Nabeel Qureshi - Searching for the Son of Man - Christology Term Paper

8/7/2019 Nabeel Qureshi - Searching for the Son of Man - Christology Term Paper

1/24

Searchingfor

TheSonofMan:AuthenticityandReference

N.A.Qureshi,M.D.

DukeUniversityGraduatePrograminReligion

Rel399.14:SurveyofChristology


2/24

1

Abstract

ThoughTheSonofManhasarousedscholarlyintrigueforcenturies,its

meaningremainselusivetoconsensus.Astotheunderstandingofthistitle,very

littlehasremainedstable,andvirtuallynothinghasbeenunchallenged.This

treatmentwillseektoexploretwosignificantissuespertainingtoTheSonofMan:

theauthenticityandthereferenceofthephrase.Afterassessingthecurrentcourse

ofscholarlyargumentation,itwillbeindicatedthatcertainargumentspertainingto

Jesususeofthephraseshouldberevisited.

Introduction

,theSonoftheMan,isasomewhatunsettlingterm.ItisratheroutofplacewhenbroughtintoEnglish.Somuchso,infact,thatmost

translationsofthephraseomitadefinitesignifierinordertorenderitpalatable.It

appearsthatasimilarphenomenonoccurswhenthephraseisbroughtintothe

scholarlyarena.Thephrasecannotseemtofinditsplaceinconsensus,evenover

centuriesofdiscourse.Delvingintothephrase,historiansandexegetesmay

emphasizesomefacetoranotherinordertorendertheconstructionpalatableinan

etymologicalandhistoricalframework.Thisishardlyirrational;thetraditional

interpretationofthephraserequiresJesustoregularlyrefertohimselfinthethird

person,inanapocalypticmanner,whichheperhapscoinswhiledoingso.Thisalone

ismostunsettling.

Althoughthefieldisrifewithissuestoconsider,onlytwoquestionswillbe

explored:1-DidtheHistoricalJesususethephraseTheSonofMan?(thequestion


3/24

2

ofauthenticity);2-TowhatimageoridiomdoestheSonofManrefer?(the

questionofreference).

Authenticity

ASurveyoftheOccurrencesoftheSonofManintheNewTestament

Althoughcountedindifferentways,thenumbersturnoutapproximatelythe

same;1(SonofMan,henceforthSM)occurs86timesintheNT:69timesintheSynoptics,13timesintheGospelofJohn,twiceinRevelation,

andonceeachinActsandHebrews.2Allthreeofthestatementsoutsideofthe

Gospels/ActsareallusionstotheOTratherthantheJesustradition.Otherthanthe

onereferenceinActs,thismeansthatalltheNTreferencestotheSMoccurinthe

Gospels.Whatmakesthisphenomenonevenmoreintriguingisthat,withthe

exceptionoftwoverses,thephraseonlyappearsonJesuslips.3

ModesoftheSonofMan

Astotheusageofthephrase,Bultmannprofferedasystemofclassification

thatcontinuestobequiteinfluentialinthefield.Hesuggestedthatthesayings

speakoftheSonofMan(1)ascoming,(2)assufferingdeathandrisingagain,and

1ThenumbersgivenareDunns;HurtadodiffersincountingtheusesofSMinJohn,where

heomitsone;Collinsoffersanumberof74fortheSynoptics;etc.Cf.Hurtado,L., LordJesusChrist,(2003),291;Collins,A.Y.,TheOriginoftheDesignationofJesusasSonofMan,

(1987),396.2Dunn,J.D.G.,JesusRemembered,(2003),737.3TheexceptionsareJohn12:34,wherelistenersinquiretowhomJesusrefersbyusingthetermSM,andStephensvisioninActs7:56.


4/24

3

(3)asnowatwork.4Onaccountofsomeoverlapinthecategories,aswellasother

factors,thissystemofclassificationhasnotgonewhollyunchallenged.5Still,itis

quiteusefulinmostcasesforseparatingthecontextsinwhichtheSMstatements

occur.Thesethreecategories,ormodes,willbereferredtoastheapocalypticSM,

thesufferingSM,andtheearthlySM,respectively.

TheEvangelistsandtheDanielicSonofMan

PerhapstheclearestconsensusthathasbeenattainedisthattheSM

originatedinaChristologicalinterpretationofDaniel7,andthereiscertainlygood

reasonforthisconclusion.6OnebutneedstoglanceattheoneliketheSonofMan

ofDaniel7:13-14,whocomesonthecloudsofheavenandisgivengloryanda

kingdom,thatallthepeoples,nationsandmenofeverylanguagemightserveHim.

Mark13:26-27(cf.Mt24:30-31,Lk21:27)echoesmuchofthewordingandimagery

ofDaniel,sayingThentheywillseetheSonofMancomingincloudswithgreat

powerandglory.Andthenhewillsendforththeangels,andwillgathertogetherHis

electfromthefourwinds,fromthefarthestendoftheearthtothefarthestendof

heaven.SimilarpassageswithDanielicallusionarepepperedthroughoutthe

Synoptics(Mk14:62,cf.Mt26:64,Lk22:69;Mk8:38,cf.Mt:16:27,Lk9:26;etc.)7

4Bultmann,R.,TheologyoftheNewTestament-Vol1,(1951),30.5AdelaYarboroCollinsstatesthatBultmannscategoriesaresomewhatarbitrarily

imposeduponthetextsandthatamoresatisfactoryapproachwouldbetoclassifythe

sayingsaccordingtotheirformandfunction.TheOriginoftheDesignationofJesusasSonofMan,(1987),395-396.6Burkett,D.,TheSonofManDebate,(1999),122.7Theaboveexamplesshouldsufficetoestablishaconnectionbetweentheproductofthe

EvangelistsandtheSMofDaniel;thisconclusionisvirtuallyunanimousamongscholars,ifnotcompletely.


