^{page 52 note 1} N.T.S. XVIII (1971/1972), 243–67.Google ScholarSee also the same author's ‘Der apokalyptische Menschensohn ein theologisches Phantom’, Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute (A.S.T.I.), VI (1968), 49–105.Google Scholar

^{page 52 note 2} Jesus the Jew: A historian's reading of the Gospels (London, 1973), pp. 160–91.Google Scholar

^{page 53 note 1} Strenuously advocated by Campbell, J. Y. in his influential article, ‘The Origin and Meaning of the Term Son of Man’, J.T.S. XLVIII (1947), 145–55Google Scholar(reprinted in Three New Testament Studies, Leiden, 1965), but without sufficient Aramaic evidence.Google ScholarBut the careful study of Vermes in his appendix to the third edition of Black, M., An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford, 1967), pp. 310–28 (cf. also Jesus the Jew, pp. 188–91), is unlikely to be overthrown, in spite of criticisms by J. A. Fitzmyer and others.Google Scholar

^{page 53 note 2} Even in the Similitudes it is not really a tide, cf. the remarks below, and Vermes, Jesus the Jew, pp. 173–6.

^{page 53 note 3} Art. cit. p. 267.

^{page 53 note 4} Jesus the Jew, pp. 163–8.

^{page 54 note 1} See the excellent discussion of this chapter by Porteous, N. W. in his commentary in Das Alte Testament Deutsch XXIII (Göttingen, 1962;Google ScholarEnglish edition in The Old Testament Library, London, 1965).Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 1} Text emended on basis of LXX and some Hebrew MSS.

^{page 55 note 2} Of the words quoted (in the translation of R. H. Charles), only נושירק תא׆ survive in the Aramaic fragments of 4Q, En. i. 4–9. See J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch, Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford, forthcoming); M. Black, ‘The Maranatha invocation and Jude 14, 15 (I Enoch 1:9)’, in Lindars, B. and Smalley, S. S., Christ and Spirit in the New Testament (Cambridge, 1973), p. 194.Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 3} As in Zech. xiv. 5 and I En. i. 9 just quoted. See Noth, M., ‘The Holy Ones of the Most High’, in The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Essays (Edinburgh and London, 1966), pp. 215–28Google Scholar(= ‘“ Die Heiligen des Höchsten”’, Festskrift til Prof. Dr. S. Mowinckel, Oslo, 1955);Google ScholarDequeker, L., ‘The “Saints of the Most High” in Qumran and Daniel’, O.T.S. XVIII (1973), 108–87.Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 4} CfEmerton, J. A., ‘The Origin of the Son of Man Imagery’, J.T.S. n.s. IX (1958), 225–42.Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 5} See Barr, J., ‘Daniel’, in Peake's Commentary on the Bible, rev. ed. (London, 1962), pp. 592–602, who shows how these verses can be interpreted in this sense without postulating a process of interpolation and reinterpretation by a later hand, as proposed by Noth.Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 6} It may be said further in favour of this interpretation that it agrees with the situation in chapter ii, where the four empires are destroyed by God's action, thus vindicating his righteousness. Similarly Nebuchadnezzar is brought to acknowledge God's kingdom in iv. 34, and Darius in vi. 26. Nowhere is it said in the Aramaic portion that the kingdom will be given to the Jews. The implication is that they will share in the divine kingdom. In the Hebrew chapters which follow there is detailed description of the struggle for Jewish freedom, but each sequence ends with the destruction of the power of the oppressor, and what is to follow after that is not described. Only in xii. 1–3 do we have a hint of what will happen, and then it is simply the promise that whose who have perished in the course of the struggle will not lose their share in the ‘everlasting life’ of the coming era (those who are to rise to ‘shame and everlasting contempt’ may well be the hellenist Jews rather than pagan oppressors). It is not said that they will have earthly dominion, as would seem to be implied by the usual interpretation of chapter vii. This point is important for understanding the book of Daniel as a whole. It is not primarily politically orientated. Its concern is with the struggle of good and evil on a cosmic plane. The vindication of those who strive to uphold the Law is the vindication of the righteousness of God himself, and the historic events of the day are the crucial point in a transcendental and trans-historical struggle, of which the triumphant outcome is represented in the enthronment of the ‘one like a son of man’ of vii. 13.

^{page 57 note 1} RSV on basis of Syriac text (Latin defective). The Syriac also adds, ‘who will arise from the posterity of David’, but this is likely to be an interpolation, as Davidic descent plays no part in these chapters.

^{page 57 note 2} Ceriani. Again the Latin is defective, but ille homo in verse 3 shows that the omission is accidental, cf. 25, 32, 51.

