The Coming of the Son of Man – Historical?
My favourite posts (and ones that seem to get the most responses) is when I just ask other bloggers what they think about an issue, whether the New Perspective on Paul, the contemporary church or Q. So I want to ask what bibliobloggers think of the historicity of the future coming Son of Man sayings (e.g. Mark 13:26, 14:62, Matt 10:23, etc.). Do they derive from the historical Jesus or are they teachings of later Christian prophets written into the gospels? Here is the both sides as I see it:
The Positive Evidence :
1. The sayings are multiply attested all over the tradition (Ehrman, Apocalyptic Prophet, 146): Mark (13:26, 14:62), Q (Matt 24:27, 37-39/Luke 17:24, 26-27, 30), M (Matt 13:40-43), L (Luke 21:34-36) and Paul (1 Thess 4:16) and possibly John (1:51).
2. Double dissimilarity: the Son of Man in Daniel 7:13-27 seem just to be a symbol of the saints/Israel or an angelic representative of Israel. The Son of Man is individualized in the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71) as Enoch (71:14) and in 4 Ezra 13 as a human-like figure from the sea coming in judgment, but there are issues of dating. In Christian literature, the Son of Man is by far found most often on Jesus lips and is quickly abandoned for titles like Lord (kyrios) or Son of God.
3. Embarrassment: the Son of Man or kingdom would come before the completed ministry to Israel (Matt 10:23), before they all tasted death (Mark 9:1) or soon after Romans destroyed the temple (Mark 13:30) may have embarrassed later Christians. Already in Mark a saying one such saying (9:1) is reinterpreted as fulfilled in the transfiguration (9:2).
4. Coherence: If one accepts Jesus is an apocalyptic prophet it is not a stretch that he also spoke of a coming Son of Man. Also, since he was crucified as “King of the Jews” yet does not appear to be a violent revolutionary, perhaps he thought he would be enthroned as the Messianic Son of Man by divine power alone.
The Negative Evidence
1. Many see a simple Aramaic idiom meaning a “man like me” (“I”) or simply “man”. It only became a title when it was translated into Greek and became ho huios tou anthropou (the son of man) (Casey, Vermes, Crossan). There are many present sayings of the Son of Man in the Gospels that do not demand any significance. Take this saying: “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man (“I”, “men like me”) has no place to lay his head.” (Matt 8:20/Luke 9:58).
2. The Son of Man produced from early Christian exegesis: Psalm 110 combined with Daniel 7:13 for ascension and then with Zechariah 12:10 (looking on one whom they pierced) to make the parousia (Perrin, Rediscovering the Teachings, 180-182).
3. Scholars who accept the stratification of Q and that the apocalyptic Son of Man sayings come from a later stratum (Q2). Crossan makes the interesting argument that the theme may be multiply attested, but in 18 complexes of apocalyptic Son of Man sayings the phrase itself is not multiply attested (phrase “son of man” itself only multiply attested in “foxes have holes” – Thomas 86, Matt 8:20/Luke 9:58) (Crossan, Historical Jesus, 238-256).
4. Scholars who simply doubt that Jesus predicted his own second coming and think that this is obviously Christian theology.
So what do you think? Which argument is better? And for more resources:
- Allison, Dale. Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998.
- Casey, Maurice. The Solution to the Son of Man Problem. London: T&T Clark, 2007.
- Collins, John J. ”The Son of Man in First-Century Judaism” NTS 38 (1992): 448-466.
- Crossan, John Dominic. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991.
- Erhman, Bart. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
- Hooker, Morna. The Son of Man in Mark. London: SPCK, 1967.
- Marshall, I.H. “Son of Man” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992.
- Vermes, Geza. The Authentic Gospel of Jesus. London: Penguin Books, 2003.
- Witherington, Ben. Jesus, Paul and the End of the World. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992.
May 27, 2009 at 12:46 am
Think It Thru is a new Jewish outreach documentary TV show airing on the Inspiration Network, reaching over 80 million homes nationally and over 160 million homes worldwide. Think It Thru features Jewish Apologist Dr. Michael L. Brown, and presents a bold, balanced, revealing, sometimes humorous, and always thought provoking investigation of the history, interest and opinions of Jewish people worldwide. Join the growing number of people that have been impacted by the show by receiving two free episodes of Think It Thru on DVD, “In Search of the Messiah” and “A Bloody Religion?”
Get your two Free DVD’s here:
http://askdrbrown.org/landing_page/home
May 27, 2009 at 1:28 am
I’m gonna have to go with the positive arguments. And Neg. #1 doesn’t really go against a positive claim. “Son of Man” need not be any kind of formal title for Jesus to speak of his coming/return. Any argument based on ‘Q’ is bound to fall flat, so that makes Neg. #3 weak, and Neg. #4 isn’t an argument or evidence at all. Neg. #2 seems the only negative argument listed that has any teeth.
