Luke 73334

159. Bultmann, History 28. M. Casey, 'The Jackals and the Son of Man (Matt. 8.20/ Luke 9.58)', JSNT 23 (1985) 3-22 observes that an underlying Aramaic form would probably have referred to 'places to roost' rather than 'nests', which would make the contrast clearer — and meet the usual response that birds have to build their nests as much as humans their homes (as in Burkett, Son of Man Debate 94).

160. See also Colpe, 7EW78.432-33; Lindars, Jesus Son ofMan 29-31; Hare, Son of Man 272-73. The Jesus Seminar found the saying congenial, taking the implication to be that Jesus was a homeless wanderer ('human vagabonds of Jesus' type') (Funk, Five Gospels 16061); cf. Ludemann, Jesus 326.

161. Pace Hahn, Hoheitstitel 44-45 (Titles 36), the saying is perfectly intelligible with out postulating a post-Easter christological heightening; similarly Schurmann, Gottes Reich

163. Caragounis strains to find allusions to Daniel (Son ofMan 175-79). Hengel wonders whether behind the saying lies a Wisdom reference — 'the motif of Wisdom homeless upon the earth' (1 En. 42.2) — ('Jesus as Messianic Teacher' 92-93).

Matt. 11.18-19

Luke 7.33-34

For John came neither eating nor drinking. and sav. 'He has a

33 For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no and vou sav. 'He has a

demon'; 19 the Son of Man came eating and and thev sav. a man. a glutton

demon'; 34 the Son of Man has come eating and drinking. and vou sav. a man. a glutton

and a a friend of tax collectors and

and a drunkard. a friend of tax collectors and

sinners!'

sinners!'

The presence of 'the son of man' does not constitute an argument against the origin of the saying in Jesus' teaching.162 O n the contrary it strengthens the likelihood that Jesus was remembered as referring to himself in this allusive fashion.163

(6) The Son of Man' = T. Finally we should note a number of cases where one side of a Synoptic parallel reads 'the son of man'. while the other reads T. The most striking examples are Matt. 5.11/Luke 6.22;164 Matt. 10.32-33/Luke 12.8-9; Mark 8.27/Matt. 16.13; and Mark 10.45/Luke 22.27.

Matt.

Luke 6.22

Blessed are vou when people revile vou and

Blessed are vou when people hate vou. and when

persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on account of me.

thev exclude vou. revile vou. and defame vou on account of the Son of Man.

Matt. 10.32-33

Luke 12.8-9

Rev. 3.5

32 Everyone therefore who acknowledges me before men,

8 And I tell you, everyone who acknowledges me before men,

I will acknowledge his name before my Father and

I also will acknowledge before mv Father in heaven; 33

the Son of Man also will acknowledge before the angels

but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father in heaven.

of God; 9 but he who denies me before men will be denied before the angels of God.

before his angels.

Matt. 16.13

Mark 8.27

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi. he asked his saving. 'Who do men sav that the Son

Jesus came out with his disciples into the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the wav he asked his disciples, saying to them, 'Who do men say that I

ofManis?'

am?'

162. See above. §§12.5c and 13.5 and chapter 15 n. 224.

163. Note the play again on 'son of man'. 'man'; Black observes that anthropos followed by a substantive ('a man. a glutton') is a Semitic idiom (Aramaic Approach 106-107). See further Colpe, TDNT8.431-32; Lindars. Jesus SonofMan3l-34; Casey. 'General. Generic and Indefinite' 39-40; Hare. Son of Man 259-64. Matt. 12.40/Luke 11.30 could serve as another example (Lindars 38-44). but it is not so clear that 'the son of man' was part of the saying as originally recalled (see above.

164. Fuller citation above. §12.4c.

Matt. 20.28

Mark 10.45

Luke 22.27

28 Just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve.

45 For the

Son of Man came not to be served but to serve.

But I am among you as one who serves.

In each case the most obvious explanation is that an original bar 'enasa saying has given rise to the variant versions in Greek. Either each saying was put into Greek by different individuals — one was content to translate literally (ho huios tou anthropou), and the other recognized the Aramaic idiom and translated the phrase as a personal reference — or Matthew, confronted with a ho huios tou reference in the first two cases and recognizing the

Aramaic idiom, chose to bring out the personal reference implicit in the Aramaic idiom in context, but in the third either knew a variant bar form or as sumed its presence from the implied 'men'/'son of man' play and elected to use the Greek ho huios tou anthropou.167Either way, these 'Son of Man'/T parallels provide a strong indication of an awareness somewhere in the transmission of these sayings that the two phrases could be synonymous, and thus also a remembrance of Jesus using bar as a way of referring to himself.