^{page 57 note 3} First published by van der Woude, A. S., ‘Melchisedek als himmlische Erlösergestalt in den neugefundenen eschatologischen Midraschim aus Qumran Höhle XI’, O.T.S. XIV (1965), 354–73.Google Scholar

^{page 57 note 4} de Jonge, M. and van der Woude, A. S., ‘IIQ Melchizedek and the New Testament’, N.T.S. XII (1965/6), pp. 301–26.Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 1} Milik, J. T., ‘Milkî-sedeq et Milkî-reša‘ dans les anciens écrits juifs et chrétiens (I)’, J.J.S. XXIII (1972). 95–44.Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 2} De Jonge and van der Woude, p. 305.

^{page 58 note 3} Milik, p. 125.

^{page 58 note 4} Sjöberg, E., Der Menchensohn im äthiopischen Henochbuch (Lund, 1946), p. 38, argues for a date before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, preferably nearer the beginning of the century.Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 5} Against Milik, J. T., ‘Problèmes de la littérature Hénochique à Ia lumière des fragments Araméens de Qumran’, H.T.R. LXIV (1971), 333–78.Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 6} The phrase varies in the Ethiopic, which indicates that it is not intended to be taken as a title (cf. the use of homo and vir in II Esd. xiii).

^{page 58 note 7} See the criticism of such attempts by Sjöberg, op. cit. pp. 24 ff.

^{page 59 note 1} CfHooker, M. D., The Son of Man in Mark (London, 1967), p. 42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 59 note 2} Hooker, op. cit. p. 43, denies that actual pre-existence is intended in I En. xlvi. 1–3; xlviii. 1–7, but pre-existence is upheld by Sjöberg, Emerton and others, cfHamerton-Kelly, R. G., Pre-existence, Wisdom, and the Son of Man (Cambridge, 1973), pp. 17 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 60 note 1} CfRussell, D. S., The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic (London, 1964), pp. 100 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 2} It is a serious defect of Hooker's otherwise valuable study that she postulates ‘a very close connection between the figures of Adam and the Son of man’ (p. 72), and proceeds to argue that the latter is a figure of authority, representing the people of Israel as the heirs to the dominion of Adam. The presence of such a typology in the apocalyptic literature is not to be denied, but it is a mistake to assume that it is latent in the title Son of Man, or that the Son of Man figure is included in the range of thought when the Adam typology is used.

^{page 60 note 3} Cf. D. S. Russell, op. cit. pp. 345–50.

^{page 61 note 1} CfKümmel, W. G., The Theology of the New Testament (London, 1974), pp. 106 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 2} See my T. W. Manson Memorial Lecture, ‘The Apocalyptic Myth and the Death of Christ’, B.J.R.L. forthcoming.

^{page 61 note 3} The use of Ps. cx. i in primitive Christianity can be traced back to the earliest substructure of the New Testament (cf. my New Testament Apologetic, London, 1961, pp. 45–51). As an interpretation of the resurrection, it identifies Jesus with the celestial Messiah, and so supports the claim that this apocalyptic concept is the starting point for christology.Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 1} Acts ii. 36; iii. 21 f.; V. 31; X. 42; xvii. 31. The last reference is specially valuable as a christological statement stripped of Jewish terminology for the benefit of a pagan Greek audience. Modern commentators (e.g. Haenchen) rightly object to Kirsopp Lake's identification of ⋯νδρ⋯ with the Son of Man title (The Beginnings of Christianity, IV, 219). But our argument puts this in a different light. What Acts xvii. 31 gives is a perfect vignette of the agent of the divine intervention, for whom the Son of Man was never a recognized title, but rather the Messiah. The use of ⋯ υἱ⋯ς το⋯ ⋯νθρώπου in Acts vii. 56 is probably dependent on the sayings tradition in the gospels, particularly the answer of Jesus to the high priest (cf. Luke xxii. 69).

^{page 62 note 2} The Adam typology belongs to the well-attested Urzeit–Endzeit theme of apocalyptic eschatology, cf. N. A. Dahl, ‘Christ, Creation and the Church’, in Davies, W. D. and Daube, D., The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology (Cambridge, 1956), pp. 422–43. Influence of the Primal Man concept in this case is not excluded, but if so it has been mediated through Hellenistic Judaism, as in Philo, cf. C.Colpe in T. W.N. T. VIII, s.v. ⋯ υἱ⋯ςGoogle Scholar το⋯ ⋯νθρώπου. Hence Paul is making a creative use of this idea for the purpose of his theology, adding it to the basic christology of Jesus as the agent of the divine intervention, in order to expound, first, the resurrection of believers (I Cor. XV) and, subsequently, the justification of believers through the death of Christ (Rom. v), cf. M. E. Thrall, ‘Christ Crucified or Second Adam?’, in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament, pp. 143–56.

