Scott 1 Matthew Scott Dr. Keyne Cheshire Humanities 151: Ancient World through the Middle Ages 25 March 2005 Who is this Son of Man? The title “Son of Man” is used over 50 times in the synoptic gospels. With only one or two exceptions of its use by a man in John and by a crowd referring to the title in general, all of the other sayings came straight from the mouth of Jesus according to the texts. There is, however, surprisingly little known about this title, and the speculation and investigation by scholars has led to one of the longest lasting debates in modern religious studies and a real impasse. Even the crowds of Jews swarming around Jesus during his life expressed their puzzlement when they asked “Who is this Son of Man (John 12:34)?” Many solutions to the enigma have been suggested ranging from the use of the title by Jesus as a personal pronoun, to its use as an expression of the ultimate combination of divinity and humility as foreseen by prophesies in the book of Daniel. There is even strong argument suggesting that the term was completely fabricated by the early church. Norman Perrin and Morna Hooker have both written and researched extensively on the subject of the title “Son of Man,” and they represent the extremes of an argument in which most scholars can agree on only one thing; there is a solution out there somewhere. In order to understand the phase of the Son of Man debate in the book of Daniel in the proper context, it’s best to think in terms of “Son of Man” imagery. Daniel (7:13), after all, is where the debate really begins. This section of Daniel is a narrative vision

Scott 2 written down by Daniel regarding a divine court. The court is in the process of passing judgment on some beasts terrifying to look at, all of which supposedly lay claim to kingdoms on Earth (Daniel 7:17). Since Daniel is the only man in the book, he is consistently referred to as “Son of Man;” in this context it is taken to mean “mortal.” The title’s appearance alone would be enough to catch the attention of scholars scanning the Old Testament for signs of meaning applicable to the New Testament usage by Jesus, but there is more. What appeals to scholars searching that passage is the reference to a “one like a human being (Aramaic “son of man”) coming with the clouds of heaven” to be given power over all people by God. This “Son of Man” passed judgment on the beasts, and divided their kingdoms out among the Holy Ones (7:18). The Son of Man imagery in Daniel is paralleled with several of Jesus’ sayings regarding the title “Son of Man” in the synoptic gospels; Mark 14:62 is a prime example. In Mark 14:62, Jesus refers to the son of man “coming with the clouds of heaven,” and he used the exact words used in Daniel 7:13. It is because of the parallels Jesus made himself that scholars searching for meaning in the New Testament often end up looking back to Daniel Chapter 7. Many scholars believe that the Daniel 7:13 passage is where Jesus got his inspiration for the title, translating it to apply to his own mission as a humble messiah. In the extreme sides of the debate, however, there are many varying ideas regarding the application of Daniel 7:13 in the “Son of Man” debate. When considering Daniel (7:13), also referred to as the Parousia, Morna Hooker is reminded of the times in which the prophesy was written. She and Norman Perrin both touch on the importance of the recent Maccabean martyrs and enemies of Israel both potent experiences in the minds of those who would read about Daniel’s vision (Hooker

Scott 3 22-23) (Perrin 198). Hooker’s theory is derived from the supposed desire in the Jewish population of the times for a message of coming vindication and reckoning. According to her, the reckoning force, represented by the Son of Man imagery in the very same book, would represent “the faithful remnant of Israel,” and be given power over the enemies of Israel (Hooker 23). Taking her conclusion to the outskirts of religious theory regarding the “Son of Man,” Hooker proposes that the Son of Man in Daniel’s prophesy represented the actual people of Israel who in fact already possessed the power to dominate their enemies and vindicate themselves (Hooker 29). Her claim translated into layman’s terms, is that Israelites had the potential to be blessed by God, but had yet to realize or capitalize on it. At first glance, Hooker’s idea seems quite distinct from one of the foundations of theory all scholars assume necessary to link the Synoptic sayings together. How can the “Son of Man” be a single entity when it is all of the people of Israel? If the Son of Man is not a single entity, then Jesus’ claim to the title must have been false. The correct path to discovering the role of Jesus begins with the Israelites he represents. The reason the people of Israel can be given power by God is because they have the ability to accept and obey him in accordance with his wishes; they are an Elect Community chosen by God. If this is true, it is also possible that only one of the Jews will achieve full potential first; in other words, there can quite veritably be an Elect One that will achieve the power of the Son of Man before all of the rest. Hypothetically then, Jesus chose the title “Son of Man” because he was the best of the Elect Community of Israel and he offered them an opportunity to share in the suffering as a means to the vindication at the end. More importantly, Jesus was distinct from the rest of the Israelites because he presented a