There is more that needs to be said, especially on the Matt. 12.8-9 complex.168 But for the moment we can conclude that there is substantial evidence that Jesus was remembered as using the phrase bar in an ambig uous or masal-like way. The transition from Aramaic to Greek seems to have occasioned a double development. On the one hand, some translated literally (ho huios tou and thus lost the idiom, while others attempted to translate idiomatically and produced a more explicit self-reference and thus lost the ambiguity. On the other hand, some maintained the sense of a more generic reference to man/men (humankind), although the dominant tendency was to give the phrase a more weighty titular force in reference to Jesus ('the Son of Man'). As for Jesus himself, the implication is that Jesus did indeed use bar in an ambiguous or masal-like way, including a somewhat modest self-reference, but not as a title. Tradition-historical analysis indicates that this usage was recognized so long as the tradition remained within an Aramaic milieu.

165. Contrast Schürmann, Gottes Reich 160-61, who can see only the titular form in post-Easter colours; Hampel, Menschensohn 152-58, 212-13, whose grasp of the scope of the barvnasa idiom is too limited and tendentious (159-64).

166. On the parallel between Rev. 3.5c and Matt. 10.32/Luke 12.8, see A. Yarbro Collins, 'The "Son of Man" Tradition and the Book of Revelation', in Charlesworth, ed., Messiah 536-68 (here 559-62).

167. Cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew 1.462; 2.216, 617.

c. Influence of Dan. 7.13

The view that Jesus' use of the phrase would have evoked a current belief regarding the (messianic) Son of Man already developed from the Dan. 7.13 usage has to surmount a huge obstacle from the outset. For within the Jesus tradition the phrase is used again and again without provoking surprise or outrage at an implied evocation of or challenge to a contemporary belief regarding 'the Son of Man'. The one occasion within the Gospel tradition when the phrase appears on other than Jesus' lips is John 12.34, where Jesus' teaching provokes the crowd to ask, 'Who is this "the Son of Man"?' The phrase is evidently thought of as obscure; it did not 'connect' with current beliefs.169

What then of the texts where the influence of Dan. 7.13 is most obvious (Mark 13.26 pars, and 14.62 pars.) and of Mark 8.38 pars./Matt,10.32-33/Luke 12.8-9, where an allusion to a contemporary Son of Man expectation is often heard?

Matt. 24.29-31

Mark 13.24-27

Luke 21.25-28

29 Immediately after the suffering of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon

24 But in those after that suffering. the sun will be darkened, and the moon

25 There will be signs in the sun. the moon, and the stars, and on the earth distress among nations confused by the roaring of the sea and the waves. 26 Men will faint from fear and foreboding of what is coming upon the world, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

27 Then thev will see the

will not give its light.

and the stars will fall

will not give its light.

25 and the stars will be falling

from heaven, and the powers of

from heaven, and the powers

heaven will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and thev will see the

in the heavens will be shaken. 26 Then thev will see the

Son of Man coming on the

Son of Man coming in

Son of Man coming in a

clouds of heaven with power and great glorv. 31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four

clouds with great power and glorv. 27 Then he will send out the angels.

and gather his elect from the four

cloud with power and great glorv. 28 Now when these things begin to take place, stand up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.

from one end of heaven to the other.

winds, from the end of the earth to the end of heaven.

Of interest here is the fact that the Son of Man reference, with its clear allusion to Dan. 7.13, seems, once again, to be part of the core tradition. Of course, the core could already express a developed Son of Man Christology.170 But the issue of

169. The question is 'Who is this Son of Man?', not simply 'How can you say that the Son of Man must suffer?' (pace Horbury, 'Messianic Association' 37).

170. Cf. Lindars, Jesus Son ofMan 108-10; Hampel, Menschensohn 165-67; Funk, Five Gospels 112-13; Lüdemann, Jesus 91 -

whether Jesus could or could not have so spoken usually depends more on a prior judgment as to whether Jesus would have used apocalyptic imagery, and as to whether there was a Son of Man expectation to which Jesus could have referred. But the possibility can hardly be excluded that the saying reflects Jesus' own expressed hope for the future, drawing on the imagery of Daniel's vision.171

Two other features call for comment. One is that the action envisaged seems to be in heaven, where the cosmic events take place (all three Synoptics), where the sign of the Son of Man appears (Matthew), and from which the Son of Man sends angels The implication is that the is, as in

Dan. 7.13, a coming in heaven,172 though it could also be understood as a coming from heaven.173