^{page 62 note 3} The apocalyptic basis of this passage was perceived by Lohmeyer, E., Kyrios Jesus: eine Untersuchung zu Phil. 2,5–11 (Heidelberg, 1928, ²1961), but once more it is a mistake to find the Son of Man title in ὡς ἄνθρωπος (verse 8), cf. n. I, above, and my Manson lecture (p. 10, n. 2).Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 1} Art. cit. p. 321.

^{page 64 note 1} See my article, ‘The Son of Man in the Johannine Christology’, in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament, pp. 43–60; cf also Ruckstuhl, E., ‘Die johanneische Menschensohnforschung 1957–1969’, Theologische Berichte I, ed. Pfammatter, J. and Furger, F. (Zürich, 1972), pp. 171–284.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 2} Bultmann ascribes most of the apocalyptic elements in John's christology to the Evangelist, not to the Ecclesiastical Redactor whom he holds to be responsible for references to consistent eschatology. Hence, even if the leading ideas are to be traced to a non-apocalyptic proto-Gnostic Offenbarungsreden-Quelle, the Fourth Gospel is still evidence for the continuation of a primitive apocalyptic christology within the Johannine circle, and therefore for its existence in the parent body, from which this circle came to differ considerably in the course of development. See Smith, D.Moody, ‘Johannine Christianity’, N.T.S. XXI (1974/5), 222–48.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 3} Again, if it is argued that John's statements are timeless and existential, we still have to reckon with a conscious alteration of the primitive perspective, which can indeed be regarded as a response to the problem here mentioned. For the delay of the parousia becomes problematical, not simply because of the passage of time, but because of the tension which arises once the death of Christ has been identified as the act in which the evil powers are conquered. To this extent the events of the end time are anticipated, and it is difficult to see why the rest do not follow immediately. Where apocalyptic ideas remain predominant, the tendency is to regard the conquest as only partial, so that the cross corresponds with the judicial side of the action, and the actual destruction of evil awaits the parousia. In Revelation the exalted Christ is represented as the sacrificed Lamb, whose death has secured the ejection of the devil from heaven, though he will still be active on earth (xii. 7–12). But there is a correlation between Christ's death and the final act in which he will perform the divine intervention inasmuch as the righteous, who will then be saved for the everlasting kingdom, are those who have shared his death by martyrdom (vii. 14; xiv. 12–20). From this point of view the testimony of the martyrs in Revelation can be regarded as another response to the tension of the ‘now, but not yet’. For similar ideas in the theology of Paul, cf. Kümmel, op. cit. pp. 186–9.

^{page 65 note 1} CfMoule, C. F. D., ‘Neglected Features in the Problem of “the Son of Man”’, in J. Gnilka, Neues Testament und Kirche (Freiburg-i.-Br., 1974), pp. 413–28.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 2} John i. 51; iii. 13; v. 27; vi. 27, 62; ix. 35, v.l., xii. 23; xiii. 31.

^{page 65 note 3} John iii. 14; vi. 53; viii. 28; xii. 34.

^{page 65 note 4} CfSmalley, S. S., ‘The Johannine Son of Man Sayings’, N.T.S. XV (1968/9), 278–301.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 1} The supposition of Bultmann, Bornkamm, Tödt, Higgins and others, that, in spite of this, Jesus intended a distinction between himself and the Son of Man in some passages, falls to the ground when it is accepted that there was no such title in the contemporary Jewish world.

^{page 66 note 2} Though the possibility that in some cases ‘the Son of Man’ has been substituted for ‘I’ in course of transmission in the church is not to be denied, because the influence of one item of the tradition upon another is always liable to happen, this cannot be used as a scalpel to remove unwanted examples from the deposit of Son of Man sayings. The actual evidence for such a process is very slight (against Tödt, Higgins).

^{page 66 note 3} It is particularly in the glorification sayings that the Son of Man appears to be used in a titular way. Consequently we cannot move from the other classes of sayings, which taken by themselves need not be regarded as attesting a titular usage, to the glorification class without postulating the existence of the phrase as a title independently of the Jesus tradition. But this is precisely what is excluded by the researches of Leivestad and Vermes.