May 27, 2009 at 3:45 am
Hey drmbrown, I don’t have a problem with you promoting your ministry, but if you could also interact with the post next time.
Hey Nick, to me objections 1 and 3 have the most teeth, but if the early Jewish believers could do a creative midrash (and it surely appeared early, with all that multiple attestation) I do not see any reason why Jesus could not do so as well.
May 27, 2009 at 5:52 am
Mike, I am amazed at how much our interests overlap. I am presently writing a paper which is kind of, sort of a bigger version of this post. I have not come to my conclusions yet.
I think the title of Casey’s book is perhaps the boldest scholarly title I have ever seen.
May 27, 2009 at 6:24 am
I think Casey is slightly misrepresented my the implication that the Aramaic idiom was so simple and in fact his conclusions are different from Vermes and Crossan. But I do recommend you read his book.
And you too Patrick – then perhaps you’ll see why his title is so bold 
May 27, 2009 at 6:58 am
Mike,
What an enjoyable post. Thanks for shaing it.
Positives:
1. Could anyone doubt the strength of this attestation without speculating about stratification of Q? This is a very strong argument for authenticity IMO, and any negative would have to deal with this in a non-ad hoc manner.
2. The fact that Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man very frequently, and the NT church didn’t (except the Acts 7 passage), seems a clear case of strong dissimilarity. By the latter 1st century and early 2nd century, the usage of “Son of Man” is still disputed in the church, whereas Ignatius uses it for Jesus (Ephesians 20), Barnabas 12:10 specifically says that Jesus was “not a son of man.” The Thomas (which I date early 2nd century) parallel seems to have the “human being” meaning of its NT parallels. So I think a strong case for dissimilarity with the early church can be made, and you’ve already stated a good case for dissimilarity with STJ.
3. It could be embarassment, but that assumes theological positions a priori. Mark may be shaping the narrative so that it’s not as embarassing, but that argument remains speculative based on an understanding of Jesus’ theology with the phrase. So yeah, I guess the argument could be made, but I don’t think it’s strong.
4. I think for all of those in the “Third Quest,” this argument makes perfect sense…but I wouldn’t expect the Seminar or other more “Greco-Roman Jesus” types to think much of it. So “across the spectrum,” I don’t see this as a strong argument.
The first two arguments are best, and the first is very strong…do the negatives overturn their strength?
1. This isn’t that strong, because even if you take a more ambiguous rendering of the phrase it doesn’t change the theological meaning. Whether “Son of Man” is a title or simply means “human” or “someone,” the theology seems to remain the same in reference to Daniel 7. Bock makes a great argument in this regard in his BECNT Luke (vol. I), in Excursis 6. So I don’t see this as an argument against authenticity.
2. I guess this case could be made, but I’m not sure why the early church would create these statements…do you have some further thoughts to flesh this out? What is Norm Perrin’s argument?
3. For someone who more aligns with Farrer (me), this argument obviously fails. It requires the assumption of Q, and also a speculative stratification of Q, and only then is it an argument…I just don’t see this as holding any weight outside of a particular group of scholars.
4. This argument is nothing more than question begging, so it holds no weight as an argument.
So I see nothing to overturn the strength of the first two positive arguments…and thus would hold this to be authentic.
May 27, 2009 at 8:31 am
Thanks Pat, let me know the conclusions you reach. These last couple years I have been concentrating on other issues besides the historical Jesus, but my last year of my BA at Taylor this was my topic for the senior paper
Steph, I based alot of this post on my old paper and Casey’s volume had not yet appeared, so you caught me in not giving it a read (I had read of Casey’s view in other articles). But I wanted to include it in the bibliography because I know it is a significant resource. I was aware of his difference from Vermes, but from what I understand (correct me if I am wrong) where Vermes thinks it is a circumlocution for “I” Casey takes it more as a generic reference for “man”?
May 27, 2009 at 3:54 pm
I have actually tried to skirt the issue of historical Jesus research because it seems like a scholarly black hole, and have been focusing more upon apocalyptic thought in general. But now I am in a course on the historical Jesus, so I figured I might as well tackle this Son of Man conundrum. Perhaps I should simply paraphrase Casey’s book, since he provides the solution to the problem. No doubt, his will be the last book written on the subject
May 27, 2009 at 8:37 am
Thanks Ranger for the thorough review and providing further arguments that I had not thought about. For objection 2, Perrin argues the original exegesis is only barely visible in the NT – Psalm 110/Dan 7 is combined in Mark 14:62 and Acts 7:56 (now understood as a descending instead of ascending. The next step is that “they will see” may allude to Zechariah 12:10, as does Matt 24:30 about all the tribes mourning and the allusions to Jesus as the one who is pierced in John 19:37 and Rev 1:7. I forgot to put Norman Perrin in the bibliography but his book is available if you go to the historical Jesus section of NT gateway if you want to look at it further(see his chapter 4).
