Sunday 3/26 Gospel verse Question (?)

[Daniel_J]

So I was sitting in a pew when the Deacon read the John 9::35~36 part of Sunday’s Gospel.
*
"When Jesus had heard that they had thrown him out , he found him and said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” He answered and said, “Who is he sir that In may believe in him?”*

I thought, "Every body in this church, and everyone that I know is a “son-of-man” and, pretty much, ‘so what?’, I mean what is special about believing that someone was born of a mother and father ?’

I then looked up this verse in the original Greek and also concorded the Douay and I found that the Sunday reading quoted is not actually in the Scripture. The actual real verse at John 9:35 just doesn’t say the above quoted; and, the real Scripture verse is direct and profound and leaves me with no questions.

So how is this ?

sincerely Dan

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

I think you’re being too literal. The phrase “Son of Man” had distinct meaning to Jews at that time beyond the obvious ‘born to father and mother’.

 

[Sirach2]

Jesus refers to Himself in Matthew’s gospel 28 times, as Son of Man. Daniel prophesied in Chapter 7, verses 13-14:

1. As the visions during the night continued, I saw coming with the clouds of heaven
   One like a Son of Man.
   When he reached the Ancient of Days
   and was presented before him,
2. He received dominion, splendor, and kingship;
   all nations, peoples and tongues will serve him.
   His dominion is an everlasting dominion
   that shall not pass away,
   his kingship, one that shall not be destroyed.

We believe Jesus was reminding the Jews of this prophecy, and is identifying Himself as THE Son of Man prophesied by Daniel. He was saying, “I am He.”

 

[FrDavid96]

So I was sitting in a pew when the Deacon read the John 9::35~36 part of Sunday’s Gospel.
*
"When Jesus had heard that they had thrown him out , he found him and said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” He answered and said, “Who is he sir that In may believe in him?”*

I thought, "Every body in this church, and everyone that I know is a “son-of-man” and, pretty much, ‘so what?’, I mean what is special about believing that someone was born of a mother and father ?’

I then looked up this verse in the original Greek and also concorded the Douay and I found that the Sunday reading quoted is not actually in the Scripture. The actual real verse at John 9:35 just doesn’t say the above quoted; and, the real Scripture verse is direct and profound and leaves me with no questions.

So how is this ?

sincerely Dan

Dan,

The title “Son of Man” is not something we take literally as meaning having a human father. Instead, it was an ancient Jewish title that has its own meaning.

It only appears a few times in the Old Testament (although often in the New). See Daniel 7:13.

In the New American Bible, there’s a footnote for Dan 7

• [7:13–14] One like a son of man: In contrast to the worldly kingdoms opposed to God, which are represented as grotesque beasts, the coming Kingdom of God is represented by a human figure. Scholars disagree as to whether this figure should be taken as a collective symbol for the people of God (cf. 7:27) or identified as a particular individual, e.g., the archangel Michael (cf. 12:1) or the messiah. The phrase “Son of Man” becomes a title for Jesus in the gospels, especially in passages dealing with the Second Coming (Mk 13 and parallels).

It doesn’t tell us much. It mostly tells us that scholars don’t really know what it meant.

But, in any case, the point is that it was a specific title, not merely a description.

 

[cmbergin]

So I was sitting in a pew when the Deacon read the John 9::35~36 part of Sunday’s Gospel.
*
"When Jesus had heard that they had thrown him out , he found him and said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” He answered and said, “Who is he sir that In may believe in him?”*

I thought, "Every body in this church, and everyone that I know is a “son-of-man” and, pretty much, ‘so what?’, I mean what is special about believing that someone was born of a mother and father ?’

I then looked up this verse in the original Greek and also concorded the Douay and I found that the Sunday reading quoted is not actually in the Scripture. The actual real verse at John 9:35 just doesn’t say the above quoted; and, the real Scripture verse is direct and profound and leaves me with no questions.

So how is this ?

sincerely Dan

Both the ESV and NRSV-CE say the same thing here. Both have a footnote saying “some manuscripts say Son of God” or “some early authorities say Son of God.”

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%209:35&version=ESV;NRSVCE

So it seems they’re transparent that we have different options here, and they’ve made a judgment call as to how best to translate it.

 

[Sirach2]

If we consider that Jesus referred to Himself continually as Son of Man, 28 times in Matthew (not to mention the other gospels), it seems clear that He identified Himself, both as human Son of Man, but also as Divine Son of God. Look at Mark’s words here:
Mk. 10: 5 "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

That verse clearly indicates His divine mission and title, as Daniel prophesied.

 

[Todd977]

On John 6:35, A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, edited by Bernard Orchard, published in 1953, page 999, says, in part:
‘Dost thou believe in the Son of Man?’ is the better attested reading.
The Internet article, “Son of God” or “Son of man”? compares the ancient Greek manuscripts in more detail.

 

[Nita]

…I then looked up this verse in the original Greek …

We do not have the original copies of the gospels written by the 4 evangelists. What we have are various later copies. (You can google “earliest copies of the gospels” for more info.)

It’s possible – (want to clarify it’s just a thought and not something I read anywhere) – the phrase differed in those early copies. Thus a particular English translation would depend on which early copy the translator/s decided to follow.