^{page 66 note 4} The variations in Matthew and Luke are best explained on the basis of Markan priority. Luke's version is probably motivated by the desire to clarify the distinction impliedin Mark between the political and the celestial Messiah, but may also be influenced by another source. Matt. xxvi. 64, σεἱπας, and Luke xxii. 70, ὑμεῑς λ⋯γετε ⋯τι ⋯γώ εἰμι, must be taken to be ways of strengthening the affirmation, based independently on the answer to Pilate (σὺ λ⋯γεις, Mark XV. 2 and parallels).

^{page 67 note 1} Art. cit. p. 264.

^{page 67 note 2} If the second part of Mark xiv. 62, alluding to Dan. vii. 13, is accepted as authentic, the self-reference coalesces with the descriptive phrase ‘one like a son of man’ in the original context, as also in other glorification sayings where there is allusion to Dan.vii. 13 (e.g. Mark xiii. 26 and parallels). This does not affect the interpretation, however, because there is no evidence that either Jesus or the early church interpreted this passage in any other way than the contemporary Jewish exegesis, i.e. as a description of the Messiah. There are no secure grounds for assuming a special interpretation in terms of an inclusive representative of humanity, or of Israel, based on direct exegesis of Daniel by Jesus himself, as proposed by Dodd, C. H. (According to the Scriptures, London, 1952, pp. 109 f.), and endorsed recently by Moule (art. cit.).Google Scholar

^{page 68 note 1} Mark viii. 31; ix, g, 12, 31; X. 33, 45; xiv. 21, 41; Matt. xvii. 9, 12, 22; XX. 18, 28; xxvi. 2, 24, 45; perhaps also xii. 40; Luke ix. 22, 44; xxii. 22, 48; xxiv. 7.

^{page 69 note 1} John V. 14, 16–18, 21 ff. CfMartyn, J. L., History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (New York and Evanston, 1968), pp. 49 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 1} This impression remains in spite of the fact, noted by commentators, that the opening words of Mark ii. 27, κα⋯ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς, are characteristic of a suture in Mark's writing, and the rest of the verse is proverbial, and could be an independent saying. But this may be the first stage of expansion, to which Mark has added verse 28 as a further comment (for another comment by Mark using ὥστε and indicative, cf. x. 8). It is not difficult to see why Matthew and Luke dropped verse 27 independently, as they have also dropped χρε⋯αν ἔσχεν from verse 25. They are thinking of Jesus as the greater David, not of human need.

^{page 70 note 2} Comparison with logion 106, ‘When you make the two one, you will becomesons of men…’, suggests that the phrase means ‘the real man’, i.e. the gnostic, whose place of rest is within himself, not in earth or sky. Thus the omission of the context in Thomas is to remove the personal reference to Jesus for the sake of a general application, cfGrant, R. M. and Freedman, D. N., The Secret Sayings of London (London, 1960), p. 172.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 3} For ⋯ ⋯ρχ⋯μενος see J. Schneider, T.D.N.T. II, 670. The apocalyptic eschatology of early Christianity makes the coming of the Messiah and the coming of the Lord (Hab. ii. 3, cf. Heb. X. 37) identical.

^{page 71 note 1} CfMarshall, I.H., ‘The Synoptic Son of Man Sayings in Recent Discussion’, N.T.S. XII (1965/6), 350.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 2} The view of Vielhauer, that the Kingdom of God in the teaching of Jesus is unrelated to the Son of Man concept, overlooks the fact that the latter is wholly concerned with the moment of the divine intervention in which the kingdom is established, and has no interest in kingship as such. There is in fact juxtaposition of these ideas in Luke xvii. 20–37, though the connection is no doubt editorial as Vielhauer points out, where the kingdom is a future state and ‘the days of the Son of Man’ are the period in which the crisis will occur, marking its inauguration. It is the immediacy of the crisis which gives the urgency to Jesus’ ethical teaching. It also makes continuity between his present prophetic activity and his future position as God's agent a practical and realistic idea, rather than a wild and egotistic speculation. For Vielhauer's views see Vielhauer, P., Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament (Munich, 1965), pp. 55–140.Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 1} The attempt to discover Jesus' ‘messianic self-consciousness’ is not favourably regarded nowadays, but in the last analysis the question is crucial, unless we are to abandon all hope of finding the connection between Christian faith and the Jesus of history. I have tried to show how Jesus delicately alludes to his personal position in relation to God by the use of parables in my article ‘Two Parables in John’, N.T.S. XVI (1969/70), 318–29.Google ScholarThe problem has been set in the context of the total proclamation of Jesus by Jeremias, J., New Testament Theology I (London, 1971).Google Scholar