crucifi xion in the Synoptic Gospels (‘suffering’, ‘being rejected’ and ‘handed over’) is different from that used in the Gospel of John (‘lifting up’ and ‘glorifi cation’), o9 ui9oj tou= a0nqrw&pou is the phrase the Johannine Jesus uses 86. Maddox, ‘Function’, p. 203.
87. Sasse,
Menschensohn, p. 244. See Schnackenburg, Gospel, vol. 1, pp. 536–37.
88. But cf. Lk. 18.8.
6. The Use of the Son of Man Idiom in the Gospel of John 125
to refer to himself when speaking of his crucifi xion, resurrection and return.
This similarity is heightened by the fact that there are three Son of Man passion predictions in Matthew, Mark and Luke, and there are three Son of Man
‘lifting up’ sayings in John.89 Further, the fi rst passion prediction in each of the three Synoptics begins with the word dei= (Mk 8.31; Mt. 16.21; Lk. 9.22), and this same Greek word, which emphasizes the necessity of the Son of Man’s passion, is found at the beginning of the fi rst ‘lifting up’ saying in Jn 3.14.90 So, similarity between John and the Synoptic Gospels is highlighted by the phrase o9 ui9oj tou= a0nqrw&pou in the context of Jesus’ crucifi xion, the three passion predictions and three ‘lifting up’ sayings, and the parallel use of dei=. The differences of language (pa/sxw, paradi/dwmi, and katakri/nw compared with u9yo/w and doca/zw) can be explained as different perspectives and understandings of the same event. For the Synoptics and John, the resurrection is part of the prediction, although in John this is more implicit than in the Synoptic Gospels (see Jn 2.19; 12.16; 16.7; 20.22). Whereas the Synoptics speak of the Son of Man’s suffering and death and being raised on the third day, the language of the Gospel of John portrays the entire event as his ‘lifting up’
or exaltation.91
Second, the Son of Man in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John takes part in judgement. The Matthean Son of Man sits on a throne of glory, separates the righteous from the wicked (25.31), and there is punishment for the wicked and eternal life for the righteous (Mt. 25.31–46). The Lukan Son of Man has come to cast fi re on the earth (Lk. 12.49). Mark is not so explicit, but the Son of Man’s role in judgement is still discernible (Mk 13.27). In John, the Son of Man has the authority to judge and has come into the world for judgement (5.27; 9.35-41; 12.30-36).92
Third, in the Synoptics and John, the Son of Man is involved in salvation.
The Johannine Son of Man is more explicitly the giver of eternal life, but the Synoptic Son of Man is not devoid of salvifi c action. It was noted above that 89. Thüsing,
Erhöhung, p. 11; Blank, Krisis, pp. 82–83; Ashton, Understanding, p. 64.
90. Intriguingly,
dei= is also used in the two Son of Man sayings in the gospels not spoken by Jesus (Lk. 24.7; Jn 12.34).
91. See P. Létourneau, ‘Le quatrième évangile et les prédications de la passion dans les évangiles synoptiques’, in A. Denaux (ed.), John and the Synoptics (BETL, 101; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), pp. 579–86.
92. Maddox, ‘Function’, pp. 203–204; Schnackenburg, Gospel, vol. 1, p. 535.
126
‘Who is this Son of Man?’
in the Synoptic Gospels the Son of Man came to give his life as a ransom for many (Mk 10.45; Mt. 20.28) and to seek and to save the lost (Lk. 19.10).
Although there is some difference here over his involvement in, or manner of, the salvation, it is an important function of the Son of Man in each of the Gospels. This can also be seen in the relationship between ‘the Son of Man’ and the Eucharistic tradition. Each of the Synoptic Gospels has a Son of Man saying in conjunction with the breaking of bread and drinking of the wine. In Mark and Matthew, the institution of the Lord’s supper follows the naming of Judas as the one who would betray the Son of Man (Mk 14.21-25; Mt. 26.24-29). In Luke, the Son of Man reference follows the breaking of the bread and passing of the cup (Lk. 22.19-22). In the Gospel of John, ch. 6 contains what is commonly recognized as Eucharistic language. Although I have argued above that this is primarily meant metaphorically as belief and not an overt reference to the Lord’s Supper, it is extremely interesting that the Son of Man gives food that is himself (6.27, 32, 35). It is the fl esh of the Son of Man that must be eaten and his blood that must be drunk in order for someone to have eternal life (6.53).