5/24

4

DevelopmentoftheSonofManTraditionwithintheNTTexts

Throughbasicsynopticandredactionstudies,itbecomesquicklyapparent

thattheSMtraditionisdevelopingevenatthehandsoftheEvangelists.Most

frequently,MatthewredactsMarktoincludeSMterminology.8Forexample,Mk8:27

readsJesuswentout,alongwithHisdisciples,tothevillagesofCaesareaPhilippi;

andonthewayHequestionedHisdisciples,sayingtothem,Whodopeoplesaythat

Iam?Matthew,however,writes,NowwhenJesuscameintothedistrictof

CaesareaPhilippi,HewasaskingHisdisciples,WhodopeoplesaythattheSonof

Manis?(16:13)ItbecomesclearincontextthatMatthewsGospelhasdeveloped

theMarkanaccounttodepictJesusidentifyinghimselfastheSonofMantohis

disciples.Interestingly,Luke9:18employstheearlier,Markanversion.Thisstrongly

discreditsanyhypothesisthatMatthewisquotingQinthispericope;rather,thebest

conclusionisthatMatthewhasdevelopedthetradition.

LukesimilarlydevelopstheSMtradition.Interestingly,hedoesnotinsertthe

SMintopassageswhereMatthewisinagreementwiththeMarkantext,yethedoes

inserttheSMintodoubletraditionpassageswhereMatthewhasnotusedit.9Acase

ofthiscanbeseeninLuke6:22whenitissetalongsideMatthew5:11:Blessedare

youwhenmenhateyou,andostracizeyou,andinsultyou,andscornyournameas

8Patton,C.,DidJesusCallHimselftheSonofMan,(1922),507.WhileMatthewcontainsa

largernumberoftheinsertionsofourphrasewhereLukeorMark(orboth)inparallel

passagesarewithoutit,Lukeistobecreditedwithafewsuchinsertions.9Ibid,fn5.


6/24

5

evil,forthesakeoftheSonofMan.vs.Blessedareyouwhenpeopleinsultyouand

persecuteyou,andfalselysayallkindsofevilagainstyoubecauseofMe.

TwofurthercasesofapparentSMtraditiondevelopmentremain.Inthefirst

case,LukeagreeswithaMattheanredactionofMark(e.g.Mt12:32,Lk12:10),

thoughitmaybearguedthatthisisacaseofMark/Qoverlap.Regardless,thiscase

canbemoreorlesscategorizedwiththepreviouscasesintermsofitssignificance.

Butthelastcase,perhapsthemostpregnantincidentofSMtraditiondevelopment,

isnottobefoundinSynopticredactionstudies.1Thessalonians4:16hasbeen

flaggedasaparallelpassagetoMark13:26,Matthew24:31,andLuke21:27.10

ThoughtheSynopticsunanimouslyattesttoSMtraditionhere,Paulsearlier

accountincludesnomentionoftheSM.Isitpossiblethatheintentionallyexcluded

theterm,choosingnottorefertoitforvariousundisclosedreasons?Thisisquite

plausible.11But,asCrossanhashighlighted,itisalsoplausiblethataSMtradition

developedbetweenthetimeofPaulsepistleandMarksGospel.12

TheGospelsofJohnandThomas

10Crossan,J.D.,TheHistoricalJesus,(1991),247.11ItmaybearguedthatPaulwouldnotbeexpectedtoincludethetermSMhereforvariousreasons.Paul,whoiswritingtotheThessaloniansconcerningmattersofdeath,mightnothaveconsideredthistheoccasiontointroducethetitleSMtothechurch,letalonetheeschatologyofDaniel.Aswillbeexploredbelow,introducing

theSMphrasemayhavetakensomeclarification.Inaddition,MarkdoesnotemployfullDanielicimagerythefirsttimeheintroducestheSM;rather,hebuildsuptoituntilchapter13.PaulwasnotaffordedthisamountofexpositioninthissmalllettertotheThessalonians.Thus,hemayhavecontentedhimselfwithjustabriefreferencetoTheLord.12Ibid,454.Crossansargumentitselfishighlydevelopedandreliesuponmanylinksina

chain;however,heconcludes:Thiswholestreamoftradition,farfromstartingonthelips

ofJesus,beganonlyafterhiscrucifixionwithmeditationonZechariah12:10,thenmovedontocombineDaniel7:13withthatprophecy.


7/24

6

ItshouldbebrieflynotedthattheSMtraditionispresentinbothJohnand

theGospelofThomas.ThoughtheseGospelsaremuchlaterthantheSynoptics,they

areconsideredtobeindependentoftheSynoptictradition,makingtheirinclusionof

theSMtraditionquitesignificant.Johnincludes,ashasbeenmentioned,13SM

sayings,fourofwhichhavebeenlabelledasapocalyptic(1:51,3:13-3:14,and

5:27).13TheGospelofThomasincludesoneSMreference,aparalleltodouble

traditionmaterial:Jesussaid,[Foxeshave]theirdensandbirdshavetheirnests.

