Introduction
“For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be.” Matthew 24:27[1]
The “Son of Man” expression has sparked considerable controversy over the centuries without resolution. Several points of contention surround the debate, not the least of which is Jesus’ use of the expression as a Messianic appellation in the Mount Olivet discourse and his trial before the supreme council. Some contend there was no original Messianic understanding in his “Son of Man” sayings and only a hand-full were authentic.[2] Some argue the authentic sayings are those in which Jesus spoke of his eschatological mission.[3] Indeed, others agree the “Son of Man” figure is Messianic but this does not preclude a divine origin and in fact pre-supposes a human origin.[4] The linguistic background for the phrase also sparks additional controversy and reignites the debate regarding the language Jesus spoke. The idiomatic expression, “ben adam” (“בֶּן־אָדָם”) is common in the Hebrew Scriptures:
“God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?’ (Nu. 23:19 NASB).
This poetic expression demonstrates idiomatic use of “son of man” in the Hebrew Scriptures referring to a “human being”.[5] Additional issues arise considering the apocalyptic text from Daniel is in Aramaic:[6]
“I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him.” (Dn. 7:13)
Aside of the authentic sayings, Jesus’ self identification, and linguistic issues of this debate, Jewish Apocalyptic literature offers additional understanding of the expression as its influence is seen in the New Testament.[7] In Jewish Apocalyptic literature and apocalyptic sections of the Hebrew Scriptures, as in Daniel 7, the “Son of Man” expression is clearly to be distinguished from normal idiomatic use.[8] Also since Jesus’ taught as a Jewish sage our study would not be complete without considering rabbinical tradition. A brief analysis of the “Son of Man” occurrences will reveal the distinction which is to be made between various genres and styles and the unique development of the “Son of Man” expression during the inter-testamental period. The scope of this study is intended to be brief therefore only a few texts from the Hebrew Scriptures, Jewish apocalyptic literature, rabbinic literature, and the New Testament will be addressed. The “Son of Man” will be referred to as SM for the sake of brevity.
Analysis
Although the poetic parallelism, from Num. 23, is from a manual of instruction[9] an example from the prophets also demonstrates idiomatic use:
“Her cities have become an object of horror, A parched land and a desert, A land in which no man lives And through which no son of man passes. (Jer. 51:43)
In this example from the prophets SM is Semitic idiom referring to the previous stanza. However, as we will see in Ezekiel, a significant shift from third to second person occurs. Ezekiel’s prophecy sits at the cross roads between the prophetic foretelling and apocalyptic unveiling of the divine sphere as the Lord sets a new task for him to prophesy to the exiles in Babylon:
“Then He said to me, “Son of man, I am sending you to the sons of Israel, to a rebellious people who have rebelled against Me; they and their fathers have transgressed against Me to this very day.” (Ez. 2:3).
Most hold the view that SM in Ezekiel refers to him as representative Israel.[10] Others develop the idea Ezekiel is not only the representation of Israel but that Israel is the representation of mankind upon the earth and therefore he is representative “man”.[11] Chrys Caragounis rightly notes SM in Ezekiel is not only a title but a function which has been seized upon by Jewish Apocalyptic literature and by Jesus himself.[12] Additionally Ezekiel’s vision of the departed throne as it ascends from earth into the heavens is an anthropomorphic description of the divine as the figure is described as having a “human appearance”:
And above the expanse over their heads there was the likeness of a throne, in appearance like sapphire; and seated above the likeness of a throne was a likeness with a human appearance. (Ez. 1:26, ESV)
Some believe this text and the SM appellations in Ezekiel inspired the shift from idiom to the distinct eschatological figure found in Daniel:[13]
“I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him.” (Dn. 7:13)
In contrast the SM figure in Daniel is eschatological whereas in Ezekiel it refers to his role as representative Israel, as we have seen above. None the less for Daniel the figure is only “like” a SM which then cannot be taken idiomatically.[14] Some have argued then it does not follow as a messianic title or necessitate SM serves a redeeming role as he is not the representative of a special people or kingdom but an eschatological dominion conferred to him by God.[15] Others see the SM, in Daniel 7, as indeed being representative of the community of Israel, much like Ezekiel.[16] Others rightly claim SM in Daniel 7 is the King Messiah who stands in sharp contrast to the previous creature kingdoms earlier in the chapter.[17]
This is a theme taken up by Jewish Apocalyptic literature such as the “Book of Enoch” dated c. 250 BCE.[18] The “Book of Parables”, Enoch 37-71, while relying on Daniel and Ezekiel, applies the SM expression to a being approaching the timeless one who, in his generation, reveals the secret treasures of God.[19]
“At that place I saw the One to whom belongs time before time, And His head was white like wool, And with Him was another individual whose face was like that of a human being, And his countenance was full of grace, like that of one of the holy angels. And I asked the one from among the angels, who was going with me and who had revealed to me all the secrets, regarding the one who was born of human beings, who is this, and from whence is he, who is going as the prototype of the Before-Time? And he answered and said unto me: This is the son of Man who belongs righteousness with whom righteousness dwells, And will open all the hidden storerooms” (En.46:1-2).
