The Five Venerated Titles Attributed Upon Jesus and their Idiomatic Culture
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forward:
This thread is in response to Pakeha's request to me to produce a description regarding a brief off-hand reference in another thread regarding the "son of god" title.
Preferring thoroughness to brevity, I chose to open a new thread for such discussion rather than attempt to insert such material into an on-going thread.
What this thread is not about:
This thread is not about proving anything to do with the existence of Jesus or not, nor is it about deriving an absolute conclusion as to whether all Christian followings of Jesus in early cultures believed him to be a literal son of their god, or not.
What this thread is about:
This thread is about the sonship in general and describes how that term is applied upon the figure of Jesus.
As part of the discussion, it will examine the grammatical use and application of the "son of god" title upon the Jesus figure in various texts (not just Western Orthodox Canonical texts) and discuss how differing texts viewed the title differently, and the possibility that some groups may not have held the idea that the title indicated that the Jesus figure was a literal son of their god.
Disclaimers:
I will not respond to posts which deviate off tangent into debates regarding the historicity of Jesus, nor simply question the right to authority of the contents of this post solely, nor respond to demands for "evidence" while outright rejecting the material presented, nor respond to complaints regarding the paleographic or anthropological methods.
Responses should instead criticize or otherwise discuss the arguments presented herein, or likewise critique, question, or argue against methods used within the standards of paleography and anthropology.
Offending posts as such described above will simply be reported to the moderation team as intrusive and off tangent, and be requested to be removed from the thread to preserve tangential integrity of the discussion.
I am not a professional paleographer or anthropologist, and as such, my arguments and commentary should be understood to be those from an hobbyist who is self-educated upon the matter over a span of a few decades of reading, researching, and learning.
I do not claim to be an authority upon these matters who is incapable of error or mistake, and will easily welcome correction where such error and mistake occur; fully admitting that I do not singly know that which is scattered diversely among the many.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outline of the Presentation
The presentation will not only discuss the "son of god" title in itself, but instead discuss the conceptual titles which enabled the later Christian Western Orthodoxy to form the Nicene creed from which the argument was crafted which proposed that the Jesus figure of their canon was a literal and singular first born son of their god.
The titles which will be discussed will be (all are listed in lower case type as to remove bias in comprehension):
son
son of god
son of man
only begotten son
firstborn
The presentation will begin with a general overview of how the "son" title was used by evidence from the Tanakh and the Code of Hammurabi (with note of the Code of Hazor contains parallelism to the Code of Hammurabi), and contextual consideration from the Code of the Nesilim (Hittite law) and the Code of the Assura (Assyrian law), as well as the consideration of "son of..." title uses in the Canaanite and Phoenician religious cultures from which the Hebrew culture evidences itself from.
As such, the presentation will, during this section, outline the general social culture of the use of "son" titles (and related titles) in their various applications and in the Middle Eastern cultures in general; the Hebrew culture being one of such subset cultures.
Following the general cultural overview, the presentation will then focus on specific uses of each of the five titles in the Tanakh and their contextual application; with anthropological commentary where applicable, and will outline the Septuagint's grammatical display of the titles, rather than the later Masoretic texts, so to produce a grammatical baseline of comparison later against Jesus-cult texts of various forms.
Finally, the presentation will cite and overview the entries of the five titles from Jesus-cult texts and take consideration of the grammatical application for the five titles as they appear in comparison to those from the Septuagint.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Idiomatic Application for the General Title "son" in Multiple Select and Related Ancient Middle Eastern Cultures
The first aspect we need to establish is the common culture surrounding the idiom of "son" any given concept, as "son of god" and "son of man" are both subsets of the idiomatic "son" family.
Firstly, we'll turn to the non-directly-Hebrew considerations and then move up to the Hebrew culture from a citation overview of the Tanakh in the Septuagint rendition.
I will be aligning with the generally accepted position, currently, of what is referred to as the Indigenous to Canaan hypothesis for the Hebraic cultural origin (read a general overview of most of all hypotheses here).
In brevity, this hypothesis is derived from archaeological findings and dating, but is noted as not matching the timeline outlined in the Tanakh (though this is not necessarily odd in itself).
Personally, I do not agree with the Peasant Revolt hypothesis (as well as many in the field equally question that notion based on archaeological evidence absent of such suggestion), but instead hold to the idea that the Sea Peoples[1] who ravaged the Canaanite lands forced herdsmen to take refuge in the Canaan highlands and equally forced these same groups of peoples to begin to cultivate their own farming rather than using lowland pastures in trade as was the previous custom, and that from this loosely assembled group of highland herdsman thus formed the eventual Hebrew tribal culture, and subsequent small empire.
