Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible

and Theology
http://btb.sagepub.com

Son of Man in the Synoptic Gospels

Paul Ciholas
Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology 1981; 11; 17
DOI: 10.1177/014610798101100105

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://btb.sagepub.com

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Biblical Theology Bulletin Inc.

Additional services and information for Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://btb.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://btb.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations http://btb.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/11/1/17

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 23, 2009

 SON OF MAN IN THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
Paul Ciholas, The University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky 40506
The designation Son of Man represents an essential
element in the formulation of the theology of the Synoptic
Gospels. Though used extensively by Jesus as a self-
designating term, the Christological meaning of Son of
Man most likely did not originate with the disciples, but in
later Church traditions which shaped the Gospel writer’s
outlook on the work and person of Christ.
Old Testament Background
Attempts to derive the meaning of Son of Man from the
Old Testament writings yield only limited results. In his
recent work Casey develops the influence of Daniel 7 on
the concept of Son of Man in the New Testament. He
concludes that the significance of Daniel 7:13-14 is very
limited in terms of its direct impact on the Son of Man
problem in the Gospels (Son of Man, 226).
Schweitzer suggested that the Son of Man problem in
the Gospels could be solved if we attribute authenticity
only to the passages in which the expression is used in the
apocalyptic sense in the Book of Daniel (283). A similar
position was adopted by Manson: &dquo;We have no good
reason to suppose that he (Jesus) was aware of any other
Son of Man than the Danielic (&dquo;Son of Man&dquo;, 191). One
should, in this context, remember the argument of
Klausner that &dquo;there is no individual Messiah in Daniel.
The Son of Man is the same as the Saints of the Most High.
Consequently the entire people is the Messiah&dquo; (229-
230). Such a corporate idea of a Son of Man has been
advocated by Manson as well. The mission of Jesus was
&dquo;to create the Son of Man&dquo; ( Teaching, 222) so that he and
his followers should &dquo;together be the Son of Man&dquo;
( Teaching, 231 ). But Manson’s theory has been widely
opposed because it requires a heavenly Son of Man as
found in Jewish apocalypticism (Perrin, 90-111 ).
Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha
Since a Christological definition of Son of Man cannot
be directly derived from the Old Testament, the tendency
has been to trace its origin to the Similitudes of Enoch and
to apply the results to biblical images, ranging from the
existence of a primal man to the suffering servant motif.
The traditional belief that the Book of Enoch represents
a typically Jewish approach which would have produced
the gospel notion of the Son of Man has to be challenged
on several counts. The Ethiopian version does not reflect
traditional messianic expectations. The Son of Man figure
emerging in the Similitudes has very little in common with
the expectations of a political messiah whose primary
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 23, 2009
purpose would be to elevate the nation of Israel to a
position of leadership. Neither the Book of Enoch nor
Jewish apocalyptic literature in general suggest that the
Son of Man should suffer or die for the sins of men,
although the suffering servant pattern could be applied to
Him in the Apocalypse of Enoch. The concept of the
universe (chapter 2), of Hades and the immortality of the
soul (chapter 51), as well as the fact that the fall is not
mentioned but replaced by a demoralization of mankind
betray radical departures from a Jewish concept of
eschatology. Of even greater concern is the question of
the date of the Similitudes. Most scholars maintain their
pre-Christian character (Fuller, Foundations, 37, n.57;
Longenecker, 82; Maddox, 45-74), while others have
argued against it (Dodd, 241-249). Since there is no firm
evidence of a pre-Christian composition of the
Similitudes, it is precarious to use them as a major source
for a gospel Son of Man theology.
Synoptic Traditions
Because Jewish apocalyptic literature cannot serve as a
solid foundation to establish or rejectJesus’ use of the title
Son of Man, the solution would seem to reside in the
interpretation of the title as it appears in the Gospels
themselves. The major form-critical classification of the
Son of Man sayings in the Synoptic Gospels has been
widely accepted. They represent Jesus as presently at
work (Mt. 13:37; 16:13; 8:20 =Luke 9:58; Mt.11:19 = Luke
7:34; Mt. 12:32 Luke 12:10; Mark 2:18, 28;10:45a; Luke
=
6:22; 19:10), as suffering death and rising again (Mt. 26:2;
Mark 8:31; 9:12, 31; 10:33, 45b; 14:21, 41; Luke 17:25;
22:22; 24:7), and as coming in the future (Mt. 10:23;
13:41; 19:28; 24:39; 25:31; 24:30; 16:28; 12:40 Luke =
11:30; Mt. 24:27 = Luke 17:24; Mt. 24:37 = Luke 17:26; Mt
24:44 Luke 12:40; Mark 8:38; 9:9; 13:26; 14:62; Luke
=
17:22, 30; 18:8). A more thorough classification is
established by Fuller (Mission, 96-108). Yet some (yew
Testament scholars have contended that the title Son of
Man has no particular significance in the Gospels
(Massingberd Ford, 257-266; Freed, 402-409;
Vermes, Jesus, 186).
To consider the Gospels as the sole locus of a Son of
Man theology represents considerable problems which
do not proffer convincing solutions. Yet such a position
has been strongly advocated (Manson, Teaching, 229;
Lindars, 52-53). For T6dt, and especially for Hooker,
Son of Man is relevant only duringthe earthly ministry of
Jesus. After the resurrection it disappears entirely and is
not preserved in any form in the rest of the New Testament
(see especially Hooker, 191 ). But should the usage of Son
