¹ Vermes, Geza, “The ‘Son of Man’ Debate,” JSNT 1 (1978) 28–29.Google Scholar See also Norman Perrin, A Modern Pilgrimage in New Testament Christology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974) 5.Google Scholar Vermes is followed in large part by Lindars, Barnabas, Jesus Son of Man: A Fresh Examination of the Son of Man Sayings in the Gospels and in the Light of Recent Research (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983)Google Scholar; Dodd, C. H., The Founder of Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1970) 110–13Google Scholar, 178 n. 25; and Burkill, T. A., New Light on the Earliest Gospel (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1972) 36 n. 27.Google Scholar

² Higgins, A. J. B., “Is the Son of Man Problem Insoluble?” in Willis, E. E. and Wilcox, M., eds., Neotestamentica et Semitica: Studies in Honour of Matthew Black (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1969) 70–87.Google Scholar See the review of scholarship on this issue by Donahue, John R., S. J., “Recent Studies on the Origin of ‘Son of Man’ in the Gospels,” in A Wise and Discerning Heart: Studies Presented to Joseph A. Fitzmyer In Celebration of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, CBQ 48 (1986) 484–98.Google Scholar

³ Bultmann, Rudolf, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (trans. Marsh, John; rev. ed.; New York: Harper & Row, 1968) 112, 122, 128, 151–52.Google Scholar

⁴ Vielhauer, Philipp, “Gottesreich und Menschensohn in der Verkündigung Jesu,” in idem, Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament (ThBü 31; Munich: Kaiser, 1965)Google Scholar; idem, “Jesus und der Menschensohn: Zur Diskussion mit Heinz Eduard Tödt und Eduard Schweizer,” ZThK 60 (1963) 133–77Google Scholar; these two essays were reprinted in Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament (Munich: Kaiser, 1965)Google Scholar; the references in this article are to this volume. Perrin, Norman, “Mark XIV. 62: The End Product of a Christian Pesher Tradition?” NTS 12 (1965–1966) 150–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, “The Son of Man in Ancient Judaism and Primitive Christianity: A Suggestion,” BR 11 (1966) 17–28Google Scholar; idem, “The Creative Use of the Son of Man Traditions by Mark,” USQR 23 (1967–1968) 357–65Google Scholar; idem, “The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition,” BR 13 (1968) 3–25.Google Scholar These four articles were reprinted in A Modern Pilgrimage. See also idem, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (New York: Harper & Row, 1967) 154–206.Google Scholar See the discussion of Perrin's work in Donahue, “Recent Studies,” 485–86. 494–96. Hans Conzelmann also concluded that none of the Son of Man sayings goes back to Jesus (An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament [New York: Harper & Row, 1969] 135–36).Google Scholar

⁵ Vielhauer, “Gottesreich und Menschensohn,” 90–91.

⁶ Bultmann, Rudolf, Theology of the New Testament (trans. Grobel, K.; New York: Scribner's, 1951) 4Google Scholar; Weiss, Johannes, Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892)Google Scholar; ET, Jesus’ Proclamation of the Kingdom of God trans, and ed. Hiers, R. H. and Holland, D. L.; Lives of Jesus Series; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971).Google ScholarSchweitzer, Albert, Von Reimarus zu Wrede (1906)Google Scholar; ET, The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede (introduction by James M. Robinson; New York: Macmillan, 1968).Google Scholar

⁷ Vielhauer, “Gottesreich und Menschensohn,” 87–91. Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, 154–206. See also Perrin, Norman and Duling, Dennis, The New Testament: An Introduction (2d ed.; New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1982) 71–79, 411–12.Google Scholar

⁸ In Daniel 7 the dominion of the one like a son of man is closely associated with the kingdom of the people of the holy ones of the Most High (vss 13–14, 27). The context suggests that both the dominion of the one like a son of man and the kingdom of the people result from the decree of the Most High, i.e., they are manifestations of the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God is closely associated with the activities of angelic beings in the Testament of Moses 10 and in the War Scroll and 11 QMelchizedek from Qumran. See below.

⁹ Such claims were made at the October 1986 meeting of the Jesus Seminar at the University of Notre Dame and at a session of the Q Seminar at the 1986 Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. On the origins, purpose, and work to date of the Jesus Seminar, see the journal Forum, vols. 1–3 (1985–87).

¹⁰ Remarks made at the October 1986 meeting of the Jesus Seminar (see n. 9). See also Mack, Burton, “The Kingdom Sayings in Mark,” Forum 3 (1987) 3–47.Google Scholar The reference is to Bultmann, Theology, 1. 33.