Enoch is an interpretational work as witnessed in Enoch 6 where the author is explaining the events of Genesis 6 regarding the “sons of God and daughters of men”. Here the author is interpreting Daniel 7 as the “secrets” of the SM are revealed by the celestial being. Some do not see the SM figure in Enoch as a messianic title.[20] However it is clearly the author’s intention to interpret the SM as a Messianic figure and to assign that title to Enoch, (cf. En. 70).[21] Also consider Enoch 48:2-3:
“At that hour the Son of Man was given a name in the presence of the Lord of Spirits, the Before Time. Even before the creation of the sun and moon before the creation of the stars he was given a name before the presence of the Lord of Spirits.”
This certainly supports the rabbinic belief the name of Messiah was created during the creation of the world.[22] Taking these issues into account we can be certain the author of the “Book of Parables” identifies the SM in Daniel as Messiah. Yet he could be pointing to the fact that he is more than Messiah. The author continues in the “Book of Parables” explaining Enoch’s disappearance via his translation into the heavens (cf. Gn. 5:24). Though he had a human genealogy he became a celestial figure, highly exalted over all and assumed various roles including eschatological judge:
“He placed the Elect One on the throne of glory and he shall judge all of the works of the holy ones in heaven above weighing the balance of their deeds,” (En. 61:8).
This understanding of Enoch may have led to the rejection of the SM expression as apocalyptic works were rejected by the sages for being overly esoteric.[23] Additionally the SM material comes too close to equating humanity with God which is why R. Aqiva attempted a gloss on Dn. 7:9:
Now, that is satisfactory for all [the other verses], but how explain Till thrones were placed? — One [throne] was for Himself and one for David. Even as it has been taught: One was for Himself and one for David: this is R. Akiba’s view. R. Jose protested to him: Akiba, how long will thou profane the Shechinah?[24]
Some have assigned a later date to Enoch’s “Book of Parables” as this section is missing from Qumran, while all others are represented, and may therefore be a result of Christian interpolation. [25] However Matthew Black postulated, since only five percent of Enoch is found at Qumran, the argument of silence cannot be sustained.[26] Indeed neither was the canonical book of Esther found among the scroll fragments at Qumran which does not necessarily indicate the community rejected the theology of the book. Incidentally, among the Dead Sea scroll literature found, not all is necessarily sectarian and therefore may not reflect the views of the community.[27] However among the fragments found at Qumran and somewhat related to the SM expression is the passage quoted in Jude (Jud. 14-15)
“Behold, he will arrive with ten million of the holy ones, to execute judgment upon all, He will destroy the wicked ones, and censure all flesh on account of everything that they have done that which the sinners and the wicked ones committed against him” (En. 1:9).
This demonstrates eschatological influence on various sects of the Jewish community apart from the “Book of Parables”.[28] Also a Pesher on the book of Habakkuk found among the sectarian scrolls, reads in part, “God will execute the judgment of the nations by the hand of His elect”[29] Although final judgment is brought to bear in Daniel 7 those who participate are “holy ones”, as in En. 1:9, however in the Pesher above it will be the “elect”. The “Book of Parables” may have had hermeneutical influence as Enoch indicates the “Elect One…will judge the secret things” (En. 49:4). [30] The “elect” is also Enoch’s favorite term referring to those on whom God will confer his blessing. (En 1:8). As the Qumran community is highly predisposed to predestination the “elect” fits into their sectarian view of themselves.
