Talk:Son of Man

The Lamb of God (John 1:36) who was personally chosen by the Almighty to carry the weight of the world's sin and atone for it is not a member of the public. Some descriptions of Jesus Christ emphasize His humanity but never downplay His divinity, for no other man is our Lord and Savior, eternal and one with God. You're taking this best of the public idea way too far. Nate 11:02, 20 March 2012 (EDT)

Factual error, please correct

Andy, υἱός ἄνθρωπος just means son man --AugustO 01:42, 22 June 2014 (EDT)

AugustO, don't put in a "sic" indicator where there's a spelling error; just make the correction. If it's a translation problem, make the change, then explain the change here. Karajou 02:43, 22 June 2014 (EDT)

It's not about a simple spelling error - there are a couple of problems with this phrase, grammatical and Biblical. So, I'll wait for Andy's correction and will give further input then. --AugustO 04:55, 22 June 2014 (EDT)

Andy's correction substantiated my suspicion - he hasn't made himself familiar with this problem in detail. Otherwise he should have known that the phrase is always used by Jesus Christ including the leading definite article, a somewhat peculiar wording, and therefore to be quoted exactly. --AugustO 17:22, 22 June 2014 (EDT)

Personal opinion of Andrew Schlafly

Over the last 1700 years, there has been much debate about how to interpret the phrase ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου, Son of Man, filius hominis. There has never been disagreement about how to translate it. The introduction claims that the phrase "the Son, a human being" is the most accurate translation. At the moment, this is only the personal opinion of Andrew Schlafly, which isn't shared by any Greek scholar! To give it not only equal weight to the traditional translation, but to promote over the "Son of Man", misleads the reader! Therefore, it should be clearly marked as Andrew Schlafly's idea, as it is his original work.

For me, this is just a mistranslation, a rendering of a genitive as an apposition in a case where this just doesn't work. Is my view less valid than Andrew Schlafly's? Should I put it into the introduction, too? How about:

The most accurate, but wrong translation is "the Son, a human being"...

No, at this moment we should at least make it clear in the article that this translation is the original work of Andrew Schlafly. IMO it would be a service to the reader to stress that this insight isn't shared by any Greek scholar (yet)...

citing mistakes by others does not belong in the introduction. Quoting the KJB, the Vulgate, etc. is citing mistakes? At this moment, no one but you, Andrew Schlafly, thinks that those are mistaken!

--AugustO 10:15, 24 June 2014 (EDT)

August, this website exists to advance knowledge and insights, not simply to repeat less informed views of the past. The Vulgate was not even an English translation, and the KJV or NIV translations were not perfect. Accordingly, neither they (nor my name) belongs in the introduction here.--Andy Schlafly 11:02, 24 June 2014 (EDT)

KJV, NIV are not perfect. That's true. But are you? At this moment, you own this phrase. No one else shares your insight - I, the only other editor on this page with some Greek and interest in the CBP, states that your translation is wrong. Yet you claim that this clumsy phrase "the Son, a human being" is the most accurate translation. And you want to do so under the cloak of anonymity! No Sir, a reader of the text should be able to realize that this is your personal, not traditional wisdom. --AugustO 11:25, 24 June 2014 (EDT)

One thing that must be noted in this debate is the background of John the Apostle. Being a resident of the Galilee, he must have spoken Aramaic and probably wrote his Gospel in that language. If you'll search for "Aramaic primacy" in google you see that there are a number of scholars who believe that the earlier Greek language copies of NT are translations from Aramaic. Granted, the scholars who advocate this view are a minority, but considering the liberal bias in today's academia I consider it a point in their favor.

If John wrote his Gospel in Aramaic, than it's possible that in the original text of the Gospel the phrase that was later translated to "υἱός ἄνθρωπος" was even more explicit in recognizing Jesus as God's son. While I think that "the Son, a human being" is a viable translation of "υἱός ἄνθρωπος", I believe that the original Aramaic phrase was probably even more explicit. - PetyrB 11:51, 24 June 2014 (EDT)

"the Son, a human being" is an excellent translation for υἱός ἄνθρωπος, just not for the phrase ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπο which is used in the Gospels. You should have recognized the difference. --AugustO 12:01, 24 June 2014 (EDT)