Butthesonofmanhasnowheretolayhisheadandgainrepose.(Thomas86,cf.Mt

8:20,Lk9:58)Thus,iftheindependenceofthesetraditionsisassumed,theSM

traditionmeetsthecriterionofmultipleattestation.

MarkandtheIntroductionoftheOddConstruction

Onefinalobservationwouldbeaproposbeforesummarizingthesurveyof

theNTSMdata.Inthebodyofhardevidence,MarkistheearliestsourcefortheSM

tradition.TheveryfirstoccurrenceoftheSMisfoundinMark2:10,whereJesusisin

thepresenceofthescribesandtheparalytic.Interestingly,atthisverylocation,one

findsaliteraryconundrumthathasbeenthecatalystofsomescholarly

bewilderment.14Inthemiddleofaratherclimacticproclamationtothescribes,

Markinterjectsaclarifyingstatement.Itreads:Butsothatyoumayknowthatthe

SonofManhasauthorityonearthtoforgivesins,Hesaidtotheparalytic,Isayto

13Reynolds,B.E.,TheApocalypticSonofManintheGospelofJohn,(2008),147.14Boobyer,G.H.,MarkII,10aandtheInterpretationoftheHealingoftheParalytic ,(1954),

115-120.Specifically,hedrawsattentiontofourdifficultieswiththetextasitstands:the

awkwardnessofthewordingof10band11a,thepublicuseofSMsoearlyinJesusministry,

thebreachoftheMessianicsecretinMark,andtheobservationthattheywereallamazedandglorifiedGodinverse12.


8/24


9/24

8

JesusandonlyaboutJesus);thephrasetheSMisusedinmultiplemodes:earthly,

suffering,andapocalyptic;thereisaclearintentiononthebehalfoftheEvangelists

todepictDanielicimagerywiththephrase;thereisevidenceofdevelopmentofthe

phraseamongtheEvangelists,andperhapsevenbeforeMark;theawkwardnessof

thephrasewasrecognizedandevenutilizedbyMark.Thisstartingpointwill

contributegreatlytotheinvestigationoftheauthenticityofthephrase.

TheCriterionofDissimilarity

Arguablythemostnotoriouscriterionofhistoricalinvestigation,the

criterionofdissimilarity,islimitedinitsutility.Employingitinitsnegativesense,

i.e.todiscredittraditions,ishighlyproblematicandyieldsuntenableoutcomes.17

ApplyingthecriterioninthismannerwouldruleoutthepotentialthattheJesusof

traditionhadanyconnectionwhatsoevertotheHistoricalJesus.Theappropriate

mannerinwhichtoutilizethecriterionisforpositivepurposes,i.e.toverifya

tradition.18Ifatraditioniswellattestedandalsopassesthecriterionof

dissimilarity,itshouldbeheldinveryhighregard.

17ThishasbeenassertedbyGager:ItwouldbefoolishtosupposethatJesusviewsdidnotoverlapatnumerouspointsbothwithcontemporaryJudaismandwithChristianbeliefs.Gager,J.G.,TheGospelsandJesus:SomeDoubtsabouttheSonofMan,(1974),258.18Theproperuseofthecriterioncannotallowtheclaimthatsuchastory(i.e.onethatdoesnotpassthecriterionofdissimilarity)isinauthentic,merelythatwecanneverbeconfidentofitsauthenticityunderthecircumstances.Ibid.


10/24

9

Indeed,thatiswhathappenswiththeSMtradition.19Thereisnoreasonto

expectaSMtraditionintheearlychurch.Inotherwords,thereisnochurch

doctrine,noapparentthrustofkerygma,nochurchcontroversy,etc.,thatbenefits

fromanextanttraditionoftheSM.YettheSMtraditionisverywellattested.As

such,itpassesthecriterionofdissimilaritywithhighestmarks.Thecriterionof

dissimilarityseemstohavebeendesignedtoconfirmthisverykindofdata.20

TheApocryphalApocalypticSonofMan?

Untilthefirsthalfofthe20thcentury,thescholarshipmostlyyieldedasimilar

conclusion:theSMtraditioniswellattested,includingtheapocalypticSM.However,

somescholarsmaintainedthattheviewthatJesusspokeofanapocalypticSonof

ManpresupposedthatsuchaconceptionexistedinJudaismpriortoJesus;21in

otherwords,JesuscouldspeakofanapocalypticSMbecauseothershadspokenof

onebeforehim.Theconsensuswhichagreedonapre-ChristianapocalypticSM,

however,dissolvedhalfwaythroughthe20thcentury,mainlyduetothreereasons:

1)doubtsaboutthedatingoftheSimilitudesofEnoch,otherwiseknownasEnochs

BookofParables;2)thechallengeagainstaunifiedpre-ChristianSMconcept;and

3)linguisticargumentsagainstthepre-ChristianuseoftheSMtitle.22Becauseof

thedissolutionoftheconsensus,BurkettarguesthatitisnolongercertainthatJesus

couldhavereferredtohimselfastheapocalypticSM.

19ThishasbeennotedbyKeener:Theproper,positiveuseofthecriterionofdissimilaritythuswouldsuggestthatifanytitleofJesusisauthentic,thisoneis.Keener,C., The

HistoricalJesusoftheGospels,(2009),202.20Licona,M.,Dissertation:TheHistoricityoftheResurrectionofJesus,(2008),201.21Burkett,D.,TheSonofManDebate,(1999),68.22Ibid,70.


