I began seriously studying the Bible a few years ago, prompted in part by reading some of Dr. Ehrman’s books and by things going on in my personal life (which I will not relay in any detail). One of the things I noticed is that there seems to be a distinctive shift in worldview, particularly in the role of Satan, between the end of the Protestant OT and the beginnings of the NT, but that is not the topic I wish to pursue here.
References to the Son of Man as a particular title referring to a particular messianic and salvific entity, and to Jesus specifically, appear prominently throughout all 4 gospels, but my research indicates that the title does not appear in the Protestant OT. Outside the gospels it appears in the NT in only 3 other places. Stephen references it Acts 7:56 at his stoning. The author of Revelation uses it twice, in verses 1:13 and 14:14, and in both cases uses the phrase “like a Son of Man.”
As used in the gospels, the title is tied by scholars to Daniel 7:13. which the NRSV translates, in relevant part, as “I saw one like a human being[** you do not have permission to see this link **] coming with the clouds of heaven.” I intentionally left the note in place, as it indicates the Aramaic translation is “one like a son of man.” The KJV translates the phrase as “one like the Son of man.”
Outside of the canonical Bibles, the Son of Man is a particular figure in the various Books of Enoch where it appears 17 times. He is revealed to Enoch in the course of Enoch’s travels through heaven.
My personal take on the Son of Man in the NT is that it is a poor proof-text of Daniel 7:13. Daniel is referring to a divine(?) figure who appears in the form of a human – “like a son of man” – who will rule forever in the earthly Kingdom of God that is to come.
I would like to hear other views on this topic, as I make no claim to be a competent scholar of the Bible. I would be particularly interested in hearing about things I missed in my research.
[Note 1: In researching the appearances of the phrase “son of man” I primarily used a search function in biblegateway.org. I did the search in the NRSV and KJV versions, but not any others. For Enoch I did the word search on a PDF version I downloaded from the web.]
[Note 2: I also think there are other poor proof-texts of the OT in the NT, for example regarding the “suffering servant” in Isiah 53, but these are addressed in other Forum threads so I will no belabor the point.]
TThorne56
My personal take on the Son of Man in the NT is that it is a poor proof-text of ** you do not have permission to see this link **. Daniel is referring to a divine(?) figure who appears in the form of a human – “like a son of man” – who will rule forever in the earthly Kingdom of God that is to come.
Steve Campbell, Author and Publisher of Historical Accuracy
Is the Son of Man in the NT a poor proof test of the books of Enoch?
Is Jesus a new Enoch written by Paul (Enoch was granted angel status and the power to judge, Jesus was an angel and was granted the power to judge) and the gospel authors?
I defer to others more knowledgeable than I on the influence that Enoch may have had on the gospel writers, but the term “Son of Man” occurs most often in the Book of Parables, which many scholars date to as late as the 3rd century CE, so there could be a debate about who influenced whom. Mark 13:26 and 14:62, as well as Matthew 24:30 and 26:64 and Luke 21:27, all seem to reference Psalms 7:13 pretty directly. The only explicit reference to Enoch in the NT is found in Jude 1:14-15, and the quote there does not include the “Son of Man” phrase.
For whatever it’s worth, Paul never uses the phrase “Son of Man.”
TTHorne56 said
I defer to others more knowledgeable than I on the influence that Enoch may have had on the gospel writers, but the term “Son of Man” occurs most often in the Book of Parables, which many scholars date to as late as the 3rd century CE, so there could be a debate about who influenced whom. Mark 13:26 and 14:62, as well as Matthew 24:30 and 26:64 and Luke 21:27, all seem to reference Psalms 7:13 pretty directly. The only explicit reference to Enoch in the NT is found in Jude 1:14-15, and the quote there does not include the “Son of Man” phrase.For whatever it’s worth, Paul never uses the phrase “Son of Man.”
Psalm 7: 12-13
If one does not repent, God will sharpen His sword; He has bent and strung his bow.
He has prepared His deadly weapons; He ordains His arrows with fire.
For example, you say Mark 14:62 refers to Psalm 7:13.
I do not see a cross reference to Psalm 7:13. How do you see, “I am the Christ, Son of the Blessed One. You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven” referencing Psalm 7:13?
Robert said
Beware of searching translations rather than the original language texts. ‘Son of man’ is an idiom in Hebrew and Aramaic for a human being, a mortal, ie, a son or any subsequent descendant of Adam. If you search the Hebrew scriptures, you will find this usage much more frequently, especially when God is addressing Ezekiel. This is not a titular usage but rather a common idiom for any human person. Some scholars try to find Jesus’ use of this Semitic idiom in referring to himself as the basis for what eventually becomes an angelic or divine title only later in the gospels.
I appreciate the problems of making any interpretations based on translations. I was aware of the idiomatic usage of the term, which meant there were hundreds of hits or close hits so I had to check each one to determine which are clearly idiomatic and which are, at least arguably, titular.
I did see that some have argued for a strong influence of Enoch on the gospel writers. I’m not competent to debate that point, which is really why I brought Enoch up in the first place – to see what others such as you might say. That said, I don’t think I can concede that Jesus himself used the term in any sort of titular sense. We just don’t know exactly what he said in that regard. It is my humble opinion that the gospel writers went to great lengths to tie Jesus to messianic prophecies (and I used that phrase loosely here). Maybe Jesus actually referred to Daniel 7:13 in some context, but maybe not.
JAS said
It becomes more problematic when one ignores the context of the period and culture contemporary with the writing.
I think part of what I was intending to explore with the post is the context in which Jesus lived and in which the NT authors wrote. I would suggest that the “Jesus movement” of the first century CE was a significant change in context from the time in which Jesus lived and preached, at least for the members of the movement. The destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple would also mark a change in context.
Robert, I agree with you. I would just add that the fact of Jesus’ crucifixion would have occasioned some level of reinterpretation of messsianic prophecy by his followers, which you could include in the observation that, even before the destruction of Jerusalem, the movement was becoming about Jesus, as opposed to of Jesus. In that respect, it would be just another example of hindsight bias.
I don’t think I’ve added anything to the overall conversation, so I’m going to drop this.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert