Who Is This Son of Man

by Larry W Hurtado

  is in fact an anointed ruler of the people of God (cf. Dan. 9.25-26), the transfer 19. Cf. the discussion of Chrys C. Caragounis, The Son of Man: Vision and Interpretation (WUNT, 38; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), pp. 35–81.

  20. That Daniel describes the fi gure coming ‘with the clouds of heaven’, and appearing

  ‘ like a son of man’, also points to his supernatural and heavenly origin. Such language most likely applies to an angel or some other supernatural being with a human appearance or nature.

  2. Problems with Casey’s ‘Solution’

  37

  of power to his hands would of course include all those for whose cause he advocates.21

  It is also important to note that only of the ‘son of man’ is it said that ‘all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him’ (7.14). All ‘peoples’ would include Israel. Another problem for Casey, which he sidesteps, is that 7.27 shifts to the singular at the end of the verse: ‘ his kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers shall serve and obey him’ (Nw(mt#yw Nwxlpy hl ) yn+l# lkw Ml( twklm htwklm).22 This seems like a rather obvious echo of the tribute paid to the son of man in verse 14, which tells us the kingdom to be possessed by Israel will be subject to the authority of another. The eschatological kingdom which the saints will enjoy is most likely the one given to them by the son of man.

  This suggestion is bolstered by the conceptual links between Daniel 7 and Daniel 9.23 In both cases, the end days are characterized by the tyranny of an earthly opponent of God.24 In chapter 7 a ‘little’ horn wages war (vv. 8, 24), oppresses the righteous (vv. 21, 25), and seeks to ‘change the times and the law’

  (v. 25). In chapter 9 a ‘prince’ destroys the city of Jerusalem and the sanctuary (v. 26), puts ‘an end to sacrifi ce and offering’ (v. 27), and makes the Temple

  ‘desolate’ (v. 27). The likelihood that these are descriptions of the same fi gure 21. Casey’s discussion of this passage is curious. He spends some ten pages discussing Daniel 7, to the effect that: (1) The parallels between 7.14 and 27 show in an ‘absolutely clear’

  and ‘decisive’ manner that the son of man in the vision is to be interpreted as the people of Israel ( Solution, p. 85); and (2) Within the Syrian Christian tradition, some took the son of man as a symbol of the triumph of the children of Israel under the Maccabees, and Jerome’s polemic shows that this was also the view of Porphyry (pp. 86-91). There are some fairly obvious replies to this: (1) The parallels within chapter 7 would be expected if the son of man were to share his kingdom with the people of God; (2) All of the Syrian interpreters see the vision as pointing beyond the Maccabees and the children of Israel to Jesus as the true fulfi lment (hardly helpful to Casey); and (3) On pp. 7–10 Casey dismissed the Syrian Fathers’ understanding of the ‘son of man’ expression as being of ‘limited value’, due to their Christian assumptions.

  Apparently, the Syrian Fathers are trustworthy interpreters of the Bible only when they offer some modest help to Casey’s position.

  22. My translation. Casey renders the end of 7.27 ‘all dominions will serve and obey it’

  ( Solution, p. 85). This avoids the problem, but appears to be an intentional obscuring of the allusion back to the ruler anticipated in 7.13-14.

  23. Cf.

  André

  Lacocque,

  The Book of Daniel (trans. by David Pellauer; Atlanta: John Knox, 1979), p. 126.

  24. The

  defi nitive language of 7.14 and 9.24 makes it clear that in both instances we are dealing with eschatological scenarios.

  38

  ‘Who is this Son of Man?’

  is bolstered by the fact that chapter 7 places these actions within the time frame of ‘a time, times, and half a time’ (v. 25), or, most likely, three and a half years.25 Likewise, in chapter 9 the prince’s awful actions are apparently enacted during a three-and-a- half-year period.26 And both chapters anticipate a divine counterpart to the eschatological tyrant, identifying him as a ‘son of man’ (7.13), and ‘Messiah, the ruler’ (9.25) respectively.27

  Memory of the early church

  Casey’s position essentially entails the retention of only about a dozen authentic ‘son of man’ sayings.28 This means that the majority of the 51 (excluding parallel occurrences) sayings employing this expression are the creations of the early church.29 Furthermore, in those instances where authentic sayings have been preserved, they were misunderstood from a very early period by the Greek-speaking church, and the originally generic Aramaic expression for

  ‘son of man’ was transformed into a messianic title for Jesus.30 This means that precisely none of the son of man sayings of the historical Jesus survived to be incorporated into the Christian gospels with their meaning intact.

  There are a number of reasons to call this into question in general terms.

  First of all, it is methodologically dubious to dismiss the authenticity of most

  ‘son of man’ sayings because they cannot be understood in the purely generic sense (applicable to mankind or a group of men) Casey demands. We have seen that the evidence for such generic usage of )#n) rb is entirely absent 25. Cf. discussion in John Goldingay, Daniel (WBC, 30; Waco: Word, 1989), p. 181, though he takes a different view.

  26. Three and a half years being half of the seven-year ‘week’ mentioned in 9.27. Of course this reading of the texts in question is open to serious debate. Nothing here rests upon the accuracy of such details. For discussion see Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977), pp. 115–39 and Goldingay, Daniel, p. 262.

  27. Of course, one might want to argue that the ‘son of man’ and ‘Messiah, the ruler’ in these texts should be linked with historical fi gures like Judas Maccabeus, Zerubbabel, and/or Joshua the high priest, and Onias III (cf. Goldingay, Daniel, pp. 169–70, 261–62). In Christian interpretation both texts have been glossed and applied to Jesus. The point being made here does not depend on any specifi c understanding of the referents.

  28. See

  Casey,

  Solution, pp. 116–211.

  29. For the listing of the data, see J. Jeremias, New Testament Theology. I. The Proclamation of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1971), pp. 259–60.

  30. See

  Casey,

  Solution, pp. 246–73.

  2. Problems with Casey’s ‘Solution’

  39

  from any surviving Middle Aramaic texts, which makes it a rather thin basis of judgement. Second, it requires us to assume that the early church invented the ‘son of man’ title, put it on the lips of Jesus in the gospel sayings, and then utterly abandoned the expression elsewhere. It does not appear outside the gospels as a designation for the Messiah.31 If the Greek-speaking church, misunderstanding the literal translation practices of earlier Aramaic-speaking Christians, invented this title for Jesus, then why are the Greek letters of Paul, Peter, James, John and Jude utterly ignorant of this now popular Christological convention? And, third, how is it that such a gap was so quickly created between the memory of the earliest Christians and the penning of the gospels?

  According to Casey, Jesus never spoke exclusively of himself using the ‘son of man’ expression. Yet in our gospels, all penned within 40–50 years of Jesus’ ministry, ‘son of man’ has become the overwhelmingly characteristic and distinctive way in which Jesus chose to speak exclusively of himself. Is that credible?32

  Authenticity of the son of man sayings

  Casey’s way of framing the matter leads him to dismiss the authenticity of a large number of ‘son of man’ sayings on questionable grounds. We will discuss some of these examples below.

  Mt. 24.27, 30, 37, 39, 44

  Casey’s argument against the authenticity of this discourse in Matthew 24

  amounts to two points. First, the material refl ects ‘the interests of the early church rather than the preaching of the historical Jesus’.33 And, second, the sayings in this section which employ the ‘son
of man’ expression reveal the infl uence of Dan. 7.13.34 Both assertions beg the question, though. Why should 31. With the exception of Acts 7.56 and Rev. 1.13. Both of these being instances of heavenly visions, clearly drawing from the imagery of Dan. 7.13.

  32. See the discussion of Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), pp. 303–306 and James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), pp. 759–61.

  33. Casey,

  Solution, p. 212.

  34. Casey,

  Solution, pp. 215, 216, 219, 220.

