The Son of Man in First-Century Judaism

1992 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 448-466 ◽  
Author(s):  
John J. Collins
Keyword(s):  
First Century ◽  
Precise Nature ◽  
Son Of Man ◽  
Ancient Judaism

For much of this century the notion of aMenschensohn, or Son of Man figure, loomed large in scholarly reconstructions of Jewish eschatological expectations in the time of Jesus. The primary Jewish attestation of this figure was found, of course, in Dan 7.13, with complementary appearances in theSimilitudes of Enochand 4 Ezra 13. There was considerable diversity of opinion about the origin and precise nature of this figure. More imaginative scholars, like Sigmund Mowinckel, held that ‘Conceptions of a more or less divine Primordial Man were widespread in the ancient east. Apparently there is a historical connexion between the varying figures of this type, which seem to be derived, directly or indirectly, from Iranian or Indo-Iranian myths.’1The Jewish conception of ‘the Son of Man’ was ‘a Jewish variant of this oriental, cosmological, eschatological myth of Anthropos’,2influenced by a syncretistic fusion of Iranian and Mesopotamian concepts. At the least, the phrase ‘Son of Man’ was thought to be a well-known, readily recognizable title for a messiah of a heavenly type, in contrast to the national, earthly, Davidic messiah. As recently as 1974 Norman Perrin could claim that all the recent studies of the ‘Son of Man Problem’ he had reviewed agreed on one point: ‘there existed in ancient Judaism a defined concept of the apocalyptic Son of Man, the concept of a heavenly redeemer figure whose coming to earth as judge would be a feature of the drama of the End time.’

Beyond Judaisms: Metatron and the Divine Polymorphy of Ancient Judaism

2010 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 323-365 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Boyarin
Keyword(s):  
First Century ◽  
Rabbinic Literature ◽  
Late Antique ◽  
Scholarly Literature ◽  
Son Of Man ◽  
Ancient Judaism ◽  
History Of ◽  
The One ◽  
Specific Project

AbstractMy specific project in this paper is to combine several related and notorious questions in the history of Judaism into one: What is the nexus among the semi-divine (or high angel) figure known in the Talmud as Metatron, the figure of the exalted Enoch in the Enoch books (1-3 Enoch!), "The One Like a Son of Man" of Daniel, Jesus, the Son of Man, and the rabbinically named heresy of "Two Powers/Sovereignties in Heaven?" I believe that in order to move towards some kind of an answer to this question, we need to develop a somewhat different approach to the study of ancient Judaism, as I hope to show here. I claim that late-ancient rabbinic literature when read in the context of all contemporary and earlier texts of Judaism—those defined as rabbinic as well as those defined as non-, para-, or even anti-rabbinic—affords us a fair amount of evidence for and information about a belief in (and perhaps cult of) a second divine person within, or very close to, so-called "orthodox" rabbinic circles long after the advent of Christianity. Part of the evidence for this very cult will come from efforts at its suppression on the part of rabbinic texts. I believe, moreover, that a reasonable chain of inference links this late cult figure back through the late-antique Book of 3 Enoch to the Enoch of the first-century Parables of Enoch—also known in the scholarly literature as the Similitudes of Enoch—and thus to the Son of Man of that text and further back to the One Like a Son of Man of Daniel 7.

The Son of God and Son of the Most High in the Daniel Apocryphon from Qumran

2020 ◽  
pp. 38-44
Author(s):  
Peter Schäfer
Keyword(s):  
First Century ◽  
The Other ◽  
Son Of God ◽  
Son Of Man ◽  
Book Of Daniel ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter covers another text from Qumran, the so-called Daniel Apocryphon. It refers directly to the Son of Man in the biblical Book of Daniel and has drawn attention from numerous scholars. The chapter describes Daniel Apocryphon as a fragment of an Aramaic scroll dating from the late Herodian period, which is the last third of the first century BCE. Its particular significance comes from its unique, straightforward way of mentioning a “Son of God” and “Son of the Most High.” The chapter also points out the relationship between the most high God El and Elohim-Melchizedek. Although Psalm 82:1 states that Elohim-Melchizedek holds judgment in the midst of the other gods, the judgment at the end of days is actually reserved for the Most High God El, as becomes clear from Psalm 7:8–9.

Early Rabbinic Judaism and the Danger in Ezekiel 1

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 168-192
Author(s):  
Rick Van De Water
Keyword(s):  
Hebrew Text ◽  
Biblical Hebrew ◽  
First Century ◽  
Rabbinic Judaism ◽  
Son Of Man ◽  
Jewish Revolt ◽  
The One

Rabbinic tradition indicates a revision of the text of the Book of Ezekiel in the first century ce and suggests the rationale behind it. Hanania ben Hezeqiah is said to have “harmonized” Ezekiel with the Torah shortly before the first Jewish revolt, to save the book from suppression by the rabbis. Hasty redaction, followed by immediate standardization, offers the best explanation for the atrocious grammar, orthography, and syntax of the received Hebrew text, along with the plethora of words and expressions common to post-biblical Hebrew. The goal of Hanania’s project was to discourage the conflation of the enthroned figure in Ezek. 1 with the “one like a son of man” in Dan. 7:13 and thus combat the “two Powers heresy.” His project is related to the outburst of speculation on the throne of yhwh and the merkabah in the mid-first century ce

scholarly journals Jesus as Lord

1911 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 204-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Wisner Bacon
Keyword(s):  
First Century ◽  
Original Form ◽  
Primitive Form ◽  
Son Of God ◽  
Son Of Man ◽  
Pauline Epistles ◽  
The Ideal ◽  
Second Coming