Thus, all four Gospels present a connection between ‘the Son of Man’, the giving of himself in salvation, and the language of ‘body’/‘fl esh’ and ‘blood’.
Fourth, Jesus the Son of Man is also depicted as the Messiah in the Synoptics and John. Some argue that ‘the Son of Man’ is used as a corrective in John (esp. 1.43–51; 12.34),93 but this seems unlikely. Jesus is not actually correcting these Messianic pronouncements, but further defi ning who he is. Elsewhere in John, Jesus does not ‘correct’ messianic understandings of his identity (4.26; 11.27).
Fifth, glory is closely tied to the Son of Man in all four Gospels. In the Synoptics, the Son of Man’s glory is noticeable at his return with the clouds and angels (Mk 8.38; 13.26; Mt. 16.27; 24.30; Lk. 9.26; 21.27). The Johannine Son of Man has already been glorifi ed on earth (12.23; 13.31; cf. 12.28), yet he will also be glorifi ed again in the future (13.32). Although there are timing differences, this is more likely due to John’s realized eschatology than a difference in glorifi cation. The Son of Man is still glorifi ed.
93. Sasse,
Menschensohn, pp. 77, 247; and more recently J. H. Ellens, ‘Exegesis of Second Temple Texts in a Fourth Gospel Son of Man Logion’, in I. Kalini and P. J. Haas (eds), Biblical Interpretation in Judaism and Christianity (LHBOTS, 439; London: T&T Clark, 2006), pp. 131–49.
6. The Use of the Son of Man Idiom in the Gospel of John 127
Finally, the Son of Man is the one who will gather the righteous. In the Synoptics this gathering occurs when the Son of Man will ‘gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven’ (Mk 13.27; Mt. 24.31; cf. Lk. 12.35-40). The Johannine Son of Man will call the righteous and the wicked from the tombs (5.27-29) and will draw all people to himself when he is lifted up from the earth (12.32). This gathering, although expressed differently in the four Gospels, is a shared feature of the Son of Man.
These similarities suggest that the Son of Man has a number of similar functions and characteristics in each of the Gospels. There are some clear differences between John and the Synoptic portrayals, but these differences tend to be differences of nuance or timing rather than contradictory features. Even within the Synoptic Gospels, we do not fi nd a completely uniform picture of the Son of Man. Mark has an emphasis on the Son of Man’s authority. Matthew focuses on the fi gure’s royal nature and role in apocalyptic judgement, whereas Luke highlights his path through suffering.94 Although there are dissimilarities, the Son of Man in Matthew, Mark and Luke is more closely related to the Son of Man in John than is often noted. In the words of Robert Maddox, ‘In spite of the considerable differences of vocabulary and imagery, the fundamental signifi cance of the title “Son of Man” in John is not different from that which it has in the synoptic gospels.’95
VI. The Johannine Son of Man and the Son of Man debate
But what bearing, if any, does this have on the historical expression ‘Son of Man’ on the lips of Jesus? Has the Fourth Evangelist interpreted ‘Son of Man’
through the Synoptic tradition or does the Gospel of John provide evidence of a separate tradition (oral or written) about Jesus? The similarities between the Synoptics and John seem to suggest that these are the two most likely options for understanding their relationship.
94. For Mark, see M. D. Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark: A Study of the Background of the Term ‘Son of Man’ and its Use in St Mark’s Gospel (Montreal: McGill University Press, 1967). For Matthew, see U. Luz, ‘The Son of Man in Matthew: Heavenly Judge or Human Christ’, JSNT 48 (1992), pp. 3–21; and for Luke, G. Schneider, ‘„Der Menschensohn“
in der lukanischen Christologie’, in R. Pesch and R. Schnackenburg (ed
s), Jesus und der Menschensohn: Für Anton Vögtle (Freiburg: Herder, 1975), pp. 267–82.
95. Maddox, ‘Function’, p. 203.
128
‘Who is this Son of Man?’