  40

  ‘Who is this Son of Man?’

  we just assume that Jesus did not predict an apocalyptic scenario?35 And why was the early church so capable of applying Dan. 7.13 to Jesus in the context of eschatology, but we are to believe Jesus himself was incapable of drawing such connections?36

  There are at least three points to be made in favour of the general authenticity of this material. First, the occurrence of the ‘son of man’ expression, in conjunction with ‘end of the world’ subject matter, is characteristic of Jesus according to Mark (13.26), Q (Mt. 24.27//Lk. 24), and L (Lk. 17.22, 30). Second, within this block of material there is the potentially embarrassing claim that the Son is ignorant of the timing of the end (Mt. 24.36). Would the early church create such a suggestion? But if they have faithfully passed on the message of Jesus on such a point, why should we be generally sceptical of the eschatological discourse and its ‘son of man’ sayings? Third, in none of the ‘son of man’

  sayings in this discourse is it obvious that Jesus is speaking about himself as he looks to the future, though the early church obviously identifi ed Jesus as the son of man. Rather, Jesus appears to be speaking of the fi gure in Daniel’s apocalyptic vision throughout this section. It is only because of Matthew’s opening explanatory material in 24.1-3 that such a connection must be made (‘What will be the sign of your coming?’). If such sayings were invented by the early church, why then would they not have Jesus, in replying to the disciples’

  questions about his coming, speak directly of himself in the fi rst person? The best explanation for why Jesus would be depicted as speaking in such a manner (in the third person) is because that is how his sayings were preserved in the earliest memory of the church.

  35. On the general point see Dale C. Allison, Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Ascetic (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1998), pp. 95–171; G. R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), pp. 313–37; and N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1996), pp. 320–68 (though Wright interprets Jesus’

  eschatological language much differently).

  36. Although John J. Collins does not believe Jesus applied the language of Dan. 7.13 to himself, he rightly insists concerning the interpretation of Daniel’s vision as it is attested in 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra: ‘There is no reason in principle why Jesus should not have made similar use of Daniel 7’ (Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, p. 263).

  2. Problems with Casey’s ‘Solution’

  41

  Lk. 17.22, 26, 30; 18.8

  Four additional ‘son of man’ sayings which are rejected by Casey appear in Luke 17–18.37 The fi rst two occurrences appear within the same unit of text (17.22-37). There is no compelling reason to reject this material out of hand.38

  The expression ‘days of the Son of Man’ in 17.22 and 26 is unusual in the New Testament, but has Jewish parallels in the Mishnah and 4 Ezra as a designation of the messianic era.39 The story of Sodom and Gomorrah (17.28-30) was among the stock of Old Testament materials from which Jesus sometimes drew according to Q (Mt. 10.15//Lk. 10.12); M (Mt. 11.23-24); and L (Lk. 17.29).

  And, again, Jesus refers to the future Son of Man as though he were speaking of a third party, which is more likely due to the memory of the early church than something put onto the lips of Jesus.

  In 18.1-8, the bold comparison of God to an unjust judge of bad character was potentially shocking to Jewish ears, and would be no less unsettling to Christians. It appears within a parable, which is widely acknowledged as one of the most distinctive modes of communication employed by the historical Jesus.40 And the topic of widows was characteristic of the concerns of Jesus according to Mark (12.42); L (18.3); and Q (Mt. 12.42-43//Lk. 21.2-3). There is no occasion to be sceptical about the dominical origin of this material.

  But what of Casey’s objection that these units address the problem of the delay of the Parousia? According to Lk. 17.25, the only thing which must happen prior to the revealing of the Son of Man is the anticipated suffering of Jesus in Jerusalem. Such a scenario fi ts the situation at the end of Jesus’ life quite comfortably, but would offer little resolution to a church struggling with angst over the delay of the Parousia many decades later.

  37. Lk. 17.24 is a parallel of Mt. 24.27, drawn from Q.

  38. Casey insists: ‘This straightforwardly describes the period during which the parousia was expected and did not come. It is presented as a prediction of Jesus, so that Christians of Luke’s time could be reassured that Jesus knew the parousia would not happen as soon as they had hoped, and that their predecessors had been mistaken to expect it’ ( Solution, p. 223).

  39. See the discussion of Darrell L. Bock, Luke 9:51-24:53 (BECNT, 3b; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), p. 1427.

  40. ‘Even scholars who are persuaded that the Gospel parables include additions by the early church still view the parables as providing some of the most authentic and reliable teaching from Jesus’ (K. R. Snodgrass, ‘Parable’, in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels [eds. Joel B.

  Green, Scot McKnight, I. Howard Marshall; Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992], p. 600).

  42

  ‘Who is this Son of Man?’