11/24

10

Thethreereasonsenumeratedabovedeservesomebriefexploration.The

Similitudesisadocumentthathadbeenappendedto1Enochyearsafterthelatter

waswritten.WithinitwasanapocalypticSMfigurewhoisdescribedusingDaniels

entireiconographicrepertoire.23Itwasconsideredthat,sinceanapocalypticSM

wasalreadyknownbythe1stcenturyPalestiniancommunity,itwouldnotbe

difficultforJesustoassimilatehimintohisteachings.However,doubtsaboutthe

datingoftheSimilitudesaroseafterMilik,theeditorofthefindingsatQumran,

disclosedthattherewasnotraceoftheSimilitudesinthescrollsatQumran,despite

thefindingoftherestof1Enoch.24HethenassumedthatsincetheSimilitudeswere

notfoundatQumran,theymusthavebeenwrittenaftertheQumrancommunity;

specifically,around70AD.Onaccountofhispublications,mostscholarsbeganto

favoradateinthefirstcenturyCE.25

However,thependulumcontinuedtoswing,andtheconsensushasshifted

backinfavorofapre-ChristiandatefortheSimilitudeswithinthepastfewyears.

BlackobservesthatassessmentsoftheSimilitudeshavecertainlybeenhardeningin

favorofabasicallyJewishwork,composedaroundtheturnofthemillennium.26

TheThirdEnochSeminar,agatheringof43scholarsfrom11countries,

focusedheavilyonthequestionof1EnochanditsimpactontheearlyChristian

community.This,naturally,includedthedatingoftheSimilitudes.Oneofthe

23Chial,S.,TheSonofMan:TheEvolutionofanExpression,in EnochandtheMessiahSon

ofMan(2007),159.24Milik,J.T.,TenYearsofDiscoveryintheWildernessofJudea ,(1959),33-34.25Burkett,D.,TheSonofManDebate,(1999),72.26Black,M.,TheMessianismoftheParablesofEnoch,(1992),162.


12/24

11

attendees,DavidSuter,notedthatdiscussiontendedtosupportanearlierdateat

theturnoftheeraorbefore.27

Notallthescholarsintheconferencewereinaccordwithapre-Christian

datingoftheSimilitudes.Suterhimself,forexample,consideredtheSimilitudestobe

contemporaneouswiththeGospels:IregardtheParablesasaparallelprocessto

theformationofChristologyintheearlychurchandnotasevidencefortheuseof

SonofManintheteachingofJesus.28

ButCharlesworthprovidedthestrongestargument.Heofferedthreemain

factorswhichwouldplacetheSimilitudesinthelatterhalfofthefirstcenturyBC:1-

TherelativeirrelevanceoftheQumranfindings;2-theprobablereferencetoa40

BCinvasionwhichwouldstillbeinthecollectivememoryofthereaders;3-the

immediacyofreferencestolandgrabbingbyHerodandtheHerodians.

Charlesworthconcludes,Cumulatively,then,datingtheParablesofEnochtothe

timeofHerodtheGreatandtheHerodianshasbecomeconclusive.29

27SuterspecificallycitestheworkofBlack,Collins,anNickelsburgasopeninganewfront.

SeeSuter,D.,EnochinSheol,inEnochandtheMessiahSonofMan(2007),442.28Ibid,441.29Charlesworthinfactgivesfivereasons,butthefirstthreeappeartobeargumentsforone

reason:FivereasonsdisclosethemostprobabledatefortheParablesofEnoch.First,itis

insignificantthatnofragmentofthisdocumenthasbeenidentifiedamongthefragments

foundintheQumrancaves.Second,theBookofParablesisclearlythelatestcomposition

within1Enoch,andtherearereasonstoconcludeitwouldnothavesufficienttimetomakeitswaytoQumran.Third,thedocumentwasnotcomposedatQumranandcontains

conceptsandperceptionsthatwouldnothavebeenacceptableatQumran.Fourth,the

referencetoaParthianinvasionmakesbestsenseinlightofwhatisknown,fromJosephusandarchaeologicalresearch,abouttheinvasionof40B.C.E.Fifth,themultitudinouscurses

onthelandownersandthosewhomonopolizethedrylandmakebestsenseduringthe

periodofthelandgrabbingbyHerodandtheHerodians.Charlesworth,J.,CanWeDiscern

theCompositionDateoftheParablesofEnoch?,in EnochandtheMessiahSonofMan(2007),467.


13/24

12

Asthependulumswingsyetagainandthescholarshipisfoundtobeonthe

sideofanearlydatingoftheSimilitudes,theprimaryargumentforalateappearance

oftheapocalypticSMisdeflated.Certainly,ifanapocalypticSonofMan,repletewith

Danielicimagery,canbefoundinliteraturewhichpredatesChristianity,thereisno

plausiblereasonthatJesuswouldnothavethecapacitytousesimilarterminology

himself.

Authenticity:ToBeRevisited

Itmayberecalledthattwootherreasonswereofferedforthedissolutionof

theconsensusontheapocalypticSM:thechallengeagainstaunifiedpre-Christian

SMconceptandlinguisticargumentsagainstthepre-ChristianuseoftheSMtitle.

ThesearetheargumentsofPerrinandVermes,twoofthescholarswhowillbe

surveyedinthefollowingsectionregardingthereferenceoftheSM.Sincethe

authenticityofthephraseissignificantlyaffectedbythereference,theformerwill

berevisitedaftersurveyingthelatter.

