Son of Man Problem

Who is Jesus? This is the central question in the Gospel of Mark. At various points in the narrative, Jesus is identified as the Son of God, the Son of Man, and the Messiah. Yet the disciples-and Mark's readers-have much to learn about Jesus' identity and vocation. In the climax of Mark's story, Jesus stands trial before the religious authorities, and the high priest confronts him with the same question. At long last, Jesus gives his own answer, drawing together these three titles. His immediate fate will be determined by the authorities, but the trial will not conclude until the reader also makes a decision regarding Jesus' identity.

In Christ’s self-identification as the Son of Man, a much greater statement is being made than a simple gloss of the passage can do justice to. In bringing such matters as authority, forgiveness of sin, and physical healing, into only twelve verses, the pericope succinctly confronts its readers with a unique perspective of who Christ is portrayed to be and of what Christ’s prerogative is. What does the mixture of miracle and controversy story reveal about how Christ is perceived by His audience? What does the story reveal about who Christ is? The so- titled Healing of the Paralytic includes both physical (paralysis) and spiritual (sin) healing events and Mark uses these two treatments, as well as the discourse on the Son of Man’s authority, to provide an answer to the question, "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (v. 7) Mark 2:1-12 leads readers from miracle stories, to the authority of the Son of Man, and finally to the Cross event.

The Aramaic chapters (2–7) of Daniel comprise its conceptual, generic and traditiona-historical core. This paper presents a fresh interpretation of their two parts (chs. 2–6 + 7) with a view to confirmation of a working hypothesis for a new approach to the genre apocalypse. The earliest exemplars of the genre articulate and promulgate a particular epistemology, grounded in two phenomena: firstly, the belief that God created humanity to be his ṣelem and demut (Gen 1:26–28, cf. 2:7–25) and, secondly, Israel’s covenant institutions, especially its temple, personnel and liturgy that provide, in representative miniature, a chaos-free and perfected heaven and earth. These two—a personal ontology and cultic cosmology—grant to individuals (qua ṣelem ʾelōhim) direct and intimate contact with divine and heavenly realities, in a way both comparable to but different from pagan attempts to secure divine presence and revelation.
In Daniel 2–7 a major theme is the nature of divine presence that makes genuine revelation possible. This is first signalled in 2:11 when the Chaldean diviners’ words of protestation condemn their own claims to be able to access divine knowledge. The stories that follow claim that two kinds of divine “dwelling with flesh” are possible for God’s people. In chapters 2–6 God dwells with covenant faithful Israelites, exemplified by Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Daniel is filled with the divine spirit (cf. Gen 2:7) and his friends’ covenant faithful character exemplifies a fulfilment of the original intention for humanity set out in Gen 1:26–28. Three aspects of that passage are explored in the stories of Dan 2–6, in ways that anticipate the characterization of the “one like a son of man” and “the holy ones” in 7:13–27. In chapters 2, 4 and 6 there is royal rule (cf. Dan 7:14). There is worship of Daniel (2:46) and of the man figure (7:14) that makes best sense as narrative exegesis of what it means that humanity was created to be God’s living image idol (Gen 1:26–28). And thirdly, in the exaltation of Daniel and his friends, there is a democratization of kingship, as in Genesis (cf. 7:27). This thoroughgoing debt to Gen 1–3 explains the feature of Dan 2–7 that sets it apart generically. Spirit-filled Israelites have direct access to the kind of divine revelation which pagans sought, unsuccessfully, through divination because the function, in effect, as God’s living cult statues.
All this prepares for the climactic chapter, where God comes to dwell, on earth, in the Jerusalem temple (7:9–27, cf. 2:11). The chapter assumes a familiar (non-dualistic) Israelite and ancient Near Eastern temple cosmology. None of the standard explanations of the “one like a son of man” figure (Dan 7:13–14) is without serious problems. Those problems are avoided and all that can be said about the “one like a son of man” is best explained if he is a new high priest coming to God in clouds of (heavenly) incense (cf. Lev 16). He sums up, in his representative office, what has been said about the Israelites in chs. 2–6 (cf. 7:27). His divine, human and royal (and angelic?) character fits what we now know of contemporary beliefs about Israel’s high priestly office (cf. esp. Ben Sira 50). The holy ones (vv. 18, 22 …) are priests (and Levites?) and there are striking linguistic connections between 7:14–27 and portions of the Aramaic Levi Document. The primary burden of Daniel 7 is a particular (messianic) political theology, not a transcendent eschatology.
Read this way, Daniel 2–7 promulgates a particular way of knowing and acting, grounded in Israel’s scriptures’ distinctive experience of, or vision for, what it means to be human. That vision was nurtured by temple liturgy and cosmology.