  Lk. 21.36 is also rejected by Casey, though without any clear explanation as to why.41 It appears within a unit of material distinct to Luke (21.34-36), but with several signs of authenticity. The warning to the disciples not to be weighed down with ‘drunkenness and cares of this life’ (21.34) is hardly fl atter-ing them in the eyes of the church. The theme of drunkenness was characteristic of Jesus’ teaching according to Q (Mt. 24.49//Lk. 12.45); L (Lk. 21.34); and perhaps M (Mt. 11.19).42 And the theme of worry was certainly characteristic of Jesus, according to L (Lk. 10.41); Mark (4.19); and Q (Mt. 6.31//Lk. 12.29).

  Mt. 10.23 43

  Although it is possible that Matthew has crafted this material and inserted it into the present context, in order to apply the missionary instructions of Jesus to the ministry of the church in his own day, it is also possible that he found it somewhere in his source material. The content itself bears every sign of authenticity. The prediction that the Son of Man would return before the disciples had fi nished their travels through ‘all the towns of Israel’ is not likely to have been invented by the early church, since it is certainly open to the suggestion that Jesus was wrong in his expectation. Nor did it fi nd confi rmation in the experience of the Christian community at any point in the fi rst century.

  The unit within which this saying is contained is full of marks of dominical teaching. The expectation of persecution on the part of Jesus is found here in M (Mt. 10.17-18); in Q (Mt. 5.11//Lk. 6.22); and in Mark (13.9). The inspiration of the Spirit when called to give witness is found here in M (Mt. 10.19-20); in Mark (13.11); and possibly L (Lk. 12.11-12).44 The citation of Micah 7.6 is found here in M (Mt. 10.21); in Mark (13.12) and again in Q (Mt. 10.35-36//

  Lk. 12.52-53). And Jesus once more speaks of the coming Son of Man as though he would be a fi gure distinct from himself (Mt. 10.23), which is more likely due to the preservation of Jesus’ manner of speaking than the creativity of the early church.

  41. Casey,

  Solution, p. 230.

  42. It is unclear if the differences between Mt. 11.16-19//Lk. 7.31-35 are due to redactions of Q, or whether they are drawing off of two different traditions. See Darrell L. Bock, Lu
ke 1:1-9:50 (BECNT, 3a; Grand Rapids, Baker, 1994), pp. 660–61.

  43. See

  Casey,

  Solution, pp. 231–33.

  44. It is unclear whether this piece of material comes from Q or a second source employed by Luke. See Bock, Luke 9:51-24:53, pp. 1130–31, 1143.

  2. Problems with Casey’s ‘Solution’

  43

  Mt. 12.39-40//Lk. 11.29-30

  This Q saying will certainly be rejected by any who are sceptical of the scenario involving Jesus predicting his own death and resurrection.45 But this is a well attested dominical teaching in the earliest strata of the tradition. It appears here in Q, and repeatedly in Mark (8.31; 9.9; 9.31; 10.34; 15.29). It is unlikely that the early church would attribute to Jesus the specifi c claim that he would spend ‘three days and three nights in the heart of the earth’ unless this memory was very fi rmly rooted in the tradition, as this is diffi cult to harmonize with the actual period of time Jesus spent in the tomb.46

  Mt. 13.37, 41

  Casey rejects the authenticity of these sayings because they treat ‘son of man’

  as a title, whereas in Aramaic )#n) rb was simply ‘a normal word for man’, and thus could not have served as a title to designate Jesus specifi cally.47 But as we have seen, the evidence for this bald assertion is lacking in Middle Aramaic.48

  Mk 13.26 and 14.62

  Casey rejects Mk 13.26 on two grounds: (1) The setting for the saying includes the anachronistic expectation of the Gentile mission, which ‘does not have any Sitz im Leben in the teaching of Jesus’. (2) The saying is dependent on Dan. 7.13 and uses ‘son of man’ as a title for Jesus.49 Given the likelihood that Jesus saw ‘the kingdom of God’ as somehow dawning on earth in connection 45. See now the thorough study of Scot McKnight, Jesus and His Death (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2005).

  46. Luke edits his source to remove the chronological diffi culty. The reference to ‘three days and three nights’ is not due to typical features of Jewish reckoning (a convention standing for any parts of a three-day period), but the specifi c duration mentioned in Jon. 2.1.