Reference

OriginsandReference

Asimpliedabove,thequestionofauthenticitycanbefurtheraddressedby

investigatingthereferenceoftheSMphrases.IfatraditionportraysJesususinga

SMstatementinamannerthatiscontextuallyinappropriate,thenthatphraseisless

likelytobeauthentic.Thisprincipleisroughlyequivalenttothecriterionof

contextualcredibility.


14/24

13

Theproblemwiththiscriterion,however,becomesapparentaftera

momentsreflection.Howdoesoneobjectivelydeterminewhichcontextsare

credible?Forsome,anapocalypticself-understandingwouldbestexplainJesus,and

thustheapocalypticSMstatementsbecomemuchmorecontextuallycredible;for

others,anapocalypticself-understandingisimplausible,andthereforethe

apocalypticSMstatementsarerejectedapriori.30

Collinspointsoutthatthis,infact,isthedividinglineofthedebate

concerningreference:Therearetwomaintheoriesabouttheoriginofallthese

sayings.OnisthattheoldestSonofMansayingsaretheonesthatalludetoDaniel

7ThesecondisthatalltheSonofMansayingsderivefromtheusebyJesusofa

Semiticidiominwhichsonofmanmeansamanormaningeneral.31

Thus,theapproachtothequestionofreferencewilltaketwoangles:theidea

thattheSMfindsitsoriginsinDan7andtheideathattheSMisrootedinaSemitic

idiom.

DoestheSonofManUltimatelyRefertoDaniel7?

DavidStrausswasthefirsttopositadevelopmentwithinJesusthought

regardingtheSM:JesusfirstsimplyproclaimedthecomingSMandonlylatersaw

himselfasthatSM.32AlbertSchweitzerfollowedinStraussstradition,further

30Burkett,D.,TheSonofManDebate,(1999),44-46.31Collins,A.Y.,andJ.J.Collins,KingandMessiahasSonofGod,(2008),156.32BesidesthefactthatJesusonmanyoccasionscalledhimselftheSonofMan,there

remainsthepossibilitythatonmanyothers,hemayhavedesignedanotherperson;andif

so,thelatterwouldintheorderoftimenaturallyprecedetheformerThemostnatural

suppositionisthatJesus,firstthediscipleoftheBaptist,andafterwardshissuccessor,tookoriginallythesamepositionashisformermasterinrelationtothemessianic


15/24

14

explicatingthisposition.33However,Bultmannultimatelybecamethemost

influentialproponentofthisview,modifyingitsomewhat.Hispositionwasthat

JesusproclaimedanapocalypticSMotherthanhimself,andthattheearlychurch

laterembellishedthestatements,makingJesushimselftheSMheproclaimed.34

Arguingfromthisposition,BultmannconcludedthatthoseSMstatementsare

authenticwhichdifferentiatetheSMfromJesus,suchasMark8:38.35Hisarguments

werewidelyconsidereddefinitivebyhiscontemporaries.

Hispositionhas,however,beencalledintoquestion.Themostinfluential

rebuttalstoBultmannspositionwereofferedbyPhilipViehauerandNorman

Perrin,whobotharguethatnoneoftheSMsayingscanbetracedtoJesus.36Athird

critiquehasbeenofferedbyI.HowardMarshall,whoarguesagainstBultmanns

interpretationofthetexts.

VielhauerarguesthatMark8:38reflectsthesituationoftheearlychurch

whereinChristianswerefacedwiththepressureofdenyingJesus.37Bythus

applyingthecriterionofdissimilarity,VielhauerconcludedthatSMChristologywas

theearliestascribedtoJesus,asitaroseinconnectionwiththeEasterexperience.38

VielhauerintroducedanotherargumentagainsttheSMwhichmetwith

success.Inbrief,hearguesthattheSMtraditionfailedtointertwinewiththe

kingdomandonlygraduallyattainedtheelevationofthinkinghimselftheMessiah.

Strauss,D.,TheLifeofJesusCriticallyExamined,(1892),283,287.33Schweitzer,A.TheQuestoftheHistoricalJesus,ACriticalStudyofitsProgressfromReimarustoWrede,(1906),237.34Bultmann,R.,TheHistoryoftheSynopticTradition ,(1968),127-128.35Bultmann,R.,TheNewApproachtotheSynopticProblem,(1926),355.36Collins,A.Y.,andJ.J.Collins,KingandMessiahasSonofGod,(2008),166-67.37Vielhauer,P.,GottesreichundMenschensohn,1957,68-71.Cf.Collins,A.Y.,andJ.J.Collins,

KingandMessiahasSonofGod,(2008),167;Burkett,D.,TheSonofManDebate,(1999),38.38Ibid,90-91.Cf.Collins,A.Y.,andJ.J.Collins,KingandMessiahasSonofGod,(2008),167


16/24

15

KingdomofGodtradition,whichindicatesthatonewasinsertedlater.Findingthe

SMtraditionlesscompellingforearlyauthenticitythantheKingdomofGod

tradition,VielhauerarguesthattheSMtraditionisthussuspectformultiple

reasons.39Vielhauer,asBultmannbeforehim,swayedtheopinionofmany.40

Vielhauerspositionhasnotescapedscrutiny.Notably,Dunncommentsthat

Vielhauersargumentsarehardlysopersuasiveasfirstappears.41Ofthelatter

argument,DunnpointsoutthattradentswhofeltfreetointroduceSMtraditioninto

theaccountswouldhavenoreasontohesitateintroducingitintotheKingdomof

Godtraditions.Oftheformerargument,DunnsaysTohypothesizethatawayof

thinkingaboutJesuswassosignificantthatitcouldbeintrudedthoroughlyintothe

Jesustradition,andyethavebeensoinsignificantastoleavevirtuallynoothertrace

istopushagainstthemanifestweightoftheevidence.42Asimilarcritiqueisoffered

byCollins,whosaysVielhauersthesis,thatitwastheexperienceofJesusasrisen,

andthisexperiencealone,thatledthedisciplestoidentifyhimwith(theonelikethe

SMfromDaniel)putstoomuchhermeneuticalweightonsuchanexperience.43

ThesecritiquesofVielhauersresponsetoBultmannarequiteplausible.