The volume contains seven original studies, each of which focuses on a different chapter or central passage in Daniel and offers a new interpretation or reading of the passage in question. The studies span the Danielic tales and apocalypses, offering innovative analyses that often challenge the scholarly consensus regarding the exegesis of this book. The eight chapters relate to Daniel 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, Susanna, and the conception of angelology in Daniel.
The studies are all based on careful textual analysis, including comparison between the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek versions (especially regarding Daniel 4–6), and, in each case, the larger arguments are built upon solid philological foundations. Many of the insights proposed in this volume are based upon the realization that the authors of Daniel were frequently interpreters of earlier biblical books, and that the identification of these intertextual clues can be the key to unlocking the meaning of these texts. In this sense, Daniel is similar to other contemporaneous works, such as Jubilees and Qumran literature, but the extent of this phenomenon has not been fully appreciated by scholars of the book. This volume therefore contributes to the appreciation of Daniel as both the latest book in the Hebrew Bible, and a significant work in the landscape of Second Temple Judaism.

The ubiquitous vocative expression בן־אדם (literally ‘son of man’) in the Book of Ezekiel seems to underscore the prophet’s status as a mere mortal. In contrast to the other ancient versions, Targum Jonathan to the Prophets interprets the word אדם as a proper noun, and renders the phrase accordingly as בר אדם ‘son of Adam’. This translation runs counter to the Targum’s conventional practice of rendering בן־אדם with בר אנש(א). In the absence of a satisfactory grammatical explanation for the divergent rendering, this article examines the possibility that the Targumist’s eschewal of בר אנשא was motivated by doctrinal concerns. On the strength of the findings it is argued that בר אדם was a clever and subtle alternative for בר אנשא because, depending on the context, the latter phrase could evoke associations with the Danielic Son of Man figure and the Son of Man Christology.

The Aramaic Apocalypse of Daniel (4Q246) has been the subject of intense debate among scholars, primarily surrounding the enigmatic epithets ברה די אל “son of God” and בר עליון “son of the Most High.” Previous interpreters have suggested either that this character is a human sovereign with divine pretensions or that he is a divine messianic figure. The current study posits a new identification of this figure based upon the analysis of the biblical texts underlying this Qumran scroll: in addition to its dependence upon Dan 7 (which has been previously recognized), 4Q246 also contains a hitherto overlooked allusion to Ps 82. In light of the relationship to these biblical passages, it is proposed that the character described as “son of God/the Most High” should be taken as the heavenly representative of the penultimate kingdom in Dan 7.
The identification of the allusion to Ps 82 within 4Q246 also enriches our analysis of Dan 7 itself, since the Qumran scroll demonstrates that early readers of the apocalyptic vision posited a literary-theological connection between Dan 7 and Ps 82. These texts together formed a cluster of related biblical passages that were read and interpreted in concert by ancient authors.

The figure of the ‘one like a son of man’ in the Old Greek of Dan 7.13-14 is commonly understood to arrive as the Ancient of Days ὡς παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν rather than be presented to the Ancient of Days as in Aramaic and Theodotion Daniel. Otfried Hofius has recently argued that the phrase ὡς παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν functions as the subject of the clause and is therefore not a descriptor of the ‘one like a son of man’. Hofius is correct that ὡς παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν should not function as the subject of the clause, and his critique calls into question the majority position. However, Hofius’ point also means that ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου also does not function as the subject of its clause and requires that a re-evaluation of the majority view is needed. Since the context of Old Greek Dan 7.13-14 indicates that only one figure is described, a new translation is needed in order to clarify that ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου and ὡς παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν are both descriptors of a single figure, while at the same time acknowledging that neither phrase serves as the subject of its respective clause.

The following essay explores the Jewish background of the apocalyptic Son of Man in the New Testament (NT). The first section briefly discusses the genre of Jewish apocalyptic. The second section reviews three Jewish apocalyptic sources for the Son of Man concept: 1. Daniel; 2. 1 Enoch; and 3. 4 Ezra. It also surveys the developing “heavenly enthronement” traditions and its influence on apocalyptic portrayals of the Son of Man. The third section explores how these sources influenced the NT usage of the apocalyptic Son of Man focusing on select passages. The fourth section looks at the way two early Christian apocalyptic texts understood the Son of Man concept in order to provide dis/confirmation for the proposed reading: 1. Didache; and 2. Apocalypse of Peter. Elements of continuity corroborate the reading. The fifth section presents my conclusion that the synoptic presentation of the coming of the Son of Man borrows from Jewish apocalyptic and develops the concept in a Christian direction. Whereas the Son of Man is an angelic or pre-existent being in Jewish apocalyptic, one who either ushers in the final judgment or enters into battle at the dawn of the Messianic age, in Christianity he is the resurrected Jesus who returns to earth for the apocalyptic judgment. In Mk 8:38; 13:26, he functions as the advocate or accuser, but in Matt 19:28; 24:30-31; 25:31 he functions as the judge. Both Jewish and Christian apocalypses present the Son of Man as a super-celestial being who plays an integral role in apocalyptic expectation for cosmic transformation. Interestingly, Mk 14:62a begins an historicization process in response to the delay of the parousia, and this technique is accentuated uniquely by Lk 22:69 and Acts 7:55-56.

The Son of Man sayings are some of the most contested in the Gospels. They preserve a phrase employed by Jesus to refer to himself, yet the meaning in its various contexts has been hotly debated for centuries. Some critics identify allusions to other literature in the Bible, such as the book of Daniel, while others see this phrase simply as a strange Greek rendering of a relatively commonplace Aramaic phrase.
Benjamin Reynolds presents an extensive volume of critical readings and introduces readers to the broader context of the Son of Man problem and debate. The essays and articles in the volume provide access to over 50 years of scholarly research and include the most often cited texts, which address the various aspects of the Son of Man debate. In addition, Reynolds includes carefully selected essays that allow readers to trace different stages in the debate, providing an easy entry into the Son of Man scholarship and the numerous solutions that have been offered. Each section features an introduction and a list of annotated further readings.

«Son of Man» is one of the most studied, used and interpreted Biblical expressions since the very beginnings of Christianity. This paper tries to provide evidence for the textual origin of this expression, basing on the different studies and interpretations over its occurrences on the Book of Daniel, the Septuagint, some of the so-called Apocrypha and the New Testament. The authors of the Gospels, who wrote in Greek and knew well the Book of Daniel, directly connected an apocalyptic and messianic message, as put forward in Daniel 7:13, with its Aramaic trivial use as an auto-referential designation. Thus, they gave room to a new interpretation of the «Son of Man» expression as a salvific and messianic title.

The aim of this book is to contribute to the wisdom apocalypticism debate in contemporary historical Jesus research by investigating the relationship between wisdom and (apocalyptic) eschatology in Q. The central question will be whether the Sayings Gospel Q portrays Jesus as apocalyptic, eschatological, prophetic, sapiential or some amalgam of these. In case of the latter, did any of these attributes enjoy preference, or were they equally important to the person and message of Q’s Jesus? Due to its geographical and chronological proximity to the historical Jesus, the Sayings Gospel Q is one of the most important sources for reconstructing an image of this elusive human being. Out of all the sources used to reconstruct an image of the historical Jesus, Q is perhaps in the best position to specifically address the wisdom-apocalypticism debate in Jesus studies, primarily because sapiential and eschatological traditions are both integral to Q’s thematic content and linguistic structure.