The Hebrew culture arrives into the archaeological record around 1200 BCE from the Canaan civilization.[2][3]
As such, we can understand the culture somewhat through understanding Canaanite culture, during which time in question was dominated by the Phoenician empire (a Canaanite derivative).
From the Canaanite and Phoenician culture, we are informed that divine sonship is standard application to Kings in a metaphorical sense, and not a literal sense:
"Arguably, the position of political power held by Syro-Canaanite queen mothers was, like the office held by their sons, grounded on religious ideology. As their sons served as earthly representatives of a region's or nation's patron-god or gods, so do queen mothers seem to have served as representatives of one of their region's or nation's deities, most often the Syro-Canaanite mother-goddess Asherah. The logic that underlies this association seems related to the tradition of a king's divine sonship: as a king (like Kirta) was considered the metaphorical son of a divine father (like El), so too would that king be considered to have a metaphorical divine mother, the mother-goddess Asherah. Yet a king also had a biological mother, his queen mother, and consequently these two maternal figures became identified, the queen mother serving as an earthly representative of her divine counterpart. Similarly, it may be that the king's biological father became identified with the king's metaphorical divine father; however, because a king's earthly father must necessarily have died before his son ascended to the throne, the identification between the divine and earthly father could happen only in the old king's afterlife. This might explain why dead kings are occasionally identified as gods in Syro-Canaanite texts, for example, in the Ugaritic King List and the 5th-century BCE Phoenician inscription from Pyrgi."[4]
The Code of Hammurabi provides another example, but before we can apply this code as influential, we must first show reason to consider a Babylonian code unto Hebraic cultural customs in terms of shared ideologies, for if they are of a separated and isolated ideology, then the Babylonian culture cannot aid in informing of cultural tendencies applicable to the Hebrew culture.
The Code of Hammurabi[5] shares similarity between the Code of the Nesilim (Hittite law)[6] and the Code of the Assura (Assyrian law)[7], and all of these texts share in like fashion with the Hebraic Covenant Code[8].
The comparison has been made directly between the Code of Hammurabi and the Covenant Code successfully as well.[9]
Further, the Code of Hammurabi was recently found in fragmentary form in Tel Hazor (a city located between the Sea of Galilee and Lake Huleh[10.a][10.b]), and where several texts have been found recently; indicating a scribal center of some form.)
There is a section of the Code in paragraph 196's breadth which discusses the son of a free man and the son of a slave. According to the standard volume Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament[11] (James B. Pritchard) on Page 175, the grammatical context is applicable in a loose context of referring properly to the individual's social class in the application of "son of..." in much the way modern America employs the term "member of..." regarding political parties, and not directly isolated to blood lineage.
Another culture with proximity is the Nuzi[12], who were part of the Hurrian[13] peoples of the Middle Eastern society which began in late 3rd Millennium and stretched out to around to the middle 2nd Millennium, falling around the 13th c BCE (just before the humble beginnings of the Hebraic peoples highland culture) to Assyria.
The Nuzi texts[14] show us a rather explicit example of how the ancient Middle Eastern cultures used "son" as a social class title, rather than a reference to direct parental lineage.
"Earnest R. Lachman and David I. Owen recently published a second Nuzi will, YBC 5142, in which a daughter (or daughters) is given the status of a son by her own father.
...
In view of the relatively small number of simtu documents among the Nuzi corpus, and especially the number of wills in favor of a principal heir, the existence of two documents recording the adoption of one's own daughters to give them the status of sons should be regarded as significant. Noteworthy is the use of the phrase, ana maruti epesu in these two wills (YBC 5142 and Sumer 32, no. 2)
...
The phrase "ana maruti epesu", used in a variety of different contexts at Nuzi, is usually translated "to adopt". Now in modern American legal usage the term "adopt" means "to take into one's family the child of another and give him or her the rights, privileges, and duties of a child and heir." However, this definition of the term is too broad to apply to Nuzi adoption. The phrase ana maruti epesu focuses on the status of a "son" (maru), as heir - not a "child" which could be male or female. Nuzi social structurewas patrilineal and so, although it was possible for a daughter to be a principal heir to her father's property, we also know that according to the normative Nuzi inheritance practices, there were decided differences in the rights which were hers. A son clearly had first rights to his father's property, and his obligations toward his father differed from those of a daughter under normal circumstances. Thus, although we use the term "to adopt" in our discussion, rather than the cumbersome "to take sonship" we must bear in mind the status of sons in Nuzi inheritance practices."[15]
With this last citation, it should also be noted that the legal adoption also places the "son" title into the inherent "firstborn" implied position; noting that the daughters being granted the "son" title were taking the eldest role despite not being the eldest, nor a son literally.