¹¹ Mack is inclined to present Jesus as a Cynic philosopher. See also the Ph.D. dissertation on Q by Leif Vaage (Claremont Graduate School, 1986). For Jesus as a sage or poet, see Crossan, J. Dominic, In Parables (New York: Harper & Row, 1973)Google Scholar and idem. In Fragments: The Aphorisms of Jesus (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1983)Google Scholar; Breech, James, The Silence of Jesus: The Authentic Voice of the Historical Man (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983).Google Scholar

¹² Sanders, E. P., Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985).Google Scholar

¹³ Boring, M. Eugene, Sayings of the Risen Jesus: Christian Prophecy in the Synoptic Tradition (SNTSMS; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982).Google Scholar See also Higgins, A. J. B., The Son of Man in the Teaching of Jesus (SNTSMS; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁴ See the survey of the evidence by Fitzmyer, Joseph A., S. J., “The New Testament Title ‘Son of Man’ Philologically Considered,” in idem, A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays (SBLMS; Missoula: Scholars Press. 1979) 145–53.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Vermes, Geza, “The Use of in Jewish Aramaic,” Appendix E in Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (3d ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1967) 310–30Google Scholar; idem, Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973) 160–91Google Scholar; idem, “The ‘Son of Man’ Debate,” 23–25. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Review of Black, M., An Aramaic Approach. 3d ed., in CBQ 30 (1968) 426–27Google Scholar; idem, “The New Testament Title ‘Son of Man,’” 149–53; idem, “Another View of the ‘Son of Man’ Debate,” JSNT 4 (1979) 58–65.Google Scholar See the review of the debate by Donahue, “Recent Studies,” 486–90.

¹⁶ Bultmann, Theology, 1. 30. Among those who follow Bultmann in this classification are Vielhauer, “Gottesreich und Menschensohn,” 57–58; Perrin, Modern Pilgrimage, 60–77; Tödt, Heinz Eduard, Der Menschensohn in der synoptischen Überlieferung (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1959)Google Scholar; ET, The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition (trans. Barton, Dorothea M.; London: SCM, 1965)Google Scholar; references in this article are to the German; Higgins, The Son of Man, 2; Lindars, Jesus Son of Man, vii.

¹⁷ Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 177–86.

¹⁸ Translations of NT passages are by the writer based on the 26th ed. of the Nestle-Aland text.

¹⁹ In fairness to Bultmann, this procedure is the one he followed in his analysis of the texts in The History of the Synoptic Tradition; only in his Theology of the New Testament did he classify them in the groups mentioned above. Vielhauer and Tödt were apparently the first to use the classification as a structuring principle or heuristic device in the actual exegesis of the texts.

²⁰ This enumeration differs slightly from that of Schwarz, Günther, Jesus “der Menschensohn”: Aramaistische Untersuchungen zu den synoptischen Menschensohnworten Jesu (BWANT; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1986) 11–12.Google Scholar

²¹ Ibid., 12–13; Schwarz' No. 9 should probably be taken as a variant of No. 25. Luke 24:7, which Schwarz lists as a variant of Mark 14:41d / Matt 26:45c. d (his No. 33), should be counted as a separate saying.

²² “I-saying” is a form-critical category used by Bultmann; see Synoptic Tradition. 150–66. The Son of Man sayings which belong to this type of saying are Matt 11:18–19 / Luke 7:33–34; Matt 17:9 / Mark 9:9; Matt 17:12 / Mark 9:12; Matt 17:22 / Mark 9:31 / Luke 9:44; Luke 19:10; Matt 20:18 / Mark 10:33/Luke 18:31; Matt 20:28 / Mark 10:45 (cf. Luke 22:27); Matt 26:2; Matt 26:45 / Mark 14:41; and Mark 8:31 / Luke 9:22.

²³ The secondary interpretations of a similitude or parable are Matt 13:37; Matt 13:41; and Luke 18:8b.

²⁴ Son of Man sayings which belong to legendary narratives are Matt 16:13; Matt 26:64 / Mark 14:62 / Luke 22:69; Luke 22:48; and Luke 24:7 (cf. 24:46). Luke 24:7 was classified by Bultmann as an “I-saying” (Synoptic Tradition, 152).

²⁵ See Bultmann, Synoptic Tradition, 130–50.

²⁶ Perrin, A Modern Pilgrimage, 85.

²⁷ Wellhausen, cited by Bultmann (Synoptic Tradition, 15) and Lindars (Jesus Son of Man, 44–45 and 201 n. 42), argued for a mistranslation; Lindars himself (44–47) and Higgins (The Son of Man, 2, 24–25) argued for a translation.