In the first century CE Jewish identity was defined in a context of significant religious diversity. This presents those who read Paul’s Letters with a problem: how to locate Paul’s thought within the complicated matrices of Jewish intellectual traditions of this period. This study locates Paul within the matrix of Jewish messianic thought between the second century BCE and the first ccentury CE by comparing conceptual elements of messianic traditions in the Parables of Enoch and the undisputed Letters of Paul. Comparative analysis of the nature and functions of the messiah figures in the Parables and the Letters of Paul demonstrates a remarkable combination of shared elements, indicating that Paul was familiar with the Enochic messiah traditions. The extraordinary combination of shared elements is so striking as to preclude the possibility that the Parables and Paul constituted independent developments. The evidence indicates that Paul developed his concept of the Kyrios out of the Enochic Son of Man traditions, or that Paul was at least influenced by these traditions.

The divergence between the two textual variants of Dan 7:13 (" Old Greek " and " Theodotion ") and their distinct ways of understanding the relationship between Daniel's " Ancient of Days " and " Son of Man " is insufficiently studied by scholars of the Book of Daniel, and is neglected by translators of the LXX. This article offers a critical examination of the status quaestionis and a discussion of the exegetical, doctrinal, hymnographic, and iconographic productions illustrating the rich reception history of Daniel 7 in Late Antique and Medieval, especially Byzantine, Christianity. While one exegetical strand distinguishes between the Son of Man (identified as God the Son) and the Ancient of Days (identified as God the Father), an equally, if not more widespread and influential, interpretation views Jesus Christ as both " Son of Man " and " Ancient of Days. " The article argues against the thesis of a direct correlation between the two textual variants of Dan 7:13 and the two strands of its reception history.

Presented at the Enoch Seminar at Camaldoli, Italy in June 2016, this essay is to be included in the volume edited by Ben Reynolds, Reading the Gospel of John’s Christology as Jewish Messianism: Royal, Prophetic, and Divine Messiahs.
Central to the presentation of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel is his association with the Eschatological Prophet, anticipated within first century Judaism. Rooted in Jewish agency typologies of Jesus as the Son of Man and the Prophet like Moses, these primitive associations reflect historical proximity to Jesus of Nazareth, who as a Galilean prophetic figure continued in the trajectory of John the Baptist while also challenging Jewish institutions and religious conventions in Galilee, Samaria, and Judea. From his prophetic demonstration in the temple to his healing on the Sabbath, the Johannine Jesus furthered the social concerns of the Hebrew prophets, and when challenged by the religious leaders in Jerusalem, he legitimated his actions on the basis of Deuteronomy 18:15-22. This Mosaic agency schema is the key to the Father-Son relationship in John, and even in the Johannine Prologue and in later confessional references to Jesus as the Christ in John we see the adaptation of this Jewish agency schema within more Hellenistic friendly terms. Seeing John 6 as a case study in a two-level reading of John, we see four or more crises in the later Johannine situation addressed rhetorically instead of a single dialectical engagement with synagogue leaders. From beginning to end within the Johannine tradition, the prophetic ethos remains central within its development reflecting a synchronicity of tradition within a diachronicity of situation.

This Dissertation aims to present the diagnosis of the psychological type of Jesus given by Nietzsche in The Antichrist. According to Nietzsche, one of the theses for the solution of the problem about the genesis of Christianity is in understanding how the psychological type of the redeemer has been adulterated by the ecclesiastical Christianity. The type of Jesus is classified by Nietzsche as idiot, namely, a man who has a degenerate physiological constitution, which makes him unable to obtain a natural growth; bearing a morbid sensitivity to pain, this type finds itself unable to make contact with reality, leading him to turn over into his own interiority, opposing no resistence to the external threats. The evangelium of Jesus represents a natural and not resentful practice to décadence through the acceptance of their physiological conditioning, such practice has been corrupted by ecclesiastical Christianity as a doctrine of salvation of the soul, by which life is denied in its totality.