As such, we can understand a cultural tendency in the ancient Middle East to use the "son" title, specifically when implying the status of "firstborn", to refer to social class and to denote a given status within an archetype of varying forms.
This method of use was derived from the inherent grants which a birthed firstborn son gained in these cultures, and from this, the idiomatic application of that term grew culturally into being applied in contexts of rights and authority more than remaining strictly in regards to direct lineage and order of birth lineage.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specific Idiomatic Application of Sonship titles in the Hebraic Culture as Evidenced from the Septuagint version of the Tanakh
Note: even though there is a technical difference, and it is somewhat poor form in label, assume in this presentation (due to our purposes) that "Tanakh" refers to the Septuagint version and not, properly, the accurate term where the Tanakh refers to the Mesoretic version of the same body of texts (generally speaking).
With the general cultural understandings surveyed, we now move to citation from the Tanakh to examine the Hebraic form of this Middle Eastern idiomatic culture.
In this approach, we will be more specific than the general survey previously.
Our first topic will be to look at how "son" is used idiomatically in the Tanakh in general.
There are four basic forms of idiomatic use for the title of "son" in the Hebrew culture as evidenced from the Tanakh, aside from the literal blood lineage application.
These four are:
In reference to a profession or membership of a person
In reference to a state or condition of a person
In reference to a general character or characteristic of a person
In reference to the classified nature of a thing or person
"Son" as Profession or Membership of a Person:
1 Kings 21:35 (Septuagint) 20:35 (English)
καὶ ἄνθρωπος εἷς ἐκ τῶν υἱῶν τῶν προφητῶν...
And a man, one from the sons of the prophets...
2 Kings 2:3
καὶ ἦλθον οἱ υἱοὶ τῶν προφητῶν οἱ ἐν Βαιθηλ...
And came the sons of the prophets that is* in Bethel (or, Bet(h)-El)...
*English grammar would write, "who are"; Greek "οἱ" is "the" "this" or "that" and would be understood in the manner of English's "who" in contexts such as this. "Is" or "Are" is grammatically inferred from "ἐν" (in, or within); the Greek accomplishes the indefinite "is" without requiring a separate word by implication of "in" being only possible if one, or a thing, "is in" (or plural, "are in").
2 Chronicles 25:13
καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ τῆς δυνάμεως οὓς ἀπέστρεψεν...
And the sons of the strength who had* turned away...
*"had" is an English representation of the Aorist which is of the past tense, and is most clearly represented as "had" before the word in the Aorist (2nd Aorist is best represented as "having had" before the word in 2nd Aorist).
2 Esdras 2:42 (Septuagint) Ezra 2:42 (English)
υἱοὶ τῶν πυλωρῶν...
Sons of the gatekeepers...
2 Esdras 13:31 (Septuagint) Nehemiah 3:31 (English)
Μελχια υἱὸς τοῦ Σαραφι...
Melcia son of the goldsmiths*...
*Σαραφι is a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew צֹרְפִי (Tsorephiy), meaning "goldsmiths".
Zechariah 4:14
καὶ εἶπεν οὗτοι οἱ δύο υἱοὶ τῆς πιότητος...
And had spoken, "these are* the two sons of the oil**...
*"are" in Greek is implied by "οὗτοι οἱ δύο", "these the two".
**πιότητος refers to fat. Fat was the means of rendering oil; by context, the word is referring to the English idea of the word, "oil"; specifically rendering oil from fat. Meaning, 'these are the two of the makers of oil.'
"Son" as State of Condition of a Person:
1 Samuel 20:31
...λαβὲ τὸν νεανίαν ὅτι υἱὸς θανάτου οὗτος
...receive the young man that is the* son (of) this** death.
*"that is the" is inferred in English from "ὅτι", effectively referring to "consequent of" as a concept.
**"son of this death" is phrased in from a direct literal of "son death this" based on the context.
2 Esdras 4:1 (Septuagint) Ezra 4:1 (English)
...ὅτι οἱ υἱοὶ τῆς ἀποικίας...
...that the sons of the settlement*...
*Septuagint reads, "settlement" [ἀποικίας], Mesoretic reads, "exile" [גּוֹלָה] (gowlah), but ἀποικίας may have been confused with "ἀποικίζω" (conjugated to the same Aorist Indicitive 3rd person Plural as the rest of the sentence, "ἀπῴκισαν") meaning "exile" or "to send out" (grammatically, "having been exiled" when conjugated); implying banishment. Most English translations render this as "exile" due to the context suggesting such.
