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)

"Son of Man"

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)

Whoop, I meant to write "ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου". Thanks for the correction! - PetyrB 12:03, 24 June 2014 (EDT)

August, "the Son of Man" simply makes no sense as a phrase in English. At best, it's a high-school-level, word-for-word, overly literal translation of the Greek that might earn someone a C on an exam. The Greek term "τοὺ" is better translated as a comma in modern English, followed by an "a". There's just no way around this logic. If the ancient Greeks had the comma, then the original might have used it.--Andy Schlafly 13:21, 24 June 2014 (EDT)

• It made sense for hundreds of year. The KJB's translation is "high-school-level", earning a C? *LOL*
• Could you please provide us with a list of genitives translated as appositions in the way you would like to see this in this case? Take a look into e.g. William's "Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics", and you can see that this is not appropriate in this case.
• Ancient Greek knew the apposition, they didn't need a comma as much as English as their way of declination allowed to recognize the relation between nouns.
• You are still alone with your "translation". As this is a great change in translating this phrase, you should be able to defend it in a way other than only claiming that it is logical. Where are examples of parallel constructions? ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ "The Son, a God"? ὁ υἱὸς τῆς Μαρίας "The Son, a Mary?"

AugustO 13:39, 24 June 2014 (EDT)

You shouldn't rely too much on KJB when trying to discern proper Bible translations. The makers of that translations also thought that the Adulteress Story was genuine. - PetyrB

Excellent point by PetyrB. August, real scholarship is about rejecting the mistakes of prior scholars. Are you going to insist next that the Adulteress Story must be genuine, because the translators of the KJB were fooled by it???--Andy Schlafly 14:26, 24 June 2014 (EDT)

• More of an irrelevant than an excellent point: the quality of the translation is excellent, even if the original Greek text is an invention. A counterfeiter, who copies a forgery, can still do an excellent job, but his work may differ from the original.
• It is not sure that you have found a mistake of prior scholars. It is even quite unlikely. It is not the conservative way to embrace an insight just because the idea is new. You should corroborate your thoughts.
• At this level (i.e., calling the accumulated wisdom of centuries of scholars a mistake), you should be able to answer some questions about your translation. I repeat:
• Could you please provide us with a list of genitives translated as appositions in the way you would like to see this in this case?
• Where are examples of parallel constructions? ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ "The Son, a God"? ὁ υἱὸς τῆς Μαρίας "The Son, a Mary?"

--AugustO 14:53, 24 June 2014 (EDT)

The Adulteress story is relevant to this argument. By failing to remove it from their translation, the makers of the KJB showed that their understanding of God's word left much to be desired. For that reason, we should not just blindly accept their use of the phrase "Son of Man". You wrote that "It is not sure that you have found a mistake of prior scholars. [...] It is not the conservative way to embrace an insight just because the idea is new." If anything, I would say that deferring to the consensus accepted by the liberal academe is not the conservative way.

"Could you please provide us with a list of genitives translated as appositions in the way you would like to see this in this case?" As I said before, Gospel of John was probably translated from Aramaic. It is not unlikely therefore that certain phrases in the Greek version are somewhat odd by the standards of that language. - PetyrB 15:24, 24 June 2014 (EDT)

August, here is a list of other translation errors in the KJV: [1] Are you going to claim that nothing on that list is correct?

You ask lots of questions, but I don't recalling seeing you answer the basic issue: "the Son of Man" is meaningless in English. Some translations use a capital "m" for man, while others use a small "m", which shows the phrase is an erroneous one in English.--Andy Schlafly 15:47, 24 June 2014 (EDT)

• Yes, there are errors in the KJB. BTW, I'd even add John 9:35 - but here the manuscripts show not only ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου, but sometimes ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ. So, "Son of Man" or "Son of God" are both possibilities... But show me the verses on which almost every English version agrees - and where all of the are wrong!
• If you take the phrase for itself, it seems to be counterintuitive. But Jesus has described himself over and over again as "Son of Man/man", and his Jewish listeners would have drawn the conclusion that this is just one aspect of his person, implying the other aspect, "Son of God". But this is an interpretation - it should not be put into the translation.
• m vs. M: you are reaching: the KJV generally uses,e.g. no majuscules for personal pronouns. "Son of Man" is just more polite than "Son of man"
• Yes, I ask a lot of questions - because I get so few answers.

--AugustO 16:15, 24 June 2014 (EDT)

Matthew 5:45 has "πατρὸς ὑμῶν τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς." This is translated as "your Father who is in heaven" or, more concisely, "your Father, in heaven." Likewise "ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου" should be "The Son who is a human being" or, more concisely, "The Son, a human being."--Andy Schlafly 18:51, 24 June 2014 (EDT)

Is this a joke or is this a test? You should be careful with such nonsensical statements, as a reader who thinks that you are serious might doubt that you have any knowledge of Greek at all!

But if this is a test, I'm game, and I'll try to answer in my best Biblical-Greek-101 stile:

• in phrases like ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ and ὁ υἱὸς τῆς Μαρίας, τοὺ/τῆς is an article belonging to the second noun, which is in the genitive. Therefore, the article and the noun coincide in casus (genitive), numerus (singular), and genus. The most straightforward - and literal - translation is "the Son of Man/Gott/Mary".
• in υἱοὶ τοῦ Πατρὸς ὑμῶν τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς, τοῦ cannot belong to οὐρανοῖς, as this noun is in the dative (due to ἐν) and in the plural, while τοῦ is in the singular and in the genitive! So where does it belong to? To Πατρὸς, which is in the genitive, as it is used attributively to υἱοὶ! This becomes abundantly clear when we look into Matthew 6:9, where we find a very similar phrase, but with "father" as the subject of the sentence: Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς See, here it's ὁ! ὁ (and earlier τοῦ ) is used as a relative pronoun for the elliptical phrase [being] in heavens. Therefore, the most straightforward translation is "Father of us, who [is] in the heavens."

--AugustO 03:35, 25 June 2014 (EDT)

John 9:35

There is good evidence that the Textus Receptus is correct, stating Σὺ πιστεύεις εἰς τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, Do you believe in the Son of God. This is one of the very few examples where there are substantial differences between the various manuscripts, as others read Σὺ πιστεύεις εἰς τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου; Do you believe in the Son of Man.

We have no way to draw conclusions from this for those verses on which all manuscripts and translations agree.

--AugustO 17:25, 24 June 2014 (EDT)