17
of Man be limited only to an interim period during the
ministry of Jesus with no further meaning for the early
Church, two crucial questions would remain
unanswered: a) It is inconceivable that an obsolete
designation for Jesus with no direct impact on the
worshipping community could have remained a part of
the kerygmatic traditions for over half a century until it was
incorporated in the Gospels. b) Since the function of the
Son of Man is regarded as being eschatological judgment,
it would appear difficult to maintain that idea of judgment
without a proper understanding of its executor.
The fact that the Synoptic Gospels contain most of the
Son of Man sayings still leaves us with several questions.
The term is used only by Jesus, and the Synoptic Gospel
writers show little theological insight in reporting those
sayings. By neither associating the term with nor
detaching it from their own personal Jewish messianic
expectations, they introduced into their writings existing
Christian traditions without properly reflecting on their
meaning, thus obscuring rather than clarifying the issue.
The number of pericopes where Son of Man occurs and
their parallels where it does not demonstrate a certain
uneasiness in the use of the term. (For a listing and study
of such passages see especially Borsch, 8:12). It is
doubtful that the disciples themselves understood the
implications of a Son of Man Christology. Son of Man
played no visible role in the formulation of the early
kerygma in the first chapters of Acts. Hurtado argues that
&dquo;Jesus used the term Son of Man as a self-description that
had no previous titular significance for his hearers&dquo; (312).
It is possible that the confusion in Christological
formulations which plagued the history of the Church
began with an attempt to present Christ in the Greek
terminology of ho huios tou anthropou. Some have seen
in such a term nothing else than an awkward Greek idiom
or a barbarism for the Aramaic bar nasha (Hahn,15; Hay,
69-75; Vermes, &dquo;Present State,&dquo; 123-134; Casey, &dquo;Son
of Man Problem,&dquo; 152). Others regard it as totally
unintelligible to a gentile world (Taylor, 119; Guignebert,
270-279).
We are thus confronted with the Sisyphean task of
properly relating the understanding the early community
had of the Son of Man sayings to that of Jesus himself.
The Son of Man traditions, formed in the early Palestinian
community, seemed to have revolved around the
eschatological activity of the Son of Man and the parousia
and not around Jesus’ activity on earth. In an attempt to
unify the Gospel kerygma, early Christianity projected the
title Son of Man back into the time of Jesus’ earthly
ministry (Bultmann, Synoptic Tradition, 155; Theology,
I, 30; Tbdt, 18).
Palestinian or Hellenistic Sources?
For Bultmann only the parousia predictions are original
words of Jesus. The rest of the Son of Man sayings in their
relationship to Jesus’ activity on earth are Hellenistic
products ( Theology, 1, 30). This process of hellenization is
already apparent in some strata of the Synoptic Gospel
18 Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 23, 2009
traditions and especially in Luke who, contrary to Matthew,
does not reach back into Jewish apocalypticism for his
Son of Man sayings. By drawing his major sources from
an Hellenistic community, Luke has reworked his
Christology to fit it into his specific concept of
eschatology. This is evident especially in the cases where
Luke elaborates on the Son of Man’s function as the judge
(Toot, 109).
We must allow for two different strata of
probably
traditions, Palestinian
one and one Hellenistic, to have
overlapped for a long time in the history of the Synoptic
tradition. From a soteriological point of view, the early
Church did not find it necessary to merge these two levels
of messianic proclamation. A Christological approach to
Jesus could not displace the soteriological expectations
of a Church which progressively found it impossible to
retain the Son of Man designation as a central part of its
worship. Consequently, it appeared more and more
difficult to maintain a consistent identification between
Jesus and the Son of Man. The early Church made such
an identification on the basis of its faith which rested on a
monolythic messianic understanding. A critical analysis
of Jesus’ position does not automatically lead to such an
identification. Higgins has already made an eloquent plea
for the non-identification of Jesus with the Son of Man,
showing that the epithet belongs to his judicial function
and not to his ministry as a whole (202). A Son of Man
coming on the clouds and a suffering Messiah were not
part of a Jewish apocalyptic expectation (H~ring, 87;
Rowley, 32).
Son of Man and the Messiah
It is clear from the Synoptic Gospels that it would be a
grave error to relate the Son of Man title only to an
apocalyptic expression of the Old Testament When
attributed to Jesus by the Gospel writers, the title
represented an essential aspect of his vital relationship to
the disciples and to the world. h is not surprising, however,
that the disciples were unable to see the implications
Jesus intended in the usage of Son of Man. They simply
could not derive its meaning from their Jewish
background.
The shift from messianism which centered on Davidic
a
expectations a Son of Man must have created a
to that of
deep confusion for early Christianity. Jesus did not identify
himself with the Davidic Messiah but rather with an
Enochian Son of Man who no longer belonged exclusively
to the Jewish or any other nation on earth (Hering, 265;
Mowinckel, 445). His mission had clearly undergone a
process of universalization, and there are strong
indications that Jesus tried to disassociate himself from a
straight Jewish apocalyptic movement While he
remained associated with a people whose religion was
closely linked to a Davidic messianic understanding of the
Kingdom of God, he nevertheless tended to identify with a
Jewish milieu whose orthodoxy was questionable. His
long ministry in Galilee shows a tendency in that direction.