Schnackenburg takes the former view: ‘As regards the Son of Man logia at any rate, one must not overlook the obvious links with the Synoptic tradition, though it may have been given a strikingly new interpretation.’96 If, as Schnackenburg claims, the Johannine Son of Man derives from the Synoptic tradition, can we rule out the Gospel of John in the historical debates about Jesus’ Son of Man sayings? The Gospel of John is still evidence of the sayings in the mouth of Jesus, but if there has been signifi cant ‘new interpretation’, the historical value of the Johannine sayings becomes questionable and thus also their relevance for the debate.97
If, however, the Evangelist and the Synoptics drew from different streams of the Jesus tradition (as some in the John, Jesus, and History Group have recently proposed),98 the Johannine sayings may carry their own weight against or in comparison with the Synoptic sayings in the Son of Man debate. Stephen Smalley made this argument 40 years ago. He stated:
If the Johannine tradition is indeed historical and independent of the Synoptists, as surely it is, the authenticity of any part is open to question both ways. And if there is at the same time a sense in which John is also ‘among the Synoptists’, we need not assume the Johannine record (any more than the synoptic) is necessarily out of touch with the earliest strata of Christological tradition.99
Although there is not enough space to pursue the question of the historical relevance of the Johannine Son of Man sayings here, I would like to propose a way forward in exploring this matter. First, a helpful starting point would be to examine those Son of Man sayings that indicate similarities with those in the Synoptics, such as the ‘lifting up’ sayings. Do these comprise essentially the same sayings, one set being a reinterpretation of the other? If they are versions of the same sayings, either the Synoptic Gospels have reinterpreted the phrase 96. Schnackenburg,
Gospel, vol. 1, p. 538. See also Ashton, Understanding, p. 368 and Casey, Solution, p. 275.
97. See M. M. Thompson, ‘The “Spiritual Gospel”: How John the Theologian Writes History’, in John, Jesus, and History, pp. 103–107.
98. See
Anderson,
Fourth Gospel, p. 38. This position is, however, not entirely new. See C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965).
99. Smalley, ‘Johannine Son of Man’, pp. 300–301 (emphasis original).
6. The Use of the Son of Man Idiom in the Gospel of John 129
‘lifting up’ with the specifi cs of suffering, death and resurrection, or on the other hand, as the majority of scholars see it, the hand of the Fourth Evangelist can be seen in the distinctive ‘theologizing’ of the passion events. However, if we say this is the same event, why do the disciples seem to be confused by the passion sayings in the Synoptics, while in John the disciples are not described as being in confusion about the Son of Man being ‘lifted up’ (cf. 12.34)? Other sayings that might be examined in this ‘ Synoptic-like’ category include 5.27, 1.51, 6.53, and the glorifi cation sayings (12.23; 13.31-32).
Second, such an examination would address those Johannine sayings that are unlike any of the Synoptic sayings.100 These sayings are often ruled inauthentic because of their dissimilarity with Son of Man sayings in Matthew, Mark and Luke. But if John is viewed as one tradition alongside the Synoptics, the possibility exists that the Gospel of John provides evidence of another reliable historical tradition. If the Johannine sayings are evidence of early Jesus tradition – even if they were written down at a later date – they could be some of the earliest testimony that we have.101 This might provide the possibility for the Johannine sayings being used in conjunction with the Synoptic tradition in the attempt to answer the historical questions surrounding the use of the idiom
‘the Son of Man’. We may fi nd, after all, that the non-Synoptic Johannine Son of Man sayings are compatible with those in the Synoptics. The criterion of dissimilarity may surprise us by implying that some of these sayings could be considered authentic, even if nothing like them is found in the Synoptic Gospels (especially Jn 6.27 and 9.35).102
This chapter by no means claims even to come close to providing a fi nal answer to the question of the authenticity of the Johannine Son of Man sayings.
However, the Johannine Son of Man’s similarities with the Son of Man in each of the Synoptic Gospels should at least force us to pause before completely excluding these sayings from the discussion of this puzzling expression of the historical Jesus.
100. A similar ‘Synoptic’/' non-Synoptic’ structure was used by Higgins ( Jesus, pp. 153–84).
101. See Smalley’s statement above.
102. For recent work on the authenticity of Jesus’ Johannine sayings, see P. Ensor,
‘The Johannine Sayings of Jesus and the Question of Authenticity’, in J. Lierman (ed.), Challenging Perspectives on the Gospel of John (WUNT II, 219; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), pp. 210–34; Lierman, ‘Glorifi cation’.