NormanPerrinalsoformulatedaresponsetoBultmann.Hearguesthatthe

SonofMansayingsreflectdifferentPeshertraditionsderivedfromDaniel.

MultipleSonofMantraditionsexistedduringtheearlychurchperiodthatwere

39Vielhauer,P.,GottesreichundMenschensohn,1957.Cf.Dunn,J.D.G.,JesusRemembered,(2003),737.40Burkett,D.,TheSonofManDebate,(1999),38.41Dunn,J.D.G.,JesusRemembered,(2003),737.42Ibid.43Collins,A.Y.,andJ.J.Collins,KingandMessiahasSonofGod,(2008),172.


17/24

16

conflatedtonowappearastheydointheGospels.44Inaddition,Perrinsupposed,as

didtheweightofscholarshipatthetime,thattheapocalypticSMtraditionhadnot

yetformulatedinanysignificantwayduringJesustime.HestatesThereisno

sufficientrelationshipbetweentheuseofSonofManin1Enochand4Ezraforusto

supposethattheyarebothreflectionsofacommonconceptionThecommon

dependenceisuponDan.7:13,ontheonehand,anduponthegeneralworldof

apocalypticconcepts,ontheother.45Thus,basinghisargumentonthelackofa

commonconceptionoftheSM,hearguestheconceptmusthavedevelopedbetween

theEasterexperienceandtheoldestattestedSMtexts.46

Perrinsscholarshipismeticulous,butithascomeundercriticismforfaulty

conclusions.CollinsarguesthatPerrinhasfailedtoconsiderseriouslythe

likelihoodthattherewerecertainfeaturesintheunderstandingofDaniel7common

tomanyJews.47OnemightarguethattheSMinDanielisnottitular,butratheris

onelikeaSM.However,thisfailstoaccountforthefactthatmostmindswouldnot

besoexactastodifferentiatetheconceptofonelikeaSMfromaSM.48

Inaddition,itshouldbenotedthatPerrinsentirethesisisdependentupona

latedatingoftheSimilitudes.Thisisnolongerthescholarlyconsensus,ashasbeen

44Perrin,N.,Markxiv.62:TheEndProductofaChristianPesherTradition?inNew

TestamentStudies(1966),12:150-55;Cf.Burkett,D.,TheSonofManDebate,(1999),74.45Perrin,N.,AModernPilgrimageinNewTestamentChristology,(1974),33;Cf.Burkett,D.,

TheSonofManDebate,(1999),74.46Perrin,N.,AModernPilgrimageinNewTestamentChristology,(1974),23-40;Cf.Collins,A.Y.,andJ.J.Collins,KingandMessiahasSonofGod,(2008),167.47Collins,A.Y.,andJ.J.Collins,KingandMessiahasSonofGod,(2008),167.48Thisisespeciallytrueconsideringthatonewouldthenbearguingthatthereisno

commonconceptionofaSM,andtheaveragehumanmindhasatendencytocategorizeunknownswithroughlysimilarknowns.


18/24

17

discussedabove,andthisdealsasignificantblowtotheefficacyofPerrins

argument.

OnefinalcritiqueofBultmannwasthatofI.HowardMarshall,whoargued

againsthisinterpretationoftheNTevidence,namelytheversesheemployedto

demonstrateadifferentiationbetweenJesusandtheSM.Marshallpointsoutthat

thereisnoevidenceforthisviewotherthanperhapsthreespecificverseswhich

werenotcauseforconfusionamongtheearlychurch.49Thethreeversesin

question,Luke12:8,Mark14:62,andMatthew19:28,areallstatementsmadeby

Jesuswhichincludeafirstpersonreferencetohimselfandathirdpersonreference

totheSonofMan,potentiallydistinguishingJesusfromtheSonofMan.However,

Marshallsays,Noneofthesetextsdemandstobeinterpretedinthisway,anditis

clearthattheearlychurchdidnotthinkthattheyreferredtosomebodyelse,nordid

itfindthemsufficientlyambiguoustoneedreformulation.50Marshallscritique

drawsattentiontothecontextualhistoricalclueswhichBultmannunderplays,and

hiscritiqueappearsquiteplausible.

Marshallscritique,however,doesnotargueagainsttheapocalypticSM;

rather,itgetstothequestionofwhetherJesususedittorefertohimself.The

argumentsagainsttheauthenticityoftheapocalypticSM,thoseofVielhauerand

Perrin,appeartoberatherlessplausiblethanthethesisthatJesusactuallydidrefer

toanapocalypticSM.

DoestheSonofManUltimatelyArisefromaSemiticIdiom?

49Marshall,I.H.,TheOriginsofNewTestamentChristology, (1976),73.50Ibid.