After the Resurrection
After the death and resurrection of Jesus there is no
clear usage of the term Son of Man, except by Stephen in
Acts 7:56. Whereas Paul seems to know the designation,
he never uses it to define his Christological stance. Either
the Gospel traditions about the Son of Man did not yet
exist or Paul deliberately changed ho huios tou
anthropou to anthropos. We are thus confronted with two
major problems regarding the Synoptic Gospel writers’
view of the Son of Man: The relationship of the title to the
Christology of Stephen and the absence of it in Paul’s
writings.
Stephen and the Son of Man
The Christological position of Stephen is a direct
product of the conflict between Hebrews and Hellenists in
Acts 6. The mention of the Son of Man in Acts 7:56 may
not throw much light on the meaning intended by Luke,
but it is also interesting that he uses it here while elsewhere
he strongly posits a Davidic messianic Jesus (Acts 1 - 2).
A possible origin of the Son of Man Christology with
Stephen has already been suggested (Teeple, 213-250).
The speech of Acts 7, however, does not allow the
reconstruction of a full theological system which would
give us sufficient knowledge about Stephen’s Christology.
The early Church suffered a serious setback when the
traditions concerning him were lost or never came to
fruition because of his untimely death.
The sources on Stephen available to us are limited and
under suspicion. Whether the whole speech of Acts 7 or
the particular saying in verse 56 be regarded as authentic
or not, it is hardly possible to dismiss the existence of a
group of Hellenists representing definite anti-Jewish
trends. Though not belonging to the inner group of the
followers of Jesus, one wonders whether they could have
been directly in touch with Christ during his lifetime. It has
never been satisfactorily established that the Christian
Hellenists in Acts had their origin in Jerusalem at
Pentecost (Hengel, 151-206). Their background is
unknown, but they most likely attempted to produce a
reasonable Jewish Hellenism. They may have found in
Jesus the elements necessary for such a reinterpretation
of Judaism. Challenged by the message of Jesus and his
insistence on a Son of Man Christology, they may have
understood in that message elements which remained
hidden for the disciples who were not ready for the
changes Jesus intended to introduce. Hence a possible
explanation of the messianic secret.
After the death of Jesus the Hellenists may have
concluded that the time was ripe to effect the changes
meant by Jesus. They failed to find a receptive audience
with the disciples, and the tragic events which ensued
deprived them of their major leader as well as of a platform
for their ideas. A Son of Man Christology meant little to
traditionally Jewish disciples but survived in a sufficient
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 23, 2009
number of traditions, creating a link between the
Christology of Stephen and the writings of the Gospels.
Synoptic Gospels
and Paul’s Christology
A vexing problem arises when we attempt to correlate
the theology of the Synoptic Gospels and the thought of
Paul. Paul’s Christology rests on the death and
resurrection of Christ. His kerygma makes no reference
to the other events of the life of Christ. Since the Gospel
passion narratives contain several Son of Man sayings and
since the death of Christ is of crucial importance to Paul, it
is surprising that he shows no knowledge of them.
The Son of Man Christology may have belonged to one
or several small groups which were sufficiently influential
to create traditions which survived up to the time of the
writing of the Gospels. Did Paul not know those traditions
or did he choose to ignore them?
Son of Man never appears in Paul’s writings but seems
to be replaced by a dialectic between the pr5tos
anthr5pos and the eschatos anthr5pos or deuteros
anthropos (I Cor. 15:45-49). In other Pauline writings
anthrJpos is used of Christ without further qualification
(Rom. 5:12-17). Some passages would even indicate a
possible dependence of Paul on traditions later
incorporated in the Synoptic Gospels as evidenced by a
comparison of I Tim. 2:5-6 and Mark 10:45. Is there then
sufficient reason to claim that, under the influence of Paul,
the title Son of Man disappears from Christianity? It is
obvious that Paul was acquainted with the trends to
reinterpret Judaism in a way acceptable to the Hellenists
who probably developed traditions different from those
later incorporated in the Synoptic Gospels.
It is also possible that Paul knew the Similitudes of
Enoch but preferred not to relate their messianic
speculations to the Lord he was presenting to a gentile
world which was well acquainted with the anthropos
patterns of thought but not at all with a huios tou
a nthropo u.
Conclusion
The Son of Man sayings in the Synoptic Gospels
represent an original set of traditions, only loosely
connected with Old Testament messianism and
independent of Paul’s Christology. But the glorified Lord
of Paul is also the Synoptic Gospels’ Son of Man in his
humiliation and suffering. The fact that we are dealing with
two different strata of traditions does not weaken the
Christian kerygma but presents a redeemer whose
participation in man’s destiny gives meaning to Christian
history. This underscores both the necessity of Christ’s
identification with and the
man mystery of his
distinctiveness.
19
 SOURCE MATERIAL