The other is that Matthew's version seems to have added another Son of Man reference (Matt. 24.30) and in so doing blended an echo of Zech. 12.1014174 into the Dan. 7.13 allusion.175 This seems to accord with a particular Matthean interest in the Son of Man. Of the nine Matthean references,176 two were probably drawn from Mark,177 the two most explicit allusions to Dan. 7.13 itself. Two seem deliberately to have strengthened the Danielic allusion, by adding a 'Son of Man' reference.178 And three more are unique to Matthew, without

171. A. Yarbro Collins criticizes Perrin for narrowing the options to either a clearly defined preexisting conception of the Son of Man or a post-Easter Christian construction; 'he failed to consider the possibility that Jesus interpreted Dan in an innovative way in his teaching' ('Influence of Daniel' 92). M. Stowasser, 'Mk 13,26fund die urchristliche Rezeption des Menschensohns. Eine Anfrage an Anton Vogtle', BZ 39 (1995) 246-52, regards Mark 13.26-27 as the earliest Son of Man saying in the NT. Casey is scrupulously fair in not closing off options on indecisive data (Son ofMan 165-77; Aramaic reconstruction 165).

172. Wright presses the point: 'The "son of man" figure "comes" to the Ancient of Days. He comes from earth to heaven, vindicated after suffering' {Jesus 361).

173. See the discussion in Hooker, Son ofMan 158-59; Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Last Days 429-30. Perrin assumes only a parousia reference (Rediscovering 173-76). Sanders sees an expectation of Jesus (of a heavenly figure who comes with angels) reflected in 1 Thess. 4.15-17 (Jesus 144-45; Historical Figure 246-47).

174.Zech. 12.10, 12, 14: '... when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn, . . . each tribe by itself . . . and all the tribes that are left . . .'

175. The fact that Zech. 12.10 is also conflated with Dan. 7.13-14 in Rev. 1.7, and without obvious dependence on Matt. 24.30, suggests that Matthew's tradition was not the only one to develop a Christian apologetic along these lines (cf. Crossan, Historical Jesus 244-46). See further Davies and Allison, Matthew 3.360-61.

176. Matt. 10.23; 16.27-28; 19.28; 24.30 (twice), 44; 25.31; 26.64. 28.18 may also contain an allusion to the dominion granted to the manlike figure/saints of the Most High in Daniel 7. For detail see my 'Danielic Son of Man' 529-32.

177. Mark 13.26/Matt. 24.30b; Mark 14.62/Matt. 26.64; see further below §16.4c(2).

178. Mark 9.1/Matt. 16.28 (cited above, in §12.4h); Matt. 19.28/Luke 22.30 are cited below in §16.4e.

Synoptic or Johannine parallel.179 The obvious inference is that Matthew's own portrayal of the Son of Man is itself evidence of a development within the Synoptic tradition, and, almost certainly, of Matthew's own hand in that development, a development which reflects the continuing influence of Daniel 7 at the time of Matthew's writing.

Matt. 26.63-66

Mark 14.61-64

Luke 22.67-71

Then the high priest said to him, 'I put you under oath before the living God, tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God'.

64 Jesus said to him, 'You have said so. But I tell you,

From now on vou will see the Son of

Again the high priest asked him,

'Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?' 62 Jesus said, 'I am;

and vou will see the Son of

67 They said, 'If you are the Messiah, tell us1. He replied,'If I tell you, you will not believe;

68 and if I question you, you will not answer. 69 But from now on the Son of

Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven'.

65 Then the high priest tore his garments, saying, 'He has blasphemed! Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy. 66 What is vour verdict?1 Thev

Man seated at the rieht hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.'

63 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said,

'Why do we still need witnesses? 64 You have heard his blasphemv! What is vour decision?' All of them

Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God'. 70 All of them asked, 'Are you, then, the Son of God?' He said to them, 'You say that I am'. 71 Then they said, 'What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips!'

answered. 'He deserves death'.

condemned him as deserving death.

We have already examined the build-up to this climactic exchange in the hearing of Jesus before the High Priest Caiaphas (§ 15.3a). What strikes one now is that Jesus' reply, referring to the Son of Man seated at the right hand of power, belongs to the core of the narrative, as attested also by Luke's retold version. This was how Jesus was remembered as supplementing his ambiguous (?) answer to Caiaphas's question. Here again there are two features of the episode which deserve attention at this point.

The first is the double intertextual allusion in the Mark/Matthew version, both to Dan. 7.13 ('the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven'), and to Ps. 110.1 ('seated at the right hand' of God).180 An observation of potential signifi

179. Matt. 10.23 (cited in §12.4h above); 24.30a; 25.31 (cited below in §16.4e); also

Was this article helpful?

0 0
Study Aid

Study Aid

This Book Is One Of The Most Valuable Resources In The World When It Comes To Getting A Scholarship And Financial Support For Your Studies.

Get My Free Ebook


Post a comment