There is nothing here that requires a post-Easter reading of this passage.
But there is a fi nal consideration as well that speaks for the authenticity of Jesus’ use of Ps. 110.1 in Mark 12. It is the very ambiguity and Jewishness of the way Jesus makes his point. The playing down of the Davidic sonship of the messianic fi gure is counter to the normal post-Easter emphasis, as Acts 2.30-36, 13.23-39; Rom. 1.2-4; and Heb. 1.3-14 show. Those who see a post-Easter creation must deal with this question: would the later, post-Easter community have expressed its conviction about Jesus as Lord in a way that is so ambiguous and that at the same time gives an impression that the long-established and quite traditional Son of David title is insignifi cant?
The form of Jesus’ query has long been noted to parallel the Jewish style of putting two statements in opposition to one another. The point is not to deny one or the other but to relate them to each other.12 Jesus is simply affi rming that David’s calling Messiah Lord is more important than his being called Son of David. The query, which is unanswered in the Mark 12 context, serves to underscore the Messiah’s authority and the ancestor’s respect for his anticipated 10. It should be noted that one rabbinic reading of Ps. 110.1 does regard Hezekiah as the fi gure mentioned here, but does not probe what that implies about the giving of such honour to a younger one. This Jewish view is noted by Justin Martyr, in Dial. 33 and 83.
11. The one assumption that Jesus and his audience share about the psalm is that David is the speaker, a view that would fi t the fi rst-century setting. Given that the text is royal and that Israel lacks a king in Jesus’ time, it is also likely that the text would be seen as applying to a king in a restored monarchy, a restoration that could easily conjure up messianic implications.
12. David
Daube,
The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London: University of London/Athlone, 1956), pp. 158–63.
5. The Use of Daniel 7 in Jesus’ Trial
83
great descendant. At a narrative level, the unanswered question looks for a resolution. The trial scene does that for Mark. The coming exaltation of the One to be crucifi ed explains the passage, and the passage explains the signifi cance of that exaltation. The development is subtle, coming in two stages somewhat detached from each other in the narrative fl ow.
Now this issue of Messiah’s authority as an abstract theological topic is not a post-Easter question. It has been raised by the very nature of the Jerusalem events in which this dispute appears. An earlier query about Jesus’ authority came after he cleansed the temple (Mk 11.27-33). Jesus’ query here is an answer to the question the leadership posed to him earlier, but with a critical and refl ective edge. If David, the one who received the promise, responds to Messiah as Lord, how should others (including you leaders!) view him? Jesus does not make an identifi cation of himself with Messiah in Mark 12, but merely sets forth the question theoretically and leaves the conclusions to his listeners, as Mark does for his readers. Would a post-Easter creation be so subtle?
James Dunn, in treating the Messiah issue and Jesus’ self-understanding, argues that Jesus rejected the messianic title and its linkage to the ‘ long-hoped-for David’s royal son’ with a qualifi ed no.13 We prefer to argue that the reply is a qualifi ed yes. The category of David’s son is at work, but its role is not as central as others wish to make it. The messianic role Jesus undertakes is more comprehensive in its authority than the Davidic son category suggests. This scene is like Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi in representing a reprior-itizing of how Christ is seen. At Peter’s declaration, ‘Christ’ is affi rmed as the better confession than ‘prophet’, but it lacks the note of suffering it must bear, so that Jesus urges silence for a time. With the query over Ps. 110.1 treated here, Jesus points out that the Messiah is David’s Son, but far more importantly he is David’s (i.e. his ancestor’s!) Lord. In agreement with Dunn, I would argue that Jesus rejected the understanding of Christ as currently seen by many in Judaism, but in the end Jesus embraced the association, once it was related to other realities of his divinely anointed call. The events of the fi nal week were helping to reveal the fresh points of association. Where Dunn argues that the early church ‘emptied the title of its traditional content and fi lled it with new 13. James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), p. 652.