Borsch, F.H. 1970. The Christian and Gnostic Son of Klausner, J. 1955. The Messianic Idea in Israel. (New
Man. (Naperville: Allenson)
Alec R. York: Macmillan Co.)
Bultmann, R. 1963. The History of the Synoptic Lindars, B. 1975. "Re-Enter the Apocalyptic Son of Man."
Tradition. (New York: Harper and Row) New Testament Studies. (22, 1), 52-72.
Bultmann, R. 1951-55. Theology of the New Testament,I Longenecker, R. 1970. The Christology of Early
and II. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons) Christianity. (Naperville: Alec R. Allenson)
Casey, P.M. 1979. Son of Man: The Interpretation and Maddox, R. 1968. "The Function of the Son of Man
Influence of Daniel 7. (London: SPCK) According to the Synoptic Gospels." New Testament
Casey, P.M. 1976. "The Son of Man Problem." Zeitschrift Studies. (15, 1), 45-74.
für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft. (67, 3-4), Manson, T.W. 1963. The Teaching of Jesus. (Cambridge:
147-154. Cambridge University Press)
Dodd, C.H. 1968. The Interpretation of the Fourth Manson, T.W. 1950. "The Son of Man in Daniel, Enoch,
Gospel. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) and the Gospels." Bulletin of the John Ryland
Freed, E.D. 1967. "The Son of Man in the Fourth Gospel." Library. (XXXII), 171-193.
Journal of Biblical Literature. (86, 4), 402-409. Massingberd Ford, J. 1968. "The ’Son of Man’: A
Fuller, R.H. 1965. The Foundations of New Testament Euphemism?" Journal of Biblical Literature. (87, 3),
Christology. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons) 257-266.
Fuller, R.H. 1954. The Mission and Achievement of Mowinckel, S. 1954. He That Cometh. (New York:
Jesus. (London: SCM Press) Abingdon Press)
Guignebert, C. 1956. Jesus. (New York: University Books) Perrin, N. 1963. The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of
Hahn, C. 1969. The Titles of Jesus in Christology. (New Jesus. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press)
York: Lutterworth Press) Rowley, H.H. 1944. The Releuance of Apocalyptic
.
Hay, L.S. 1970. "The Son of Man in Mark 2:10 and 2:28." (London: Lutterworth Press)
Journal of Biblical Literature. (89, 1), 69-75. Schweitzer, A. 1968. The Quest .
of the Historical Jesus
Hengel, M. 1975. "Zwischen Jesus und Paulus. Die (New York: Macmillan Co.)
’Hellenisten’, die ’Sieben’ und Stephanus (Apg. 6, 1- Taylor, V. 1957. The Gospel According to St. Mark
15; 7,54-8, 3)." Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche. (London: Macmillan Co.)
(72, 2), 151-206. Teeple, H.M. 1965. "The Origin of the Son of Man
Hering, J. 1959. Le Royaume de Dieu et sa venue. Christology." Journal of Biblical Literature. (84, 3),
(Neuchatel: Delachaux et Niestlé) 213-250.
Higgins, AJ.B. 1964. Jesus and the Son of Man. Tödt, H.E. 1965. The Son of Man in the Synoptic
(London: Lutterworth Press) Tradition. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press)
Hooker, M.D. 1967. The Son of Man in Mark (London: Vermes, G. 1973. Jesus the Jew. (New York: Macmillan
SPCK) Co.)
Hurtado, L.W. 1979. "New Testament Christology: A Vermes, G. 1978. "The Present State of the ’Son of Man’
Critique of Bousset’s Influence." Theological Studies. Debate." Journal of Jewish Studies. (29, 2), 123-
(40, 2), 306-317. 134.

20 Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 23, 2009