May 27, 2009 at 11:32 am
Thanks Mike,
I’ll have to read the relevant section in Perrin and think things through.
May 27, 2009 at 1:16 pm
I suppose I’d say that there is good reason to conclude that Jesus probably used the phrase “son of man”. But bar nash is a common idiom in Aramaic, and so I think you need to ask a set of follow-up questions, about whether Jesus used the phrase to mean something other than “human being”, whether Jesus applied imagery from Daniel 7 to himself (with or without a specific mention of “one like a son of man”), and so on. Because those are the interesting questions, if you ask me – since it is unlikely that there was anyone in that time who spoke Aramaic but never once uttered what was a common idiom and at times simply meant “someone”!
May 27, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Sorry, I should have been clearer – what I meant is that the points that Casey and Vermes make are more about the idiom per se, and it is likely that Jesus would have used that idiom at some point. But that doesn’t really address the question of whether Jesus applied the apocalyptic son of man imagery to himself – and that question needs to be kept separate from the broader linguistic one, since it would be significant if Jesus used the imagery but not the specific terminology “one like a son of man” from Daniel 7.
A strong argument for Jesus having understood himself as having an exalted role in the coming kingdom is the Q (sorry Mark!) saying about sitting on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. It is hard to imagine that saying being created after Judas was identified as having betrayed Jesus. And if Jesus is assuring them of such an exalted position, it is hard to imagine that he as their teacher/leader was assuring them of an exalted status higher than his own would be.
That doesn’t answer the question about the imagery of Daniel 7. But it does make it easier to envisage Jesus speaking about his own throne.
Anyway, sorry for thinking out loud in the first comment (and then realizing that I was no longer in tune with your post!).
May 27, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Thanks James, good distinction that Jesus may have just used a common idiom instead of the title “Son of Man” but may have still applied apocalyptic imagery to himself from Dan 7. It sounds alot like Hurtado’s point in his commentary Mark (A Good News Commentary; San Francsico: Harper and Row, 1983) where he denies “the Son of Man” was a title – he thinks it just means “a human being” with the definite article just saying this particular human being – and he thinks the eschatological discourse just draws on alot of apocalyptic/theophanic imagery that included Dan 7.
May 29, 2009 at 12:35 am
I think Casey is being misrepresented here. Casey addresses this question at length in Son of Man (SPCK, 1980) and The Solution to the ‘Son of Man’ Problem (T & T Clark, 2007). He argues that these are separable questions, and gives reasons for his belief that Jesus did not himself use the apocalyptic imagery from Daniel 7, but these reasons are only partly to do with the idiomatic use of bar (e)nāsh(ā), in that some sayings which are alleged to use this imagery make perfect sense in Aramaic without it. He argues however that sayings such as Mark 13.26 and 14.62 make perfect sense in Aramaic, do not use this idiom, do use apocalyptic imagery from Daniel 7 instead, but he gives other reasons for his view that these sayings were produced by the early church, not by the historical Jesus.
May 29, 2009 at 12:51 am
I should have said that while what has been said is right for Vermes, Casey’s view is more complicated. He thinks that bar (e)nāsh(ā) cannot lose its general level of meaning, but that the reference to the speaker, or whoever is clearly from the context in mind, may include relatively few people. So Mark 2.10 originally made sense in a culture where it had some general level of meaning, in this case it was not very pronounced and the reference to Jesus was central, and whereas the general background was necessary for Jesus not to be making a claim to take God’s place, the saying was most of all an indirect way of talking about what Jesus himself was doing. But the whole of his discussion is really necessary rather than a brief paragraph, because the Aramaic idiom is not like anything in Greek or English, and Jesus’ was acting inside first century Jewish culture, which we do not share.
May 29, 2009 at 12:57 am
Thanks Steph for clearing that up. I tried to give quick generalizations to most of the positions represented above, so any misrepresentation of Casey’s views was not intentional.
May 29, 2009 at 7:28 am
I wasn’t correcting you Mike, so much as the summaries of Casey that you understandably accepted as correct.
July 3, 2009 at 5:55 pm
[...] Future “Son of Man” Conundrum Jump to Comments A while back, Mike put up a very helpful post on the historicity of the future sayings of the “Son of Man” in the Gospels. He [...]