First Glance

002

Does the phrase “son of man,” which appears in all four Gospels, simply identify Jesus as the Messiah, as scholars have long supposed? Or is there more to it? One way to find out is to consult sources contemporaneous with the Gospels; and there the plot thickens. In the Aramaic of Jesus’ day, “son of man” sometimes means a human being like any other, a man among men—a usage that also appears in the Gospels (see Matthew 8:20//Luke 9:58). But in other sources, such as the Book of Daniel (c. mid-second century B.C.), the phrase refers to an angelic being close to God; this usage also occurs in the Gospels (see Mark 8:38). So Bruce Chilton asks, “The Son of Man—Who Was He?” Sifting through the diverse uses of the phrase, Chilton develops his own interpretation of what Jesus meant when he spoke of the Son of Man.

Chilton is Bernard Iddings Bell Professor of Religion at Bard College, in Annandale-on-Hudson. An expert on the New Testament, early Judaism and the Targumim (Aramaic paraphrases of biblical texts), Chilton has written 20 books and 80 articles on these subjects, including A Feast of Meaning (Brill), Beginning New Testament Study (Eerdmans and SPCK) and, most recently, Pure Kingdom: Jesus’ Vision of God (Eerdmans). His article, “The Eucharist—Exploring its Origins,” appeared in the December 1994 BR.

In 1920, British soldiers digging trenches beside the Euphrates River unearthed the fabulous ruins of an ancient city, virtually untouched since its destruction in the mid-third century A.D. Some of the earliest extant biblical paintings, beautifully preserved by the desert sands, covered the walls of the town’s synagogue and Christian baptistery. The congregations in this multi-ethnic community used religious paintings to instruct the faithful, to compete with each other for new members and to dispute with each other over religious practices. In “7 vs. 8: The Battle Over the Holy Day at Dura-Europos,” Stephen A. Goranson explores how the wall paintings were used in a contest between Jews and Christians over the appropriate day of worship.

Goranson, a specialist in archaeology, Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, received his Ph.D. from Duke University. He is currently working on a history of the Essenes and on a critical study of the Apocalypse of John. His several publications forthcoming on these subjects include an entry on the Essenes in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Near Eastern Archaeology and an article on the seventh blessing in Revelation 22:14, in New Testament Studies. His article, “Qumran—A Hub of Scribal Activity?” appeared in the September/October 1994 issue of BR’s sister publication, Biblical Archaeology Review.

According to an old adage, you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover. But, at least in one biblical case, you shouldn’t judge the book by its size either. A mere four pages or fewer in a typical printed Bible, the Book of Ruth can be hard to locate. Depending on whether you’re using a Jewish or Christian version, this short book is placed between Judges and Samuel or between the Song of Songs and Lamentations. But wherever it appears in your Bible, you will want to find it and study it again after you read “Ruth—Big Theme, Little Book,” in which Adele Berlin argues that Ruth illuminates the main theme of the Hebrew Bible: the continuity of God’s people in their land.

The Robert H. Smith professor of Hebrew Bible at the University of Maryland, Berlin developed that school’s biblical studies program, designing and teaching courses on biblical narrative, ancient Near Eastern culture and literature, and modern literary approaches, including feminist approaches to the Hebrew Bible. Her recent publications include Zephaniah (Anchor Bible Series, 1991) and Biblical Poetry Through Medieval Jewish Eyes (Indiana Univ. Press, 1991). She is currently completing a commentary on the Book of Esther.

002

A Note on Style

B.C.E. (Before the Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era), used by some of our authors and often used in scholarly literature, are the alternative designations corresponding to B.C. and A.D.

Does the phrase “son of man,” which appears in all four Gospels, simply identify Jesus as the Messiah, as scholars have long supposed? Or is there more to it? One way to find out is to consult sources contemporaneous with the Gospels; and there the plot thickens. In the Aramaic of Jesus’ day, “son of man” sometimes means a human being like any other, a man among men—a usage that also appears in the Gospels (see Matthew 8:20//Luke 9:58). But in other sources, such as the Book of Daniel (c. mid-second century B.C.), the phrase refers to an angelic […]