Psalms 78:11 (Septuagint) Psalms 79:11 (English)
...τοὺς υἱοὺς τῶν τεθανατωμένων
...these sons of the killing (putting to death*).
*θανατόω (conjugation: τεθανατωμένων) refers to killing, or to put to death; due to the genitive, the implication is that the killing is upon these sons and not that they kill.
"Son" as a General Character or Characteristic of a Person:
Numbers 17:25 (Septuagint) 17:10 (English)
...τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνηκόων...
...the sons of the disobedience...
1 Samuel 14:52
...καὶ πάντα ἄνδρα υἱὸν δυνάμεως...
...and every male son of power (or might)...
1 Samuel 25:17
...καὶ οὗτος υἱὸς λοιμός καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν λαλῆσαι πρὸς αὐτόν
...and this son of pestilence and not be spoken to him.
2 Samuel 3:34
...ἐνώπιον υἱῶν ἀδικίας...
...before sons of injustice (or wrongfulness)...
Psalms 88:23 (Septuagint) 89:23 (English)
...καὶ υἱὸς ἀνομίας οὐ προσθήσει...
...and son without law (or 'of wickedness')...
Job 30:8
ἀφρόνων υἱοὶ καὶ ἀτίμων ὄνομα
Foolish sons with dishonorable names...
Isaiah 19:11
...υἱοὶ συνετῶν ἡμεῖς υἱοὶ βασιλέων τῶν ἐξ ἀρχῆς
...sons of the wise am I, sons of the leaders of the beginning (or kings of old)
"Son" as a means of Classifying the Nature of a Thing or Person:
Numbers 23:19
...οὐδὲ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου...
...but like son of man... (the divine being compared to man)
Job 16:21
...καὶ υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου τῷ πλησίον αὐτοῦ.
...and son of man the fellows here.
Job 25:6
...σαπρία καὶ υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου σκώληξ
...decay and son of man a maggot*
*implying, "...decay and sons of man are eaters of decay"
Psalms 8:5 (Septuagint) Psalms 8:4 (English)
...υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ὅτι ἐπισκέπτῃ αὐτόν
...son of man that* you look upon him.
*proper English would be "whom"
Psalms 79:17 (Septuagint) Psalms 80:17 (English)
...καὶ ἐπὶ υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου ὃν ἐκραταίωσας σεαυτῷ.
...and upon son of man who is strengthened yourself.
Ezekial 2:1
...πρός με υἱὲ ἀνθρώπου στῆθι...
...upon me, a son of man whom you have made to stand*
*"whom you have" is derived from 2nd aorist in 2nd person grammar of στῆθι, and "made to stand" is the concept captured in the word στῆθι itself
Ezekial uses the term "son of man" repeatedly throughout the text in such frequency that it is not worth noting each instance; 2:1, above, serves as an example from which the style is used (i.e. 3:1, 3:3, 3:4, 3:10, 4:16, and on...)
Review
From here, we can see that aside from Middle Eastern culture in general, the Hebraic culture specifically joined in using the "son" title idiomatically for varying applications of indication more than just a direct literal blood lineage implication of a "father and a son".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specific Idiomatic Application of Firstborn titles in the Hebraic Culture as Evidenced from the Tanakh
We have already examined how the concepts of "firstborn" were applied in the Middle East cultures in general above, now we will examine how the concept of "firstborn" is applied within the Hebrew culture specifically.
In here the presentation will highlight how the title was used regardless of who was actually firstly born, and instead show how the title socially refers to those who are of the highest right of a 'familial' group.
Familial is accented above because the concept of a family itself was adoptable, as well as metaphorical in application within the Hebrew culture in various stages of the culture's growth.
Political factions at times may be referred to in reference to packs, implying a familial pack upon their membership despite not having any direct or inherent blood ties between them as a whole (see Ezekiel 22:26-27 & Zephaniah 3:1-4 as example).
Aside from the obvious use of firstborn status, there are four simple examples of the status being applied to individuals who are not the child born first.
For these citations, I will refer to the English, as the grammar is not of specific value so much as the contextual citation (large citations will be reduced in font for space conservation).
1 Chronicles 5:1:2
1. The sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel (he was the firstborn, but when he defiled his father’s marriage bed, his rights as firstborn were given to the sons of Joseph son of Israel; so he could not be listed in the genealogical record in accordance with his birthright, 2 and though Judah was the strongest of his brothers and a ruler came from him, the rights of the firstborn belonged to Joseph)
Genesis 48:13-19
13 And Joseph took both of them, Ephraim on his right toward Israel’s left hand and Manasseh on his left toward Israel’s right hand, and brought them close to him. 14 But Israel reached out his right hand and put it on Ephraim’s head, though he was the younger, and crossing his arms, he put his left hand on Manasseh’s head, even though Manasseh was the firstborn.