It has been argued the rabbinical designation for the Messiah is “Son of David” and furthermore post biblical prophecy, for the sages, “was perceived as a threat in part due to social and national radicalism and disdain for “realpolitik” found in apocalyptic Messianism.”[31] However rabbinical literature does refer to the SM:
“R. Alexandri said: R. Joshua b. Levi pointed out a contradiction. It is written, in its time [will the Messiah come], whilst it is also written, I [the Lord] will hasten it! — if they are worthy, I will hasten it: if not, [he will come] at the due time. R. Alexandri said: R. Joshua opposed two verses: it is written, And behold, one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven whilst [elsewhere] it is written, [behold, thy king cometh unto thee … ] lowly, and riding upon an ass! — if they are meritorious, [he will come] with the clouds of heaven; if not, lowly and riding upon an ass. King Shapur [I] said to Samuel, ‘Ye maintain that the Messiah will come upon an ass: I will rather send him a white horse of mine. He replied, ‘Have you a hundred-hued steed?”[32] (Bavli Talmud Sanhedrin Tractate 98a).
Indeed the reference occurs in a Messianic section regarding the coming of the anointed one and set parallel to another prophecy regarding the Messiah’s advent:
“Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; He is just and endowed with salvation, Humble, and mounted on a donkey, Even on a colt, the foal of a donkey.” (Zech. 9:9).
Additionally the tractate refers R. Joshua ben Levi of the school in Tiberius around the first half of the third century which would be well after the Gospels were circulated.[33] In an earlier tractate, possibly a polemic against Christians, there is another reference to the SM:[34]
“ R. Nahman said to R. Isaac: ‘Have you heard when Bar Nafle will come?’ ‘Who is Bar Nafle?’ he asked. ‘Messiah,’ he answered, ‘Do you call Messiah Bar Nafle?”‘[35] (Bavli Talmud Sanhedrin Tractate 96b)
This is a play on words as “nafle” refers to the fallen tent of David in the prophecy of Amos:
In that day I will raise up the fallen booth of David, And wall up its breaches; I will also raise up its ruins And rebuild it as in the days of old; (Am. 9:11).
“The fallen,” “nofelet,” sounds much like the Greek word for “cloud,” “nefelon,” in the Septuagint of Daniel 7:13 and the Greek New Testament; certainly it was in use by Hellenistic Jewish believers.[36]
None the less this also is in a Messianic section and demonstrates a long-held belief in SM theology among the community of believers.
Therefore it is necessary to briefly consider the linguistic background to the SM reference in Daniel as it seems to be the primary source for this title in Jewish Apocalyptic writings. Some assume, a priori, Jesus’ spoken language was Jewish Palestinian Aramaic and therefore used it exclusively as an idiomatic circumlocution for himself.[37] Additionally some have postulated the SM is not a title but an error that grew out of a Greek translation of a theoretical original Aramaic source, “Q”.[38] However others have challenged the a priori position that Jesus’ primary spoken language was Aramaic.[39]
There is strong evidence that Hebrew was a spoken language in first century Judea as evidenced by the sectarian writings of the Qumran community.[40] Hebrew correspondence found dating to the second century, known as the “Bar Kochva” letters, also lends support to this premise.[41] The Hebrew expression “son of Man” is equivalent to the Aramaic as they are similar Semitic languages and the idiomatic meaning remains unchanged. Aramaic was the language of official business for the region but not necessarily the sacred language.[42] Some have hypothesized Jesus normally spoke and taught in Hebrew but made use of the Aramaic expression from Daniel 7 to remove any ambiguity of his Messianic claim.[43]
However Brad Young contends there are times when the idiomatic Hebrew expression, taken in its proper context, clarifies the text.[44] For example a somewhat difficult passage is simply explained when the Semitic locution is understood:
“Whoever speaks a word against a man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.” (Matt. 2:32).
Young observes the Holy Spirit is a circumlocution, referring to the divine presence. In fact the ambiguity of the Hebraic phrase conceals his Messianic mission to those outside the community as he was not in a hurry to reveal his identity until the proper time. (cf. Matt. 16:20).
However in Jesus’ eschatological discourse the time had arrived for his revelation. In Matthew the “coming” of the SM is described appropriately by the Greek word “parousia”. This word appears only in Matthew among the gospels, and is used strategically to portray the arrival of a divine being.[45]
The disciples came to him on the Mount of Olives after he prophesied the temple’s destruction:
“As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”
This is the ideal setting for the SM prophecy. Romans occupied the land and kept the Pax Romana with extreme diligence and swift execution while enforcing tax collection. The zealots and Essenes believed the Kingdom of Heaven was eschatological and coincided with the coming of King Messiah.[46] Although the Essenes were generally passive the zealots were determined the Kingdom would be brought about with armed resistance.[47] The Pharisaical sages understood the Kingdom would be revealed in their teaching.[48] Jesus goes on to describe the decline and terrible events which are to take place prior to his arrival. How disheartening for a down-trodden community, as if conditions weren’t bad enough, justice will only come after more tribulation in an unjust world. All of these various factions awaited the King and the Kingdom to which Jesus concludes his response to their question:
“ And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.” (Matt. 24:30).
