A while back, Mike put up a very helpful post on the historicity of the future sayings of the “Son of Man” in the Gospels. He basically asked us all whether we think the apocalyptic, future judge “Son of Man” sayings really could be traced back to the lips of Jesus. I was working on a paper on the issue at the time and he’s been nudging me to give my own thoughts on the issue. I’m hesitant to say much because I feel like I have only scratched the surface of a very complex problem for which we have so little evidence to work with.
At this point in my academic career, I’m inclined to say that “historical Jesus” studies is a black hole. It’s something we should study and try to work through, but to devote too much effort just sucks you into the dark abyss of an ultimately unprovable mess. So, here is my disclaimer for my current thoughts on the future “Son of Man” issue: these are just my general inclinations. I am not so bold to really get in the mud and wrestle it out with others because I think it’s a dead end. Even though Casey’s book is so daring as to suggest he has the solution, I don’t really believe it can be “solved” beyond a shadow of a doubt.
That said, my inclination is that, yes, the apocalyptic “Son of Man” sayings are–at least to some extent–authentic. I am unconvinced that the Aramaic idiom approach (e.g., Vermes and Casey in different ways) has sufficient evidence to stand up as the only authentic “Son of Man” sayings. As I see it, the apocalyptic “son of man” references that we know of (Daniel 7, the Similitudes of Enoch, and 4 Ezra 13) all borrow from earlier mythic imagery and adapt it for their own purposes. Daniel 7 seems to be the first time “son of man” is used in an apocalyptic setting. And though the immediate context appears to refer to an angel, perhaps Michael, who represents Israel as a great prince and protector (12:1), the image of “son of man” in an apocalyptic sense seems to have been widely used and adapted further in subsequent Jewish literature–just as Daniel is adapting the literature that came before it.
It seems reasonable to me to understand Jesus as adapting this image of an apocalyptic “son of man” just as others did in the same time period. That Jesus would take a widely used symbol and adapt it for his own purposes is consistent with his own teaching program (e.g., “you have heard it said . . . but I say to you . . .”). It does not seem completely unreasonable to me for Jesus to adapt the exalted sense of “son of man” as a title for more sayings related to his earthly ministry. It also does not seem unreasonable that Jesus would add a suffering component to the Danielic “son of man” tradition, since suffering and humility is such a significant part of his teaching. The first shall be last and the last first, after all.
I am inclined to agree with Burkett who suggests that those who have investigated the nontitular explanation of “son of man” (Vermes, Casey, and those before them) have “performed a service for the scholarly community.” The view had some potential merit and needed to be explored. These scholars have walked down that path for us. Unfortunately, it has turned out to be a dead end: “The time has come . . . to take stock and recognize that this line of research has not led to a convincing solution.” Current and future research must instead focus its attention by recognizing the bulk of passages referencing the “son of man” in the Gospels appear to be a title (see Burkett, 96).
So, those are my inclinations at this point. But they could change!