15 Then he blessed Joseph and said,
“May the God before whom my fathers
Abraham and Isaac walked faithfully,
the God who has been my shepherd
all my life to this day,
16 the Angel who has delivered me from all harm
—may he bless these boys.
May they be called by my name
and the names of my fathers Abraham and Isaac,
and may they increase greatly
on the earth.”
17 When Joseph saw his father placing his right hand on Ephraim’s head he was displeased; so he took hold of his father’s hand to move it from Ephraim’s head to Manasseh’s head. 18 Joseph said to him, “No, my father, this one is the firstborn; put your right hand on his head.”
19 But his father refused and said, “I know, my son, I know. He too will become a people, and he too will become great. Nevertheless, his younger brother will be greater than he, and his descendants will become a group of nations.”
Genesis 27:1-37
1 When Isaac was old and his eyes were so weak that he could no longer see, he called for Esau his older son and said to him, “My son.”
“Here I am,” he answered.
2 Isaac said, “I am now an old man and don’t know the day of my death. 3 Now then, get your equipment—your quiver and bow—and go out to the open country to hunt some wild game for me. 4 Prepare me the kind of tasty food I like and bring it to me to eat, so that I may give you my blessing before I die.”
5 Now Rebekah was listening as Isaac spoke to his son Esau. When Esau left for the open country to hunt game and bring it back, 6 Rebekah said to her son Jacob, “Look, I overheard your father say to your brother Esau, 7 ‘Bring me some game and prepare me some tasty food to eat, so that I may give you my blessing in the presence of the Lord before I die.’ 8 Now, my son, listen carefully and do what I tell you: 9 Go out to the flock and bring me two choice young goats, so I can prepare some tasty food for your father, just the way he likes it. 10 Then take it to your father to eat, so that he may give you his blessing before he dies.”
11 Jacob said to Rebekah his mother, “But my brother Esau is a hairy man while I have smooth skin. 12 What if my father touches me? I would appear to be tricking him and would bring down a curse on myself rather than a blessing.”
13 His mother said to him, “My son, let the curse fall on me. Just do what I say; go and get them for me.”
14 So he went and got them and brought them to his mother, and she prepared some tasty food, just the way his father liked it. 15 Then Rebekah took the best clothes of Esau her older son, which she had in the house, and put them on her younger son Jacob. 16 She also covered his hands and the smooth part of his neck with the goatskins. 17 Then she handed to her son Jacob the tasty food and the bread she had made.
18 He went to his father and said, “My father.”
“Yes, my son,” he answered. “Who is it?”
19 Jacob said to his father, “I am Esau your firstborn. I have done as you told me. Please sit up and eat some of my game, so that you may give me your blessing.”
20 Isaac asked his son, “How did you find it so quickly, my son?”
“The Lord your God gave me success,” he replied.
21 Then Isaac said to Jacob, “Come near so I can touch you, my son, to know whether you really are my son Esau or not.”
22 Jacob went close to his father Isaac, who touched him and said, “The voice is the voice of Jacob, but the hands are the hands of Esau.” 23 He did not recognize him, for his hands were hairy like those of his brother Esau; so he proceeded to bless him. 24 “Are you really my son Esau?” he asked.
“I am,” he replied.
25 Then he said, “My son, bring me some of your game to eat, so that I may give you my blessing.”
Jacob brought it to him and he ate; and he brought some wine and he drank. 26 Then his father Isaac said to him, “Come here, my son, and kiss me.”
27 So he went to him and kissed him. When Isaac caught the smell of his clothes, he blessed him and said,
“Ah, the smell of my son
is like the smell of a field
that the Lord has blessed.
28 May God give you heaven’s dew
and earth’s richness—
an abundance of grain and new wine.
29 May nations serve you
and peoples bow down to you.
Be lord over your brothers,
and may the sons of your mother bow down to you.
May those who curse you be cursed
and those who bless you be blessed.”
30 After Isaac finished blessing him, and Jacob had scarcely left his father’s presence, his brother Esau came in from hunting. 31 He too prepared some tasty food and brought it to his father. Then he said to him, “My father, please sit up and eat some of my game, so that you may give me your blessing.”
32 His father Isaac asked him, “Who are you?”
“I am your son,” he answered, “your firstborn, Esau.”
33 Isaac trembled violently and said, “Who was it, then, that hunted game and brought it to me? I ate it just before you came and I blessed him—and indeed he will be blessed!”
