Thursday, March 10, 2022

Jürg Eggler on the Proposals of Aspects of "Adam" Theology and Concepts in Daniel 7

  

Adam

 

The roots of the “son of man” are according to P. VOLZ ([Die Eschatologie der jüdischen Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter] 1934: 189f) the Jewish concept of the Urmensch or Uradam whom God created to fight against the demonic monsters in order to redeem the cosmos from these chaotic forces to free the heavenly beings from the annoyance they exerted. Because the glory of the ideal man was lost, there arose the necessity for an eschatological Adam to restore the lost to the original state. This eschatological saviour was according to VOLX the Danielic “son of man”.

 

A.M. FARRER [A Study in St. Mark] argued that the seer of Dan 7 read into Gen 1:26 “that the creation and enthronement of Adam is by implication the subjection of the beasts, the removal of their dominion” (1951: 260) and built around such an understanding the “son of man” scene of Dan 7. Therefore, “as Adam makes his appearance after the decree and in consequence of it, so does the Son of Man in Daniel.” The relationship between the singular “son of man” and his pluralised kingship by the saints of the Most High (Dan 7:18) FARRER compared with the statement: “Let us make man in our image . . . and let them have dominion.”

 

According to STEIR (["Adam," in: Handbuch theologischer Grundbegriffe] 1962: 23f) two different concepts of Adam existed. A pessimistic view of Adam was held by the Yahwist by depicting man as sinful, while an optimistic outlook is found in P (= Gen 1:27) and Psa 8 which associate “man” with original glory, the presence and image of God. A similar positive perception of man is found in Daniel, Enoch and 4 Ezra. From this positive perception of the ideal man priestly circles developed in association with existing Messianic expectations the “son of man” concept as it also reflected in Dan 7. (Jürg Eggler, Influences and Traditions Underlying the Vision of Daniel 7:2-14: The Research from the End of the 19th Century to the Present [Orbis Biblicus et Orentalis 177; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000], 94-95)

 

Blog Archive