The sign of his coming is in fact his arrival on a chariot of clouds. It will be sudden and without warning, unexpectedly he appears for all to witness.[49] Gundry notes the SM in Matthew is on the clouds whereas the Aramaic of Daniel is with the clouds.[50]
Indeed Keil identifies the clouds as an allusion to the divine chariot throne:[51]
“He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters; He makes the clouds His chariot; He walks upon the wings of the wind” (Ps. 104:3)
Therefore though the SM figure is representative of mankind he is more than human, like the divine “prototype” in Enoch’s “Book of Parables”. Jesus is using a “word picture” here “capturing the imagination” of a people awaiting deliverance.[52] Also in the Matthean apocalypse a favorite term of Enoch re-appears, namely “the elect”:
“Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short” (Matt. 24:22).
As Young has noted SM is a term pregnant with meaning which refers to the eschatological judge from Daniel 7 but also taken idiomatically as representative man for Israel as the Suffering servant of Isaiah 53.[53]
Finally in this apocalyptic discourse, as Nickelsberg has correctly noted, a parallel may be drawn between “the days of Noah” and the typology of Enoch’s times.[54] Those who are familiar with Enoch would certainly recall the imagery of the evil times and the judgment described. They would immediately connect the dots between the SM and the Anointed one.
During his trial authorities interrogated Jesus in regard to his Messianic claim. Making claim to Messianic identity is a claim to be King of the Jews, and as such would be sedition against Rome and deserve crucifixion.[55] Jesus response however is clear:
“Jesus said to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Matt. 26:63)
Bivin notes while using circumlocution for the divine he also applies two Messianic prophecies from Daniel 7, previously quoted, and Psalm 110:1[56]: “The Lord says to my Lord: ‘Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet’.” He is saying, you use the word Messiah but I am the one of Daniel 7 and Psalm 110. Buth correctly notes, certainly in this SM occurrence, he is not referring to his humanity but his heavenly origin.[57]
Jesus avoids their entrapment while defining his mission but in effect he shared glory which belongs to God alone.[58] His response is an affront to those on supreme council, bringing about an immediate verdict of blasphemy. If Jesus were to quote the Aramaic phrase in his response at the trial and during the Olivet discourse his self designation as Messiah, eschatological judge, suffering servant, and reigning King would seem to be all the more poignant.
Conclusion
As we have seen the “Son of Man” expression in the Hebrew Scriptures generally reflects Semitic idiom but a change occurs initially inspired by Ezekiel as the representative man of Israel. Daniel seems to pick up on this representative role of the SM and the human likeness of the one on the throne in Ezekiel 1:26. Daniel describes the SM, as a superhuman king in stark contrast to the creature kingdoms that precede him. Enoch’s “Book of Parables” interprets SM not only as King Messiah but eternal judge. There are hints of Enoch in the “little apocalypse” of the synoptic gospels, especially Matthew. For example the “elect” and “days of Noah”, not to mention the developed SM eschatology, are all themes from Enoch. Although, the Parables section was not found at Qumran there is a connection in regard to Enoch’s “Elect One”, who is the “Righteous one” corresponding to the “Righteous teacher” of the “community” who are the “elect”. Jesus seizes upon this imagery to develop “word pictures” which his audience is able to identify.
The SM is the eschatological King Messiah who will return and claim his throne and judge everyone as he is a qualified representative human and yet more than human. Dwight Pryor has also shared information germane to the discussion regarding the benediction at the conclusion to partaking of “the Lord’s supper” from”Didache”16:17.[59]
“Then shall the world see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven”
Pryor explains after the meal the congregation would exclaim “Maranatha”[60] which is the English transliteration of the Greek transliteration of an Aramaic term.[61] However the Greek form is ambiguous and demonstrates the tension we have seen in the preceding pages. Jesus has established his reign and will come to receive his kingdom as in Daniel 7. The term can mean both, “our Lord has come” and “our Lord come” It echoes the longing in Revelation 20:22, “He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming quickly.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. “Maranatha”!