²⁸ Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 180.

²⁹ Ibid., 163–68.

³⁰ Vermes, “The Use of 311–19; Fitzmyer, “The New Testament Title ‘Son of Man,’” 147–48; Vermes, “The ‘Son of Man’ Debate,” 20.

³¹ Jeremias, Joachim, “Die älteste Schicht der Menschensohn-Logien,” ZNW 58 (1967) 165CrossRefGoogle Scholar and n. 9; Fitzmyer, Review of M. Black, 426–27; idem, “The New Testament Title ‘Son of Man,’” 152–53; idem, “Another View,” 58–60. See also the criticisms of Borsch, F. H., The Son of Man in Myth and History (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967) 23Google Scholar n. 4; Colpe, Carsten, “υἱὸς τοῆ ἀνθρώπου, ” TDNTS 8 (1972) 403–4Google Scholar; Bowker, John, “The Son of Man,” JTS n.s. 28 (1977) 19–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Casey, Maurice, “The Son of Man Problem,” ZNW 67 (1976) 147–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; adapted in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7 (London: SPCK, 1979) 224–40.Google Scholar

³² The fullest collection of examples is in “The Use of in Jewish Aramaic,” 320–27; many of them are given also in Jesus the Jew, 163–68. Even in the two parallel examples which Fitzmyer is willing to accept as circumlocutions for “I,” the speaker, Cain, is including himself in a general statement which applies to any human being (Fitzmyer, “The New Testament Title ‘Son of Man,’” 152–53; idem, “Another View,” 58).

³³ Colpe, Casey, and Lindars take the saying in Mark 2:10 as originally an example of the indefinite Semitic idiom, but deny that it refers to any human being, including the speaker. Colpe claims that the saying refers to Jesus’ authority only (“ὁ υίὸς τοῆ ἀνθρώπου,” 430–31); Casey implies that it refers to healers (Son of Man, 228–29 ); Lindars explicitly argues that it applies only to ”some people who have God's mandate to heal”(Jesus Son of Man, 46). Such interpretations are not supported by the Aramaic evidence collected by Vermes.

³⁴ Translation of passages in the Hebrew Bible are from the RSV.

³⁵ Casey assumes that the original saying in Aramaic had two levels of meaning: (1) if a human sins against another human, and (2) if one sins against Jesus. He claims that a shift of meaning occurred when the saying was translated into Greek: the generic article, which had two meanings in Aramaic, was perceived in Greek to have only one meaning, the reference to Jesus. He concludes that the Greek translators translated literalistically because they could not see how to translate the idiom idiomatically (Son of Man, 228–31 ). Lindars’ argument is similar (Jesus Son of Man, 37). It seems more likely that, if the generic meaning was present, and if the Greek translators understood it (if they did not, what were they doing attempting to translate Aramaic?), they would have translated freely and accurately, rather than literalistically (i.e., they would have used ἄνθρωπον rather than υίὸς ἀνθρώπου). The hearer or reader would have been expected to infer the allusion to Jesus from the context.

³⁶ On these issues see Taylor, Vincent, The Gospel According to St. Mark (2d ed.; New York: Macmillan, 1966; reprinted Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981) 218–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁷ See Bultmann, Synoptic Tradition, 108; Taylor, St. Mark, 218–19.

³⁸ The Greek text is given by Bultmann, Synoptic Tradition, 98 n. 1.

³⁹ Bultmann, Synoptic Tradition, 122, 128, 151–52.

⁴⁰ Matt 24:37–39 / Luke 17:26–27(28–30); Vielhauer, “Gottesreich und Menschensohn,” 74, 79 and idem, “Jesus und der Menschensohn,” 101. He is tentative in his judgment on Matt 10:23 (“Gottesreich und Menschensohn,” 66, 79).

⁴¹ Otto, Rudolf, Reich Gottes und Menschensohn (1934; 2d ed.: Munich: Beck, 1940)Google Scholar; ET, The Kingdom of God and the Son of Man (trans. Filson, F. V. and Lee-Wolf, B.; 2d ed.; London: Lutterworth, 1943)Google Scholar; Tödt, Der Menschensohn in der synoptischen Überlieferung, 52–53.