19/24

18

AnopposingviewconcerningreferenceisthattherootofallSMtraditionisa

SemiticidiomwhichhasbeentransferredintoGreek.Thisthesiswasexplicatedby

ArnoldMeyerin1896,whenheproposedthatsomeGospelsayingsusethephrase

theSMtorefertomaningeneral,51roughlyequivalenttothepoliteEnglish

idiomone.52Therootofthis,accordingtothistheory,canbetracedtoJesus

Aramaicuseofbarnash,aman.

Thistheorygeneratedgreatdiscussionimmediatelyattheendofthe19th

century,butitwasinjectedwithnewvitalitybytheargumentsofGezaVermes.53

BasinghisargumentsonanarrayofAramaictexts,Vermesarguedthatthe

authenticSMstatementswerethosethatcouldbetracedbacktoanAramaic

circumlocutionaluseofbarnasha.Hearguesthatthisuseisemployedwhen(a)a

speakerwishestoavoidundueorimmodestemphasisonhimself,or(b)whenheis

promptedbyfearorbyadislikeofassertingopenlysomethingdisagreeablein

relationtohimself.54InregardstotheotherSMsayingsinthetradition,suchasthe

apocalypticSMsayings,Vermespositsthatthesewerecreatedbythe

apocalypticallymindedGalileanfollowersofJesus.55

51Meyer,A.,JesuMuttersprache,(1896).Cf.Collins,A.Y.,andJ.J.Collins,KingandMessiahas

SonofGod,(2008),156.

52Dunn,J.D.G.,JesusRemembered,(2003),739.53Consideredthethirdphaseoftheargument.54Vermes,G.,TheUseofbarnasha/barnash inJewishAramaic,(1967),320.Anexampleof

(a)whichVermesprovidesisMk2:10,whereJesusispronouncinghisabilitytoforgivesinsandwishestousethecircumlocutiontoavoidimmodesty;examplesof(b)includetheSM

passionpredictions,wherebyJesuswishestoavoidapplyingtheimpendingbrutalityof

crucifixiondirectlytohimself.55Vermes,G.,JesustheJew,(1981),180;Cf.Collins,A.Y.,andJ.J.Collins,KingandMessiahasSonofGod,(2008),161.


20/24

19

TwoscholarshaveprominentlyfollowedinVermesswake:MauriceCasey

andBarnabasLindars.Eachrejectsandslightlymodifiesthepositionadvancedby

Vermes.Casey,afterenumeratingwhichSMstatementshedoesnotconsider

authentic,arguesthateachoftheremainingSMstatementshassomegenerallevel

ofmeaning,aswellasaparticularreferencetoJesus.56Lindars,rejectingboth

VermesandCasey,arguesthatthereareexamplesoftheidiomaticuseofthe

genericarticle,inwhichthespeakerreferstoaclassofpersons,withwhomhe

identifieshimself.57Thedifferentnuancesoftheirarguments,thoughsignificant,do

notaffectthecourseofthisinvestigation.Forthisreason,allthreeargumentswill

bereferencedtogetherastheAramaismargumentfortheremainderofthis

treatise.

ManypoignantcritiquesoftheAramaismargumenthavebeenprovided,and

theygenerallyappeartorevolvearoundtheevidenceanditstreatment.Richard

Bauckham,callingtheargumentaheroicfailure,pointsouttwoflaws:the

examplesusedtoestablishtheidiomandtheapplicationoftheidiomtoJesus.58

Fitzmyermountsamorethoroughcritique,againarguingagainsttheexamplesused

toestablishtheidiom.59IdentifyingfivephasesofdevelopmentintheAramaic

language,FitzmyerarguesthattheAramaismargumentusesevidencefroman

56Casey,M.,TheSolutiontotheSonofManProblem,(2009),315.57Lindars,B.JesusSonofMan,(1984),24.Cf.Bauckham,R.,TheSonofMan:AManinMy

PositionorSomeone?,(1985),23.58Bauckham,R.,TheSonofMan:AManinMyPositionorSomeone?,JournalfortheStudy

oftheNewTestament(1985,7:23),pp.27and24.59Fitzmeyer,J.,TheSemiticBackgroundoftheNewTestament,in TheStudyofthe

AramaicBackgroundoftheNewTestament,(1997),13-14.Cf.Collins,A.Y.,andJ.J.Collins,

KingandMessiahasSonofGod,(2008),163.


21/24

20

irrelevantphase.60Hurtadoaddstothiscritique,sayingtheAramaismargumentis

abitlikeusingmodernAmericanEnglishtoproposethemeaningsofwordsand

expressionsinElizabethanEnglishtexts.61Caseyattemptedtocounterthis

argument,pointingoutthatAramaicisanexceptionallystablelanguage,thus

implyinglateevidencecanbeappliedtoearlytexts.62

ThemostrecentsignificantturnintheAramaismargumentcamein2001

whenOwenandShepherdpublishedahighlyinfluentialstudyanalysingavastpool

ofsources,includingmuchnewevidencefromQumran.OwenandShepherd

corroboratetheconclusionthattheuseoflateAramaictextsisinappropriate.In

addition,theyofferthefollowingcritique:thelinguisticargumentsofVermes,

Lindars,andCaseysufferfromatleasttwoproblems.Firstofall,theydonot

carefullydistinguishbetweenEasternandWesternAramaicSecondly,they

wronglyassumethatthedeterminingforceoftheemphaticstatewasalready

waninginthetimeofJesus.63Bytheendoftheirinvestigation,theyoffersixmajor

reasonstocallintoquestionthelinguisticgroundsforthesolutiontotheSonof

ManproblemofferedbyVermes,Lindars,andCasey.64

60PalestinianJewishAramaicoftheclassic,rabbinicperiodasopposedtoMiddle

Aramaic61Hurtado,L.,LordJesusChrist,(2003),301.62Casey,M.,TheSolutiontotheSonofManProblem,(2009),314.