7
THE ELECT SON OF MAN OF THE PARABLES OF ENOCH
Darrell D. Hannah
The eschatological heavenly mediator of the Parables of Enoch, alternatively termed the Elect One (or Chosen One), the Righteous One, the Messiah and the (or that) son of man, is quite probably the most exalted heavenly mediator to be encountered in the Judaism of the Second Temple period apart, that is, from Jesus the Messiah of early Christianity. The Parables’ fi gure functions as the eschatological judge, sits on the very throne of God and receives homage which approaches, but is not to be equated with, worship. Early Christianity also professed its heavenly mediator to be the eschatological judge, often, although not always, envisioned him as exalted to the divine throne1 and consistently offered him divine worship.2 The two fi gures share other similarities: Both were held to be the Messiah, both were regarded as God’s Elect, some of the same Old Testament Scriptures were interpreted as prophecies of 1. In my ‘The Throne of Glory: The Divine Throne and Heavenly Mediators in Revelation and the Similitudes of Enoch’, ZNW 94 (2003), pp. 68–96, I argue that the Book of Revelation, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Gospel of Matthew envision Christ seated on the throne of God. Other early Christian texts, such as Polycarp, Phil.2.1, Apoc.Peter 6.1 and probably Asc.Isa. 11.32-33, conceive of the exalted Christ occupying a throne next to the divine throne.
Other early Christian texts which mention Christ’s heavenly enthronement, e.g., Rom. 8.34; Col. 3.4; Eph. 1.20; Acts 2.33-34, are too concise to be sure just how their authors visualized the divine throne(s) and its/their occupants.
2. Cf. L. W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2nd edn, 1998); Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003); R. Bauckham, ‘The Worship of Jesus’, in The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation (Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1993), pp. 118–49.
7. The Elect Son of Man of the Parables of Enoch 131
each, both were thought to pre-exist and both were believed to be the ‘Son of Man’ of Daniel 7. Although a comprehensive comparison of the Parables’
Elect son of man with the Christ of Early Christianity lies beyond the scope of this essay, any understanding of o9 ui9oj tou= a0nqrw/pou of the Gospels must grapple with and come to terms with this other ‘son of man’. In this chapter, after a brief discussion of the Parables themselves and the diffi culties they present to interpreters, we will examine each of the key elements mentioned above: The four main ‘titles’ of the Elect son of man,3 his exegetical basis in the Old Testament Scriptures, his eschatological role, his pre-existence and the problematic identifi cation of this fi gure with Enoch.4
The Parables of Enoch : their origin and signifi cance Probably no text from Second Temple J
udaism presents us with as many interpretative cruxes as do the Parables of Enoch. The Parables belong to the composite work known in scholarship as 1 Enoch or the Ethiopic Book of Enoch. As the latter title suggests, this work has only been preserved, in its entirety, in Ge’ez or classical Ethiopic, the liturgical and canonical language of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. In Ethiopia the Book of Enoch was (and is) 3. Although ‘Messiah’ (48.10; 52.4) and ‘Righteous One’ (38.2; 53.6) are represented, the two ‘titles’ which predominate are ‘Elect (or Chosen) One’ and ‘the (or that) son of man’.
To refl ect this and to keep the nomenclature from becoming too unwieldy, I have selected the term ‘the Elect son of man’, recognizing that this phrase never actually appears in the Parables.
Cf. also H. S. Kvanvig, ‘The Son of man in the Parables of Enoch’, in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables (ed. G. Boccaccini; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), pp. 179–215, esp. 200.
4. In what follows the translation of the Ethiopic text of the Parables is my own.
Consulted translations include: G. W. E. Nickelsburg and J. C. VanderKam (trans.), 1 Enoch: A New Translation, based on the Hermeneia Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004); M. Black, The Book of Enoch or I Enoch (SVTP, 7; Leiden: Brill, 1985); S. Uhlig (trans.), Das äthiopische Henochbuch (JSHRZ, V.6; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1984); E. Isaac (trans.), ‘1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch’, in J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983, 1985); M. A. Knibb (ed. & trans.), The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in the light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments (2 vols; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978); R. H. Charles, The Book of Enoch or I Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912); G. Beer, ‘Das Buch Henoch’, in E. Kautzsch (ed.), Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments (2 vols; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1975, orig. pub. 1900) and A. Dillmann, Das Buch Henoch (Leipzig: Vogel, 1853).
Who Is This Son of Man Page 19