⁴² Vielhauer, “Gottesreich und Menschensohn,” 76–79; idem, “Jesus und der Menschensohn,” 102–7. Although his approach is different, Vielhauer cites Käsemann's analysis of this saying in support of his judgment that it originated in the early Church (ibid., 102–3). Käsemann classifies it as an early Christian prophetic saying; specifically, a correlative saying of eschatological judgment (“Sentences of Holy Law in the New Testament,” New Testament Questions of Today [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969] 77–78).Google Scholar

⁴³ Vielhauer assumes the unity of Matt 24:43–44 par. and insists on a Christological interpretation of the unit (“Gottesreich und Menschensohn,” 73 and n. 79). But the saying need not be read christologically. as the variants in the Gospel of Thomas show (21.3 and 103). Bultmann left open the possibility that the saying goes back to Jesus (Synoptic Tradition, 119, 152).

⁴⁴ Vielhauer argues that the origin of Matt 24:37–39 par. must be the same as that of Matt 24:26–27 par. simply because they are “related”(“Gottesreich und Menschensohn,” 74).

⁴⁵ Vielhauer argues against the origin of Matt 24: 26–27 par. with Jesus. His reasons are: (1) the saying is closely related to the warning in the “Synoptic apocalypse” about false messiahs and prophets (Mark 13:21–23 par.). These warnings may rest on Christian experience of messianic pretenders (“Gottesreich und Menschensohn,” 75). But an older saying, represented by Matt 24:26–27 par., may be interpreted in the context of later Christian experience in Mark 13:21–23 par.; Vielhauer himself admits the possibility that Jesus may have warned his disciples about pretenders of some sort (ibid.). (2) Matt 24:26–27 par. presupposes the appearance of some who claimed to be the Son of Man and identifies the Messiah with the Son of Man; such presuppositions are incomprehensible in the teaching of Jesus (ibid., 75–76 ). The form of the saying in Matthew may be read as implying the appearance of false Sons of Man (24:26 may be translated, “Lo, he is in the desert … “). But the variant in Luke does not imply such a meaning (17:23, “Behold, there! Behold here! …). Luke may represent the older form of the saying in this regard, which may be interpreted as counterposing an expectation of an apocalyptic revelation of the Son of Man against expectations of an earthly messiah or the claims of messianic pretenders. Such a counterposing is not incomprehensible in the teaching of Jesus (see below).

⁴⁶ Perrin, A Modern Pilgrimage, 10–22.

⁴⁷ Vermes, “The Use of “327–28; idem, “The ‘Son of Man’ Debate,” 20, 26–27; Perrin, A Modern Pilgrimage, 23–40; idem, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, 164–73; idem, “Son of Man,” IDBSup (1976) 833; Leivestad, Ragnar, “Der apokalyptische Menschensohn; ein theologisches Phantom,” ASTI 6 (1968) 49–105Google Scholar; idem, “Exit the Apocalyptic Son of Man,” NTS 18 (1972) 243–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lindars, Barnabas, “Re-enter the Apocalyptic Son of Man,” NTS 22 (1975) 52CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Casey, “The Use of the Term ‘Son of Man’ in the Similitudes of Enoch,” JSJ 7 (1976) 29Google Scholar, adapted in Son of Man, 112; Bowker, “The Son of Man,” 26.

⁴⁸ See, e.g., the pesherim from Qumran and 1 Cor 10:11.

⁴⁹ Sanders, Jesus and Judaism.

⁵⁰ In spite of the fact that the Similitudes of Enoch do not appear in the form of I Enoch discovered at Qumran and that in their place another work is found (the Book of the Giants—see Vermes, “The ‘Son of Man’ Debate,” 26–27), the Similitudes of Enoch are still best understood as a Jewish work written between the reign of Herod the Great and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 Ce (Greenfield, J. C., “Prolegomenon,” in Odeberg, Hugo, 3 Enoch or the Hebrew Book of Enoch (New York: Ktav, 1973) xi–xlviiGoogle Scholar; Suter, David, “Weighed in the Balance: The Similitudes of Enoch in Recent Discussion,” RSR 7 (1981) 217–21Google Scholar; Collins, John J., The Apocalyptic Imagination (New York: Crossroad, 1984) 142–43.Google Scholar

⁵¹ The Greek text may be found in Snell, B., ed., Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971) 1. 292Google Scholar; an English translation by R. G. Robertson is available in OTP 2. 811–12.

⁵² See the texts, translations, and commentary in Kobelski, Paul, Melchizedek and Melchiresa (CBQMS 10; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1981).Google Scholar

⁵³ Or “like a son of man” and “the Son of Man” for the sake of continuity with religious and scholarly tradition.

⁵⁴ See Collins, Adela Yarbro, “The Political Perspective of the Revelation to John,” JBL 96 (1977) 241–56.Google Scholar