84
‘Who is this Son of Man?’
content provided by the law and the prophets and the psalms’14 after Good Friday, I contend it was Jesus who started them on this road to reconfi guration by his acts as well as words like those present here. What gives the appearance that this creative work was from the early church was that Jesus did not push hard to express these points until the end of his ministry as he faced the events that were disclosing what God was doing through him. So while Dunn sees little of value tied to the title Christ for getting to Jesus’ self-understanding, I would contend it was a base from which he built in a gradual way to avoid confusion. However, as we move into the decisive confrontation in Jerusalem, Jesus pushes such acts and remarks more to the fore as he fi lls out the portrait he sees himself representing.
In sum, the evidence of Mk 12.35-37 indicates that it is far more likely that Ps. 110.1 goes back to a period when the issues surrounding Jesus’ identity were surfacing than to roots in a community that was openly confessing and preaching him in the midst of dispute. As such, its claims to authenticity are strong. This means that the roots of the well-attested NT use of Ps. 110.1 go back, in all likelihood, to Jesus himself, and so this was a text he could use in his defence later, particularly if he contemplated an eventual vindication by God. But to show that Ps. 110.1 could be used by Jesus, or even was used by him on one occasion, does not indicate that it was used as shown in Mk 14.62.
This requires consideration of the text that is paired with Daniel 7, along with some refl ection on the Son of Man concept that is also present in the examination scene.
So I turn to Daniel 7 as a way into the discussion about the Son of Man.
The question of the possibility of Jesus’ use of Dan. 7.13-14 is closely tied to the issue of the apocalyptic Son of Man. This question is examined now in two steps. Here we consider the conceptual parallels that indicate that, during the time of Jesus, there was speculation about an exalted fi gure like the Son of Man in Judaism. If this is the case, it can be seriously questioned whether such refl ection would have taken place only in a post-Easter context. The next section will consider the issue of the apocalyptic Son of Man and Jesus by 14. James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, p. 653.
5. The Use of Daniel 7 in Jesus’ Trial
85
looking at the evidence of these sayings themselves, regardless of whether the evidence discussed in this section is deemed persuasive or not.15
It has been a hotly debated question whether one should speak of a Son of Man fi gure in Judaism, because (1) the expression in Daniel 7 is not a title but a description (‘one like a son of man’), and (2) it has been argued that there is no clear evidence in early Jewish texts that such a fi gure was ever the subject of intense Jewish speculation.16 More recently, the debate has been renewed in a more cautiously stated form. Whether there was a single Son of Man concept might be debated, but there certainly was speculation about an exalted fi gure whose roots lie in Daniel 7.17
The summary evidence involves a wide array of sources from Judaism of varying strength. For example, in 11QMelch 2.18, there is reference to the bearer of good tidings, who is ‘the messiah of the spirit of whom Dan[iel]
spoke’. Now, the allusion in the context is probably to Dan. 9.25 because seven weeks are mentioned, but Horbury notes that this text was often associated with Daniel 2 and 7 in Jewish thinking, so the same fi gure may be in view.18
Ezekiel the Tragedian contains a text where in a dream Moses gets to sit on God’s throne. What is most important for the issue of conceptual association is that the throne of exaltation on which Moses s
at was associated with the plural expression ‘thrones’, language from Dan. 7.9.
Other slightly later texts have even clearer points of contact. 1 Enoch is fi lled with Son of Man references (46.2-4; 48.2; 62.5, 7, 9, 14; 63.11; 69.27, 29 [2×]; 70.1; 71.14, 17). His enthronement in 62.2-14 is clearly connected to Daniel 7, 15. This two-tiered division of the discussion refl ects the way the issue is carefully discussed by Brown ( The Death of the Messiah [New York: Doubleday, 1994], pp. 509–15).
16. Ragnar Leivestad, ‘Exit the Apocalyptic Son of Man’, NTS 18 (1971–72), pp. 243–67.
His argument is that only 1 Enoch gives potential early Jewish evidence for such a title, that it is too late to count, that a title is not certain in the Similitudes, and that a title is not present in Daniel 7. One can certainly challenge Leivestad’s view of the date of 1 Enoch. Other points that he raises will be addressed shortly.
17. John J. Collins, ‘The Son of Man in First-Century Judaism’, NTS 38 (1992), pp. 448–66; and William Horbury, ‘The Messianic Associations of “The Son of Man”’, JTS 36 (1985), pp. 34–55.