34 When Esau heard his father’s words, he burst out with a loud and bitter cry and said to his father, “Bless me—me too, my father!”
35 But he said, “Your brother came deceitfully and took your blessing.”
36 Esau said, “Isn’t he rightly named Jacob[a]? This is the second time he has taken advantage of me: He took my birthright, and now he’s taken my blessing!” Then he asked, “Haven’t you reserved any blessing for me?”
37 Isaac answered Esau, “I have made him lord over you and have made all his relatives his servants, and I have sustained him with grain and new wine. So what can I possibly do for you, my son?”
Review
These few examples show that the concept of firstborn was a status, and not strictly related to who was literally born first, and dealt more with rights and privileges than it does with literal births.
In the case of King David handing the throne to King Solomon, in fact, the entire familial line is outcast and the rights of the firstborn are granted to David's servant, Solomon; Adonijah (the fourth son of David, who was under the impression of receiving the firstborn rights) was outright usurped by Solomon who was of no blood line to David at all (1 Kings 1).
As such, we can understand that like much of the Middle Eastern cultures in ancient times, the Hebraic culture understood "firstborn" to be a title of right and privileged and not specific to being a reference to bloodline or literal first born children.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specific Idiomatic Application of Begotten titles in the Hebraic Culture as Evidenced from the Tanakh
Again, I will be using the simple English for this section as the context preserves the point well enough without need for grammatical evaluation of the text.
Begotten arrives in two forms:
Only Begotten & Begotten
Only Begotten is the shorter of the two to explain, so we will begin there and move on to Begotten in general.
A simple example of how subjective "only begotten" is in the Hebrew culture is found in Genesis 22:2:
2 Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.”
Clearly this is not Abraham's only son, as Abraham fathered nine children in the Septuagint.
Why would the section refer to Isaac as his only son?
Many will cite poetic chiasm[16], but there is another rather mundane reason for this.
All of Abraham's children except for Isaac were born of, effectively, slaves.
Slave children, in the Middle Eastern ancient culture, were not granted inherent sonship.
Not unless at some point the Father of them decreed "you are my son" specifically to anoint the slave child as now a freeborn son with full rights.
For example, again we can turn to the Code of Hammurabi, paragraph 170-171:
170. If his wife bear sons to a man, or his maid-servant have borne sons, and the father while still living says to the children whom his maid-servant has borne: "My sons," and he count them with the sons of his wife; if then the father die, then the sons of the wife and of the maid-servant shall divide the paternal property in common. The son of the wife is to partition and choose.
171. If, however, the father while still living did not say to the sons of the maid-servant: "My sons," and then the father dies, then the sons of the maid-servant shall not share with the sons of the wife, but the freedom of the maid and her sons shall be granted. The sons of the wife shall have no right to enslave the sons of the maid; the wife shall take her dowry (from her father), and the gift that her husband gave her and deeded to her (separate from dowry, or the purchase-money paid her father), and live in the home of her husband: so long as she lives she shall use it, it shall not be sold for money. Whatever she leaves shall belong to her children.
Here again, we see that a term is used which is a social class idiom and not a literal meaning of physical accomplishment.
Isaac, then, is understood to be the only child whom Abraham bestows his rights upon and Abraham, then, never refers to his other children as "sons" in acceptance of rights; thereby leaving Isaac classed as his "only begotten son".
With "only begotten" addressed, we now turn to "begotten" in general.
The most famous "begotten" is that of Psalms 2:7-8:
I will proclaim the Lord’s decree:
He said to me, “You are my son;
today I have become your father.
8 Ask me,
and I will make the nations your inheritance,
the ends of the earth your possession.
Firstly, in the English, we notice an absence of "begotten" (unless we turn to the KJV).
If we turn to the Septuagint, then it is more clearly seen:
7 διαγγέλλων τὸ πρόσταγμα κυρίου κύριος εἶπεν πρός με υἱός μου εἶ σύ ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε...
7 Proclaiming the command of the master (lord), the master (lord) spoke to (us/me), "My son of mine are you, I this day have fathered (begotten) you...
Clearly, this is not a literal meaning. This is not the deity claiming to have birthed the individual, as the individual in the Psalm is already well into adulthood and fully a man.
This, instead, is another instance of social status being applied upon a person to grant them rights of recognition.
It is not suffice to call this an "adoption", so much as a endowment of rights.
The rights are being bestowed upon the individual "this day", and upon this day, figuratively (but literal in the sense of custom) the deity has fathered the individual; or made him exist (in a meaningful sense, as previous was not "legally" recognized as existing).
This concludes the survey of the anthropology portion of understanding the terms of sonship.