This article explores the dynamics affecting the phenomenon of prayer in Jewish life of the First Century, as reflected in the early sources of the Second Temple Period.

Publishing Company; all rights reserved. Please visit Eerdmans webpage for the complete book at http://www.eerdmans.com/Products/4883/into-god39s-presence.aspx.

A transcribed version of the paper presented at the 2018 Investigate Faith conference.
I outline a number of problems with current attempts to "prove" the divinity of Jesus in the Synoptic tradition, and suggest that readers should prioritize a literary approach over other available ways of reading the Synoptics.

The article is dedicated to an evaluation of contemporary scholarship concerning the origin and semantics of the expression “Son of Man” in the New Testament. In the first part of the investigation the debate on the origin of the phrase “Son of Man” was evaluated. We can trace three various ways of explanation of its origin: the origin of the expression can be found in Jewish apocalyptic; the idea is originated in Jewish apocalyptic but before being adopted by Evangelists was transformed in another environment; the phrase “Son of Man” originates from other source then Jewish apocalyptic. Our conclusion in the matter is that the contemporary state of quest does not allow us to form any definitive and secure opinion. As to the semantics of the phrase “Son of Man” in the New Testament, it is surprising that we can find it but in the Gospels and only in the self-referential statements of Jesus. In our opinion the expression “Son of Man” in its basic sense neither has any messianic connotations nor indicates human nature of Jesus. We argue that the idiom has a rhetorical value of emphasizing in the Gospels’ narratives the strength of Christological titles describing Jesus identity. By using it in self-referential statements Jesus emphasizes exceptionality and uniqueness of his identity and mission. The phrase serves Jesus as a rhetorical provocation that aims to encourage his audience (and the readers of the Gospels as well) to ask further questions about his origin, mission, status and identity.

Je cite ici librement, sans exactitude, cela vient de ce que la parole doit être méditée et intériorisée pour devenir féconde et efficace. J'interroge la possibilité d'un Jésus gnostique, et cela dès le texte canonique des Évangiles, mais pas seulement. Ces textes sont pour moi toujours ouverts pour une nouvelle compréhension ou interprétation, c'est leur richesse indéniable, que l'on soit croyant ou non.

In his influential 1987 monograph, Kloppenborg identified three layers in the Sayings Gospel Q: the ‘formative stratum’ (or Q¹), the ‘main redaction’ (or Q²), and the ‘final recension’ (or Q³). He ascribed the cluster of sayings in Q 12:39-59 to the main redaction. This cluster is introduced by the saying about the Son of Man coming like a robber (Q 12:39-40). In my view, however, Kloppenborg’s attribution of Q 12:39 to Q’s redactional layer rests on flimsy foundations. It will presently be argued that only the Son of Man saying (Q 12:40) belongs to the main redaction, while the saying about the robber (Q 12:39) belongs to the formative stratum. In the process, a novel reading of the robber saying will be exposed.

I conclude: "One can find in Jesus the Pharisee a unique hermeneutic of suspicion, an honest, passionate, partisan reading of the Gospels by a committed, traditional Jewish scholar. Like most, perhaps all, interpreters of Jesus, Maccoby sometimes sees him in his own image, a modern Rabbinic image, and makes a better case than others have made for 'Jesus's' who lack any trace of Judaism."

Co-authored with Madison Pierce
The perfect tense-form verb ἀναβέβηκεν in John 3.13 is usually interpreted in light of traditional verb theory, as a ‘past action with present results’. This interpretation introduces an apparent problematic chronology in that the Son of Man ascends before descending; however, recent developments in Greek grammar, particularly verbal aspect theory, provide a viable solution to this grammatical ‘problem’ and indicate that the Son of Man's descent precedes his ascent.