[1] Unless otherwise indicated all Biblical references are from the New American Standard Bible (NASB) (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995)
[2] Barnabas Lindars, Jesus Son of Man, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 158. Lindars sees few authentic SM sayings and places most on early redactors and authors.
[4] Carsetn Colpe, “ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Vol.VIII, transl. Geoffery W. Bromiley, ed. Gerhard Frederich, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972) 423.
[5] H. Haag, “בֶּן־אָדָם,” The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 2 eds.G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 159.
[6] “Son of Man” here is “bar enash”, “בַר אֱנָשׁ”.
[7] Jude 14 quotes Enoch.
[8] Randall Buth, Jesus’ Most Important Title, Jerusalem Perspective, jerusalemperspective.com/2471, (March 01, 1990). Buth explains generally ‘son of man’ is Semitic idiom for, ‘someone’, ‘a man’ but usually without the definite article in the Greek gospels as with definite article may be taken as “a certain man”.
[9] R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), 495.
[10] Chrys C. Caragounis, The Son of Man Vision and Interpretation, (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1986), 60. Also Colpe, 421.
[11] R. Moshe Eisemann, “Yechezkel/Ezekiel A New Translation with a Commentary Anthologized from Talmudic, Midrashic, and Rabbinic Sources. 3rd ed. Complete Three Volumes in One,” The Art Scroll Tanach Series, eds. R. Nosson Scherman and R. Meir Zlotowit, (Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah Publications, Ltd. 1988), xxxii.He spends considerable time developing the idea of Israel’s representation of mankind thus revealing is mission is earthly and not heavenly. Ref. Tan.d’Bei Eliyahu 6, Yezchiel is son of man, son of Israel. Also cf. Ez. 34:31 as “אָדָם” is translated “men” Eisemann continues with the idea Israel is the seed of Adam, “אָדָם” , which must be preserved and therefore cannot assimilate into that culture. Assimilation would mean annihilation and the seed of man would be lost.
[13] Ibid, 76. He believes Dan. 7 is inspired by Ezekiel’s “דְּמוּת כְּמַרְאֵה אָדָם” of 1:26, ”likeness with a human appearance” Additionally Ezekiel lays the groundwork for describing likenesses of living creatures found in Apocalyptic such as Daniel 7.
[16] David Flusser, The Jewish Sages and Their Literature, Judaism of the Second Temple Period, vol. 2, (Hebrew University Magnes Press: Jerusalem. 2009), 262.
[17] R. Hersch Goldwurm, “Daniel A New Translation with a Commentary Anthologized from Talmudic, Midrashic, and Rabbinic Sources,” 2nd Ed, The ArtScroll Tanakh Series, eds. R. Nosson Scherman and R. Meir Zlotowitz, (Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah Publications, Ltd. 1988), 206. and C.F. Keil, “Ezekiel, Daniel. Part 1.” Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes. vol. 9. trans. James Martin, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 274. Keil references Jn. 1:51.
[18] Brad Young, Lecture notes from GBIB 774, Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, Oral Roberts University Graduate School of Theology, (August, 22, 2012). Young dates Enoch circa mid to late third century BCE.
[19] Flusser, The Jewish Sages, 262.
[21]Enoch, trans. E. Isaac, “Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments,” The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol.1, Editor James H. Charlesworth, (Peabody, Ma: Hendrickson Publishers. 1983), 9. He is also depicted as the Righteous One in the “book of watchers” both are Messianic.
[22] Flusser, The Jewish Sages, 263. He does not cite his source as though it is common knowledge. However he does cite Rev1:1 and refers to Paul’s Epistles in reference to Christ existing from the foundations of the world.
[23] Joachim, Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions During the New Testament Period, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 1969), 239.
[24] Sanhedrin 38b, “Talmud Bavli Sanhedrin,” http://halakhah.com/pdf/nezikin/ Sanhedrin.pdf. This insight is from Flusser, “Jewish Sages”, 266. We recall R. Aqiva supported Bar-Kochva (Bar-Kosiva) as the Messiah son of David in the second century revolt. He was refuted by R. Jose in this broad polemic against the “minim”; Jewish believers in Jesus perhaps.
[25] Caragounis, 3. This is not his view but referring to J.T. Milik’s French work, “Problems de la literatre Henochique a la lumere de fragments aramens de Qumran” HTR 64, (1971), 333-78.
[26] Ibid. 93. The student could not get access to this journal through the ORU liabrary system. Caragounis references Black’s statement that only 5 percent of Enoch was found at Qumran and therefore takes only chapters 70-71 as being a later addition. (From ET 95 (1984) 201. Caragounis also noted some have stated the parables were added by a Jewish Kabbalistic group. 94.
