Son of Man
Son of Man
In early Christian literature, “Son of man” appears almost exclusively in sayings attributed to Jesus;54 it is clearly not a designation for Jesus invented by the later church. In view of the patently Semitic, non-Hellenistic figure of speech involved, 55 the view that the expression originated later, among Hellenists,56 should be rejected.
Some scholars propose a distinction between the “Son of Man” and Jesus himself based on some of his sayings (Mk 8:38; Lk 12:8). This supposed distinction, however, ignores the common polite Aramaic use of third-person speech for oneself.57 Sometimes the more generic use of “son of man” might even mean “I” in common usage.58 Indeed, the alleged distinction can be found in only four sayings; if even one of the many other “Son of Man” sayings is authentic, this distinction between Jesus and the Son of Man would be untenable.59 Jesus’ use of the term allows some ambiguity,60 however, which might help him to maintain the “messianic secret” (see ch. 18) and delay his own conflict with the politically powerful authorities.
Normally, “Son of Man” was simply good Hebrew and Aramaic for “human one,”61 and sometimes was used as a circumlocution like “that one.”62 While this broader usage allowed Jesus to maintain sufficient ambiguity to protect himself officially, his eschatological usage probably points to a more specific biblical allusion. On the basis of the more general usage, some scholars reject its eschatological sense in the Gospels.63 Most, however, recognize that at least some of the Son of Man sayings use the title eschatologically,64 whether they derive the title’s background from Daniel65 or, on somewhat more debatable evidence, from the Similitudes of 1 Enoch.66
Yet the Similitudes are of uncertain date,67 and even the phrase’s meaning in these sayings is debated. Some argue that Enoch is himself the “son of man” (human one; see 1 En. 71:14),68 or even that “son of man” there represents humanity in general.69 Still, whether representing Enoch or not, the figure in most passages in the Similitudes is an exalted one: the Son of Man was chosen before creation of world,70 will be worshiped by the whole earth,71 and will be a light to the Gentiles;72 he appears to be identified with “my Elect”73 and “God’s Anointed.”74 He sits on the throne of glory as a judge.75
In any case, an eschatological usage in the Similitudes would probably reflect an interpretation of Daniel,76 which (as part of common Judaism’s basic “canon”) circulated even more widely than the widely known traditions of 1 Enoch. The “Son of Man” in 1 En. 46:3, the first occurrence in the Similitudes, reflects the language of Dan 7.77
Meanwhile, scholars debate also the precise sense of Dan 7:13. Some think that the figure of Dan 7:13 is angelic;78 this is not clear, since the figure is closely identified with the suffering saints of the most high God (Dan 7:18, 21-22). The figure in Daniel 7 may be corporate,79 but probably reflects a sort of corporate identity between the people (Dan 7:18, 21-22) and their ruler (7:13-14).80 In any case, the passage was certainly amenable to such an interpretation in the first century.81
When the Pharisees think that Jesus “blasphemes” because he forgives sins, Jesus demonstrates the “Son of Man’s authority on earth” (Mk 2:10); he likewise claims authority for the Son of Man as “Lord of the Sabbath” (Mk 2:28). The Son of Man’s “authority” here may refer to Dan 7:14; in the previous verse the “Son of Man” receives the kingdom and authority. But Jesus’ allusion to Daniel 7:13-14 becomes most explicit in Mk 13:26 (addressed to Jesus’ disciples) and in Mk 14:62 (address to Jesus’ opponents, fully ending Mark’s “messianic secret”). It is clear that Mark views the background of Jesus’ usage as in Daniel.
Although some scholars have argued that the later church created many or all of Jesus’ “Son of Man” sayings,82 “Son of Man” in early Christian texts appears almost exclusively, as we have noted, on Jesus’ lips. The proper, positive use of the criterion of dissimilarity thus would suggest that if any title of Jesus is authentic, this one is.83 Although many scholars agree that Jesus used the title, they dispute the authenticity of one or more of the groups of sayings (especially either suffering or reigning Son of man sayings) in which the title is used. Yet if the title is authentic and barely used by anyone except Jesus, one need not a priori exclude any of the groups of sayings. If Jesus proclaimed a kingdom and implied his messiahship, one especially need not exclude the eschatological sayings.
If the Gospels provide any indication at all, as we have observed, Jesus apparently defined his mission — both its suffering and exaltation — in terms of the Son of Man of Daniel 7:13-14.84 Daniel’s context would explain both the suffering and exaltation aspects of the title (cf. Dan. 7:21-22, 25-27), rendering irrelevant any forced choice between their uses.85 For Mark, the Son of Man who suffered before his exaltation is the forerunner of the community of faith, his audience, now suffering great tribulation at the hands of hostile world-rulers (Mk 13:9-20, 26).86 Yet because of its more common idiomatic associations, “Son of Man” retains an ambiguity that “Son of God” as a title for a specific person would lack.
The Diaspora audience likely for most or all of our extant Gospels was likely less familiar with Enoch’s Similitudes than they would have been with Daniel. The mention of clouds with the Son of man’s coming in Mk 13:26 and 14:62 deliberately recalls Dan 7:13.