63Owen,P.andShepherd,D.,SpeakingupforQumran,Dalman,andtheSonofMan ,(2001),104-105641-Thelackofevidenceofawaningemphatic;2-Qumransevidencethattheemphaticwas

stillincommonusewithdeterminativeforce;3-Theself-referentialidiomisnotattestedinMiddleAramaic;4-ThereisnotasingleattestationoftheAramaicexpressionforSMinthe

emphaticstateinMiddleAramaic;5-ThereisverylittleevidencethattheAramaic

expressionbarenash(a)wasacommontermformaninthetimeofJesus;6-Thereare

threeinstancesoftheindefiniteasonofmaninearlierAramaic,noneofwhichisusedasameansofself-reference.Ibid.,120-121.


22/24

21

ReferenceConcludedandAuthenticityRevisited

ThatJesususedsomekindofSMstatementisvirtuallybeyonddoubt.The

dataforthetraditionissoubiquitousanditsabilitytowithstandscrutinyso

tenaciousthatthisconclusioncannotbeavoided.Dunnsummarizesthedata

masterfully:

AtleastwecanbeconfidentJesushimselfusedthephrasethesonofman.In

termsoftraditionhistoricalanalysisthecasecouldhardlybecleareror

stronger.WhensomanyissuesintheJesustraditionaredifficulttoresolve

becausetheevidenceissoconfusing,studentsshouldberelievedtofindone

instanceatleastwheretheweightofevidencetipsthebalancesoheavilyinonedirection.Itisdisappointingthatsomanyhaveallowedlessclear-cutdataor

lessweightyconsiderationstoundermineoneofthefirmestfindingsavailabletous.IfwecannotbeconfidentthatJesususedthephrasethesonofmaninhis

speech,andquiteregularly,thenthereisalmostnofeatureoftheJesus

traditionofwhichwecanconfidentlyassertthatJesusspokethisway.65

TheevidencesupportingthethesisthatJesusutteredatleastsome

apocalypticSMstatementsalsoappearstowithstandscrutiny.Theargumentin

favorofanAramaicoriginfortheSMstatements,however,significantlylacksthe

profileofevidencerequiredtomaintainplausibility.Itcanbesafelyconcluded,then,

thattheDanielicimagerypresentintheNTSMstatementscanbetracedbackto

Jesus.

FinalThoughtsandConclusions

Onefinalquestionremains:DidJesususetheapocalypticmodeoftheSMto

refertohimself?ItappearsthataneffectiveargumentexplainingwhyJesusdidnot

refertohimselfastheapocalypticSMhasnotbeenadvanced.Bultmannappliesthe

65Dunn,J.D.G.,JesusRemembered,(2003),759-760.


23/24

22

criterionofdissimilarityinitsnegativesensetoarguethatthetraditionsare

probablyanearlychurchinnovation,butwehaveseenthatthisapplicationofthe

criterionisproblematic.Inaddition,Marshallscritiquestands:noneoftheversesto

whichBultmannreferrednecessitatesadistinctionbetweenJesusandthe

apocalypticSM,nordidtheearlychurchinterprettheversesassuch.Itstandsto

reason,thatthereisnogoodreasontoconsideritimplausiblethatJesusreferredto

himselfastheapocalypticSM.Ontheotherhand,thereisgoodreasontothinkhe

did:JesusselfreferenceastheapocalypticSMpermeatestheearliestlevelof

tradition.66Inaddition,somescholarshaveassertedthatthishypothesispassesthe

criterionofdissimilarity.Bocksays:Ifthecriterionofmultipleattestationmeans

anythingorhasanyusefulpurpose,thentheideathatJesusspokeofhimselfin

thesetermsshouldnotbedoubted.67Thealternateappearslessplausible:Jesus

emphaticallyproclaimedacomingother(emphaticallyenoughthattracesofthe

proclamationarefirmlyrootedintheJesustradition)byusingonlyonephrase

whichwasultimatelysoineffectivethatitsintendedmeaningwasentirelyeffaced

fromtradition.Certainlythisispossible,butitisnotasplausibleastheconclusion

thatJesusreferredtohimselfastheapocalypticSM.

Ifweconsidertheevidenceasitnowstands,multipleconclusionshavebeen

reachedwithvariouslevelsofcertainty.1-ItisvirtuallybeyonddoubtthatJesus

usedthetermSonofMan;2-thatheuseditinanapocalypticsense,referringtothe

oneliketheSonofManinDaniel,ishighlyplausible;3-thatitwasatermthat

66Withthepossibleexceptionof1Thessalonians4:16.67Bock,D.BlasphemyandExaltationinJudaism,(1998),226.cf.Licona,M.,Dissertation:TheHistoricityoftheResurrectionofJesus,(2008),201.


24/24

emergedfromaSemiticidiomhasnotbeeneffectivelyevidenced;finally,4-that

JesususedtheapocalypticmodeoftheSonofMantorefertohimselfismorelikely

thannot.

Documents

Nabeel Qureshi - Searching for the Son of Man - Christology Term Paper