Scott 4 decision before all men, and whether or not they made the right choice depended on whether or not they followed him (Hooker 193). Hooker, along with an ever changing but significant number of scholars, believes The Elect One prophesied in the Book of Daniel coming from the clouds with power over the enemies of the Israelites is Jesus. If Jesus did in fact consider the vision and prophesy in the Parousia, and knowingly lay claim to the divine title foreseen in Daniel, the problem is solved. It is, however, the nature of a scholar to ask questions, and questions have revealed weaknesses in Hooker’s theory and other possible solutions to the problem. One of the big questions regarding the “Son of Man” enigma is the role of Jesus’ martyrdom in this theory. Hooker, as stated in her book, proposes that the suffering of Jesus was a natural process leading to the power and vindication the Israelites were destined to achieve (Hooker 196). Not everyone agrees with this, and Norman Perrin is one of the scholars convinced that the theory of Jesus as the Son of Man doesn’t hold up to examination. Perrin addresses one of the synoptic sayings parallel to the Parousia; the saying in which Jesus refers to the Son of Man “coming with the clouds from heaven (Mark 14:62)”. Perrin claims that if Jesus really was the Son of Man, he would have come from Heaven rather than Earth (Perrin 175). Taking his own look at the book of Daniel, Perrin then infers that the purpose Daniel had for writing the vision was to give hope to the Maccabean readers that their recent suffering because of Hellenization would not go unrewarded by God (Perrin 167). Daniel brought a message to ease suffering, and Perrin reasons that the figure passing judgment on the beasts was needed for the assurance; the figure being “one like unto a Son of Man” was purely a coincidence.

Scott 5 If there was no true prophesy of a coming Son of Man, Jesus’ usage of the title seems to shed a different, less all-knowing light on him. Perrin, however, sees the blame for the misinterpretation of the prophesy in Daniel as being an intentional act of the early Church (Perrin 198). Many scholars trying to solve the Son of Man problem have come to a similar conclusion, and it stems from a vision of Jesus followers trying to explain his recent death in a way that would cause the Jewish priests and scribes as well as the common people of Israel to regret what they had done to Jesus (Perrin 181). For the purpose of what is known as the “passion apologetic” the early Christian Church dug into the Old Testament, derived a non-existent Jewish legend, and applied the title “Son of Man” to Jesus. Scholars point towards many argument’s against this theory as well. As an example, if the early Church was so enthusiastic about applying this title to Jesus, why is it used only a handful of times in the rest of the New Testament? Hooker is one of the many that notice the Church’s favored use of other titles such as “Son of God” and “The Christ (Hooker 186).” The title is so out of place and unexplainable that many reason the Church could not have invented it and it must have come straight from the mouth of Jesus. If the title “Son of Man,” did come from Jesus, it follows that only he can know what he truly meant by it, and though great debate may have already stumbled across the answer, we could still never know.

Scott 6 Works Cited Hooker, Morna. The Son of Man in Mark. Montreal: McGill University Press, 1967. 11-32. 174-198. Perrin, Norman. Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus. New York: Harper & Row Publishers Inc., 1967. 165-202. Society of Biblical Literature. The Harper Collins Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version. Ed. Wayne Meeks. London: HarperCollins Publishers, 1989.

Works Consulted Higgins, A. J. B.. “Is the Son of Man Problem Insoluble?.” Neotestamentica et Sementica; Studies in Honor of Matthew Black. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1969. 70-87.