Next, we will survey the Jesus cult texts and examine the application of sonship applied to the Jesus figure therein.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Application of Sonship Upon Jesus in Religious Texts
Disclaimer
My purpose here is not to draw a conclusion in which to compel others to join.
Here, my purpose is to show all of the information I am aware of, display it for the reading audience and let the readers decide and debate for themselves.
In discussion following the presentation, I may voice my opinions as relevant, but in the presentation itself is not the proper place to propose such positions.
We will examine a few entries from each of the text, but not every single entry (for brevity).
Entries will attempt to capture the regular use of the text.
As most folks probably do not have Coptic fonts installed, and most machines do not have default Coptic fonts, for the Coptic sections I will refer to the resource and cite the line to go to, meanwhile here I will only produce the English.
I will also be deferring somewhat to the translations that I am citing as I am not yet up to the capability of correcting or verifying the grammatical translations of Coptic; I can only very, very slowly make my way through Coptic (and it's very poor quality when I do).
Though I may have suspicions that Mark was not the first text to be produced, I will adopt Marcan priority simply because that is the standard opinion of the field at this time and it is not the intention of this presentation to tangent into other complicated concepts aside from the one at hand; further, the priority does not incredibly change the recognition of the uses of the titles of our interest.
I will list the entries in chronological order, beginning with Mark and ending with John. Following these, we will examine a couple samples from "gnostic" texts and their entries.
Please consider all texts as independent and of a different following and not part of the same adherence, keeping in mind that the texts were not considered of the same following until the various Orthodoxies agreed upon textual uniformity.
The Gospel of Mark
Mark 1:1
Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ θεοῦ
Beginning the good message of Iesoi (Jesus) of anointment of son of god (literally: deity, or divine).
Mark 1:11
καὶ φωνὴ ἐγένετο ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν, Σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα.
And a loud voice came out of the sky, "You are the son, mine the loved, in you I have been pleased".
Mark 2:10
ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε ὅτι ἐξουσίαν ἔχει ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς...
So then you may see that authority held (by) the son of the man to forgive offense upon the earth...
Mark 2:28
ὥστε κύριός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ τοῦ σαββάτου.
So master (lord) is the son of the man, even of the Sabbath.
Mark 3:28
Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πάντα ἀφεθήσεται τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων, τὰ ἁμαρτήματα καὶ αἱ βλασφημίαι ὅσα ἐὰν βλασφημήσωσιν:
Amen, I say to you that all will forgive the sons of the men, the offenses and the blasphemy as much as has been blasphemed.
Mark 8:31
Καὶ ἤρξατο διδάσκειν αὐτοὺς ὅτι δεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου πολλὰ παθεῖν καὶ ἀποδοκιμασθῆναι ὑπὸ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ τῶν ἀρχιερέων καὶ τῶν γραμματέων καὶ ἀποκτανθῆναι καὶ μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἀναστῆναι:
And began to teach them that must the son of the man much must suffer and be rejected by the elders and of the high priests and of the scribes and killed and after three days rise up.
Mark 9:7
καὶ ἐγένετο νεφέλη ἐπισκιάζουσα αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἐγένετο φωνὴ ἐκ τῆς νεφέλης, Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἀκούετε αὐτοῦ.
And had came a cloud overshadowing them, and came a loud voice out of the cloud, "This is the son, mine the loved, you listen of him."
The Gospel of Matthew
Matthew 2:15
...καὶ ἦν ἐκεῖ ἕως τῆς τελευτῆς Ἡρῴδου: ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος, Ἐξ Αἰγύπτου ἐκάλεσα τὸν υἱόν μου.
...and was there until the death of Herod that may be filled what had been spoken by the master (lord) through the prophet who spoke, "Out of Egypt I have called out the son of mine".
Matthew 3:17
καὶ ἰδοὺ φωνὴ ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν λέγουσα, Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα.
and behold a loud voice came out of the sky, "This is the son, mine the loved, by whom I am pleased."
Matthew 8:20
καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Αἱ ἀλώπεκες φωλεοὺς ἔχουσιν καὶ τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατασκηνώσεις, ὁ δὲ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἔχει ποῦ τὴν κεφαλὴν κλίνῃ.
and he spoke himself, the Iesous (Jesus), "The foxes dens they have, and the birds of the sky; nests. The, yet, son of man has not have somewhere the head to lay."
Matthew 13:37
ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν, Ὁ σπείρων τὸ καλὸν σπέρμα ἐστὶν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου:
Then but concluded saying, "The sowing (of) the good seed is the son of man".
Matthew 14:33
οἱ δὲ ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ προσεκύνησαν αὐτῷ λέγοντες, Ἀληθῶς θεοῦ υἱὸς εἶ.