18. Horbury, ‘Messianic Associations’, p. 42. Among the texts he notes are Num. Rab.
13.14 on Num. 7.13 and Tan. , Toledoth 20. (ed. Buber), with the second text including a reference to Isa. 52.7 as well.
86
‘Who is this Son of Man?’
with its reference to a seat on the ‘throne of glory’.19 1 Enoch 46.1 and 47.3
also seem to allude to Daniel 7, as do 63.11; 69.27, 29. The three variations in the way ‘Son of Man’ is referred to here do not alter the point that it is Daniel 7
that is the point of departure for the imagery here.20 Finally, there is the image of the exalted fi gure in 4Q491, who also echoes themes of Daniel 7.21 Every text discussed up to this point precedes or is contemporary to Jesus.
4 Ezra 13 is another, later text that also refl ects speculation about the fi gure of Daniel. A rabbinic dispute attributed to the late fi rst century involves Akiba’s claim that the ‘thrones’ are reserved for God and David. It suggests an interesting regal, connection to Daniel 7 ( b. Hag. 14a; b. Sanh. 38b).22 Some have compared the Melchizedek fi gure to aspects of Son of Man speculation.23 The variety of passages indicates that Daniel 7 imagery was a part of fi rst-century Jewish eschatological and apocalyptic speculation, apart from the question of the presence of a defi ned Son of Man fi gure. This means that Daniel 7 was a text that was present in the theologically refl ective thinking of those strands of eschatologically oriented Judaism and was quite available to Jesus once he 19. On the disputed date of 1 Enoch, see E. Isaac in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; 2 vols; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983–85), vol. 1, pp. 6–7, who argues for a fi rst-century date; and Siebert Uhlig, Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit: Das Äthiopische Henochbuch (vol. 5/6; Gütersloh: Gütersloh Verlagshaus, 1984), pp. 574–75, who considers dates ranging from the end of the Hasmonean period into the fi rst century and sees roots extending back into the fi rst century BCE. A fresh discussion of the date debate appears in G. Boccaccini (ed.), Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of the Parables. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), pp. 415–96. A full review of the history of this discussion about dating the Parables of Enoch is found in my forthcoming, ‘The Date of Enoch’s Parables: A Forschungsbericht’, in a yet to be titled book edited by James Charlesworth and me. It will argue for a late fi rst century BCE or early fi rst century CE date given the latest allusion in the material is to confl ict with the Parthians in c.40 BCE ( 1 Enoch 56.6-8). It is probably a fi rst-century text. On the differences between the Enoch imagery and Ps. 110.1–Daniel 7, see Hengel, Studies in Early Christology, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), pp. 185–89. Enoch lacks explicit reference to the intimate right-hand imagery. However, it must be noted that Enoch’s imagery otherwise is very close to these older texts. The issue in all of them is judging authority carried out as the exclusive representative of God from a heavenly throne. The throne and authority are associated directly with God.
20. Contra Leivestad, ‘Exit the Apocalyptic Son of Man’, n. 105.
21. Hengel,
Studies in Early Christology, p. 202.
22. These Talmudic texts were also discussed in my Blasphemy and Exaltation, pp. 145–54, under David with mention of 4 Ezra in a separate subsection.
23. P. J. Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchireša’ (CBQMS, 10; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1981), p. 136.
5. The Use of Daniel 7 in Jesus’ Trial
87
started thinking in eschatological-vindication terms. There is nothing here that requires a post-Easter scenario. So the availability of Daniel 7 for refl ection about the end seems clear enough.
Only two questions remain with regard to the use of these texts. (1) Did Jesus speak of himself as the apocalyptic Son of Man? (2) Is the kind of stitch-ing together of OT allusions such as the combination in Mk 14.62 possible for Jesus? It is to those questions I now turn, but it must be said before considering them that there is nothing in the evidence about the use and availability of Ps. 110.1 or Dan. 7.13 that demands that the usage here be seen as post-Easter.
