, or those "in the know",
speak, the definite article is virtually always present:

"If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of
bread."  (Matt 4:3)

"The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."
(Mark 1:1)

Where others use the term, the definite article is missing:

"[The centurion] said, `Truly this man was God's Son!'"

I checked the Hellenistic sources available to me: the term is always
used without the definite article in them.  This seems to indicate
some distinction being made between the Hellenistic compliment "Son of
God" and the usage in the Gospels.  

Also, there is no evidence of the use of "God's Son" language among
the Jews as an indicator of Messiah-ship.

   >Also, the Gospels were not written in the time of the Ancient Near
   >East, and the model of kingship in Israel was very different, as
   >recorded by the sources available to the gospels' authors.  

   Hmm...
   I'm not sure what you mean here.
   The model of kingship in Israel was very much like the model of
   kingship in the contemporary ANE. I.e. that of OT Israel is much
   like that of the rest of the ANE. As for NT, well, the messianic
   ideology is an outgrowth of the idea of the divinity of the Davidic
   King, which has its origins in very early times.

There are somethings that *were* different between the Israelite kings
and the other kings of the area.  Just as the creation story in
Genesis has notable similarities to other Near Eastern creation myths,
so do the kings of various places.  But the differences are also
*very* important.  While Israelite kings seem to have enjoyed all the
pomp of other Near Eastern kings, they were *not* regarded with titles
like "Son of God".  

   >  You don't say
   >anything about the title "Son of God", but then lump it in with "Son
   >of Man" in your final paragraph.
   Because Son of Man is more interesting. When one says, as I did,
   that the Davidic King was considered to be the adopted son of the
   deity, the significance I attribute to "Son of God" should be obvious.
   Do you need me to walk through the logic?

My claim is that the Davidic kings were NOT regarded as adopted sons
of the deity, and this is a notable distinction between them and other
Near Eastern kings.

--
Michael I. Bushnell             |		Benedictus qui venit
+1 617 625 4518 (H)            -+-                       in
+1 617 253 8568 (W)             |                      Nomine
mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu              |                      Domini