Then yet with the ship had worshiped him saying, "Truly god's son you are".
Matthew 16:27
μέλλει γὰρ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἔρχεσθαι ἐν τῇ δόξῃ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων αὐτοῦ, καὶ τότε ἀποδώσει ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὴν πρᾶξιν αὐτοῦ.
(it is) intended for the son of man to come by the glory of the father here after the messengers here, and then shall be rewarded each upon the actions here.
Matthew 17:5
ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος ἰδοὺ νεφέλη φωτεινὴ ἐπεσκίασεν αὐτούς, καὶ ἰδοὺ φωνὴ ἐκ τῆς νεφέλης λέγουσα, Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα: ἀκούετε αὐτοῦ.
Yet here while speaking behold, a cloud of light overshadowed them and behold a loud voice came from the cloud speaking, "This is the son, mine the loved, in whom I am pleased in him."
The Gospel of Luke
Luke 1:35
καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ ἄγγελος εἶπεν αὐτῇ, Πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ, καὶ δύναμις ὑψίστου ἐπισκιάσει σοι: διὸ καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον ἅγιον κληθήσεται, υἱὸς θεοῦ.
and having answered the messenger spoke himself, "spirit of holy will come upon you, and power of the highest will envelop you, therefore as well the father who is holy will claim son of god."
Luke 3:22
καὶ καταβῆναι τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον σωματικῷ εἴδει ὡς περιστερὰν ἐπ' αὐτόν, καὶ φωνὴν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ γενέσθαι, Σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα.
and had descended the spirit of the holy with a body appearing as a dove upon him, and a loud voice came out of the sky having became, "You are the son, mine the loved, with you I am pleased."
Luke 9:35
καὶ φωνὴ ἐγένετο ἐκ τῆς νεφέλης λέγουσα, Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἐκλελεγμένος, αὐτοῦ ἀκούετε.
and a loud voice came out (of) the cloud saying, "This is the son, mine the loved, of him you listen."
Luke 22:70
εἶπαν δὲ πάντες, Σὺ οὖν εἶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ; ὁ δὲ πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἔφη, Ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι.
They spoke moreover each, "You therefore (are) the son of the god?" Then moreover he explained, "You speak that I am."
Note: I hate the grammar of John; it's just painful.
The Gospel of John
John 1:34
κἀγὼ ἑώρακα, καὶ μεμαρτύρηκα ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ.
And I see and witness that this is the son of the god.
John 1:49
ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ Ναθαναήλ, Ῥαββί, σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, σὺ βασιλεὺς εἶ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ.
Having answered them Nathanael, Rabbi, you are the son of the god, you King are of the Israel.
John 3:16
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ' ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
So for the love of all, the god of the world therefore the son of the only born was given in order each the to believe unto him not least be destroyed but have life without end.
John 5:26
ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ἔχει ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, οὕτως καὶ τῷ υἱῷ ἔδωκεν ζωὴν ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ:
Just as for the father has life in himself therefore and the son life has in himself.
(no, I'm not in error here...it really is that crappy of a sentence!)
John 5:27
καὶ ἐξουσίαν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ κρίσιν ποιεῖν, ὅτι υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐστίν.
and authority is given (to) himself judgement to make because (the) son of man is.
(I had to insert "to" and "the" because the writer didn't include those; remove them and you'll crane your neck sideways at the awkward sentence structure)
Gospel of Mary[17]
8:18-19
‘Look here in this-place!’ the-Son For of-the-Human he exists within you.
9:7-10
How we-will-go up to the-Gentiles we-to preach the-gospel of-the-kingdom of-the-Son of-the-Human?
Notes in the translation state:
8:18; 9:9-10: “Son of Humanity.” Literally, “Son of the Human,” a technical term
based on an Aramaic idiom meaning “human.”
Which means the awkward "son of the humanity" is the same meaning as the Greek, as we saw previously referring to the "son of man".
Footnote:
I had intended to also add the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Melchizedek, and the Gospel of Philip, but I have misplaced my copies in the original language, and am having a bit of trouble locating some.
I did not include Thomas yet, mainly because it does not include these titles and I wanted to get this posted before I run out of time tonight, so I just left it out for now.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review for Discussion
This concludes the presentation on the sonship titles regarding Jesus.
As noted, I have left out a final conclusion from this presentation so that all will derive their own conclusions and ideas to discuss in the thread.
I look forward to the subsequent discussion.
Happy New Year!
(Note: I will be less available than typical for the next couple of days, but I will be certain to respond to everyone by no later than 1/4 Alaska time)