[27] Young, Brad. Lecture notes from GBIB 774 , Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, Oral Roberts Graduate School of Theology, (October 31, 2012).
[28] Colpe, 473 . Colpe also states tradition; James, the bother of Jude and half brother of Jesus, responded to the supreme council’s interrogation, “what is the door of Jesus”, to which he responded in much the same fashion as Jesus in his trial (cf. Matt. 26;64-66). The “door” is taken to mean the way of salvation. (Esusebius Hist. Ecc. II 23,3-9.)
[29]“ Commentary on Habakkuk,” tran. Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, (London: Penguin Books, 1962), 511.
[30] Nickelsberg, George W.E., Jewish Literature Between the Bible and Mishnah A Historuical and Literary Introduction, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), 222. Nickelsberg also indicates the “Elect One” may be a way to consolidate titles, although he does argue that SM is not a messianic title.
[31] Flusser, The Jewish Sages, 274.
[33] Jewish Encyclopedia, “Joshua ben Levi,”“http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ articles/8919-joshua-b-levi.”
[34] Abraham Cohem, Everyman’s Talmud The Major Teachings of the Rabbinic Sages, (New York: Schocken Books, 1949), 348. Cohen sees the designation only as Messianic and not as a polemic.
[35] Halakha.com, “Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin”, “http://halakhah.com/rst/nezikin/ 34e%20-%20Sanhedrin%20-%2093a-113b.pdf.
[36] Amos 9:11 reads “הַנֹּפֶלֶת”, “ha-nofelet” as the LXX of Dan. 7:13 and Matt. 24:30 read “νεφελῶν”, “nefelon”. “Bar Nafle’ “ בר נפלי” would then be a polemic, as “son of the fallen” or “son of the clouds”, mocking those who are awaiting “son of man”.
[37] Colpe, 403. and Lindars, 161.
[38] Lindars, 161. He also notes the LXX does not translate with the definite article.
[39] Randall Buth, “Jesus’ Most Important Title,” Jerusalem Perspective, jerusalemperspective.com/2471, (March 01, 1990), David Flusser, The Sage From Galilee, Rediscovering Jesus’ Genius, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2007), 112.
[40] Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, Revised Edition, (London: Pengion Books, 2004), 10. Also Buth, Jesus’.
[43] Ibid. Buth also states Dr. Robert Lindsey supported this hypothesis. Flusser, Sage, 112. Flusser agrees Jesus taught in Hebrew but emphatically refutes the premise that Jesus used the Aramaic form, “כְּבַר אֱנָשׁ“, “son of Man”.
[44] Brad H Young, Jesus the Jewish Theologian, (Peabody, Ma: Hendrickson. 1995), 246.
[45] Walter Bauer, “παρουσία,” A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Christian Literature, trans. W.F. Ardnt, F.W. Gingrich rev. and ed. by F.W. Danker. 3rd Edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 2000), 780. Used in a special technical sense as a sacred expression for the coming of a hidden divinity who makes their presence know by a revelation of his power or whose presence is celebrated by the cult.
[46] Flusser, The Jewish Sages, 259.
[48] Flusser, The Jewish Sages, 261.
[49] Ibid, The Jewish Sages, 260.
[50]Robert H. Gundry, Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 488.
[52] Young, 247. Young describes the figure as a “superhuman”. This is my assumption but the term’s ambiguity works to Jesus’ advantage whereas if he were to be using the Aramaic term the reference would be poignant.
[55] F.F Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus. The Jesus Library. Ed.Michael Green, (Downers Grove, Il: InterVarsity Press, 1983), 247.
[56] David Bivin, New Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus, (Holland, Mi.:En Gedi Resource Center, Inc. 2005), 57. Jesus uses the right hand of “power” , ” גברה, as a divine passive out of reverence for the name. Flusser, The Jewish Sages and Their Literature. Flusser also adds Is. 9:6 as “El Gibbor”, “Mighty God” is a variant of “power” in Matt. 26:63.
[58] Bruce, Hard Sayings of Jesus. 247.
[60] The Greek form is “μαράναθά” 1 Cor. 16:22, of the Aramaic”מרנאתה” which contains the verb “to come” found in Daniel 7:13.
[61] Dwight D. Pryor “The Coming of the Son of Man”, CD. Center for Judaic Christian Studies. 1999.