When Perrin wrote arguing that Mk 14.62 refl ected a Christian pesher tradition, he did not note any of the Jewish texts alluding to Daniel 7 texts already cited, a collection of passages showing how alive these ideas were in the fi rst century.24 Little has changed since Perrin wrote for many commentators of Mark, who think Mark has given us only a carefully crafted narrative that has historical verisimilitude. Boring says it like this: ‘However, such historical verisimilitude is almost incidental to Mark’s purpose, and should not divert attention from the primary meaning at the Markan level of the text.’25 Boring sees this as Jesus’ climactic claim that he is the Christ, pointing to an affi rmation of what he regards as a later Christian confession placed into Jesus’ mouth, as Jesus defi nitively dissolves the messianic secret by his answer (although all the acts Jesus has performed in this last week have already done as much). Later Boring says, ‘Thus the reason for Jesus’ condemnation and death in Mark is not to be explained in political and juridical terms, but is a matter of Markan Christology and discipleship.’26 The only question such views have is to ponder whether Jesus would have portrayed himself as the authoritative fi gure described in Daniel 7, whether Mark would be interested in such questions and 24. Norman Perrin, ‘Mark XIV.62: The End Product of a Christian Pesher Tradition?’
NTS 13 (1965–66), pp. 150–55.
25. Boring,
Mark (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), p. 413.
26. Boring,
Mark, p. 414. It is important to note that Boring later argues that Mark presents the blasphemy as ‘an affront to God, the temple, and the Torah, which qualifi ed as blasphemy in Jewish eyes, and his declaring himself to be the Christ could be represented to Pilate as claiming to be king’ (pp. 414–15). This lofty claim is what I propose Mark is interested in showing as historically tied to Jesus. Earlier he called the scene rooted in a historical core and historically plausible (p. 410). So why is one forced to choose between history and Christological confession here? Surely, Jesus gave thought to who he was and why he was in this situation, including what in God’s programme could help to explain what he was doing.
88
‘Who is this Son of Man?’
how such affi rmations fi t early Christian confession.27 For the view which sees a post-Easter confession in play, the fact that these remarks fi t into the church’s confession, and the confession subsumes everything under the idea of the Son of Man, disqualifi es the remark from being historical because that association is the work of the later church. But is it really clear, in light of the contemporary Jewish evidence already noted, that the Son of Man title is late and that one must see the Christ confession and the use of the Son of Man as confi ned to a post-Easter setting? Could Jesus not have formed these associations as an eschatolog
ical fi gure who preached the coming kingdom? This kind of either/
or thinking really does not pursue seriously the issue of whether there might be a real cause–effect between Jesus’ teaching and the church’s confession. It rejects the option of a both–and linking at work here that could go back to Jesus.
Our reading seeks to challenge such a one-sided reading of Mark. This way of dividing eschatological hope, Son of Man and Jesus does not take seriously the historical possibilities and connections raised by the ancient evidence. We have already argued the case for Jesus’ use of Ps. 110.1 above in discussing Mk 12.35-37, but what of the apocalyptic Son of Man?
27. The respective answers to these questions for critical sceptics are: (1) that Jesus would not be so explicit or did not make such connections, (2) that Mark was not interested in such questions, and (3) that Mark was solely concerned with an affi rmation of pastoral Christology for discipleship.
5. The Use of Daniel 7 in Jesus’ Trial
89
Jesus’ use of the image of the apocalyptic Son of Man
The Son of Man title has been the object of intense debate for years and shows no signs of abating.28 In this article, we can only treat where the discussion stands and develop the points most relevant to our concern.
Numerous issues surround the discussion, including an intense debate over whether the expression is representative of a title (like the form of its consistent NT use) or is an idiom. If it is an idiom, then it has been argued that the meaning is either a circumlocution for ‘I’ (Vermes) or an indirect expression with the force of ‘some person’ (Fitzmyer).29 It seems that, for most students of the problem today, a formal title, or at least a unifi ed Son of Man concept, did not yet exist in the early fi rst century and that Fitzmyer has more evidence available for his view on the idiom. It is the idiomatic element in the Aramaic expression and the lack of a fi xed concept in Judaism that allow any ‘son of man’ remark to be ambiguous unless it is tied to a specifi c passage or context.
Who Is This Son of Man Page 13