In successive discussions of the title Son of God, which seems to have been Jesus' own self-designation, and Son of Man, which would seem to have been applied to him after his death by the primitive Aramaic-speaking community of believers in his second coming, we have sought to disentangle primitive from secondary tradition. We have particularly emphasized the fact that in its distinctive principles Jesus' own teaching attaches itself to the primitive form of the messianic ideal—Israel as Yahweh's son; not the later theocratic—the Davidic heir to the throne as Son of God; nor the still later apocalyptic—the supernatural deliverer coming on the clouds of heaven as the fulfilment of the promise. In agreement with this view of the teaching of Jesus, our earliest documents, the Pauline epistles, make sonship in the ethical and religious sense the essence of the glad tidings. Since the publication of our argument our conclusions have been confirmed by the important newly-discovered document, the Odes of Solomon. The confirmation is especially strong if the view of Harnack be taken, that the Odes in their original form are Jewish, rather than the view of their discoverer, J. Rendel Harris, who regards them as Christian. The Odes give irrefutable evidence of the existence in first-century Judaism, or at least in primitive Christian circles, of a doctrine of sonship in the ethical and religious sense closely in line with what we have urged as the distinctive element in the messianic consciousness of Jesus. The ideal of the odist for Israel is an ideal of spiritual sonship. By the knowledge and love of the Beloved, “the Most High and Merciful,” Israel is guaranteed not only sonship to God, but immortality, an eternal dwelling in God's presence.

A Sidelight on the ‘Son of Man’

1969 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Gelston
Keyword(s):  
New Testament ◽  
Previous History ◽  
First Century ◽  
Small Contribution ◽  
The Third ◽  
Son Of Man ◽  
The New Testament ◽  
History Of

The term ‘Son of Man’ is one of the enigmas of the Gospels. G. Vermes has re-examined the Aramaic background of the phrase in Appendix E of the third edition of M. BlacK's Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts. Even if his argument that barnāsh (ā) is in some passages a mere circumlocution for ‘I’ is not wholly convincing,page 2 he has demonstrated beyond doubt that the phrase was not in New Testament times a title with a clear and recognised meaning, whether messianic or other. The phrase in itself merely signifies ‘man’, whether mankind in general, or a particular man. Only the context can determine its meaning more precisely. Apart from Act 7.56 it is used virtually exclusively in the New Testament by Jesus, and the question of the crowd in John 12.34—‘who is this Son of Man?’ —shows clearly that the expression was not immediately intelligible to the first century,page 3 and that we are not at liberty to dismiss it as no more than an elaborate way of saying ‘man’ or ‘I’. This is the justification of the immense activity that has gone into the exploration of the previous history of the expression, and to which this article is a small contribution.page 4

The Twelve and the Phylarchs

1986 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 503-527 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Horbury
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
First Century ◽  
Early Church ◽  
Subsequent Growth ◽  
Ancient Judaism ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Christian Origins

Constitutional questions are posed in much recent study of Christian origins. What was the significance of the ministry of Jesus for the contemporary Jewish polity, and the subsequent growth of the Christian ecclesia? The differing emphases of the answers can be roughly labelled ecclesiastical, for example in B. F. Meyer, or national, for example in G. B. Caird and E. P. Sanders. Despite such differences, the twelve must needs be central in the subject-matter (as in B. F. Meyer, 134; Sanders, 326). Can one go further towards determining the constitutional significance of a body of twelve for a Jew of the first century A.D.?One possible model for the twelve, the group of tribal princes, seems to be relatively neglected. In what follows attention will be drawn to it, and an attempt will be made to characterize its interpretation in ancient Judaism. Finally, against this background, brief comment will be offered on the place of the twelve in early church order and in the ministry of Jesus.

scholarly journals The social setting of Jesus’ exaltation in Luke-Acts (Lk 22:69 and Ac 7:56)

2005 ◽  
Vol 61 (1/2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Claude Loba-Mkole
Keyword(s):  
First Century ◽  
Social Setting ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Roman World ◽  
Son Of Man ◽  
The Social ◽  
Christian Culture ◽  
Social Turmoil ◽  
A Current

This article presents a model for “intercultural exegesis” and applies this model to Luke 22:69 and Acts 7:56. In this process, the term “Son of Man” is approached from two perspectives: that of a biblical culture in the first century Graeco-Roman world, and that of a current Christian culture in Africa. The study concludes that the “Son of Man” concept in the selected texts not only includes a reference to the eschatological saviour, judge and defender, but also creates a sense of Jesus’ solidarity with his fellow human beings. Such an understanding would certainly have led to Jesus’ exaltation by his followers, who lived under conditions of social turmoil in the Graeco-Roman world of the first century, and would lead to such an exaltation by those who experience similar circumstances in Africa today.

scholarly journals The Covenant Renewal Ceremony as the Main Function of Qumran

Religions ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (8) ◽  
pp. 578
Author(s):  
Daniel Vainstub
Keyword(s):  
First Century ◽  
Main Function ◽  
Ancient Judaism ◽  
Entire Country

Unlike any other group or philosophy in ancient Judaism, the yaḥad sect obliged all members of the sect to leave their places of residence all over the country and gather in the sect’s central site to participate in a special annual ceremony of renewal of the covenant between God and each of the members. The increase of the communities that composed the sect and their spread over the entire country during the first century BCE required the development of the appropriate infrastructure for hosting this annual gathering at Qumran. Consequently, the hosting of the gathering became the main function of the site, and the southern esplanade with the buildings surrounding it became the epicenter of the site.

One Like a Son of Man in First-Century CE Judaism

1995 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas B. Slater
Keyword(s):  
Active Role ◽  
First Century ◽  
Jewish Literature ◽  
Common Features ◽  
Son Of Man

John J. Collins' recent study of the interpretation of Dan 7.13 in the extant Jewish literature in the first century CE has provided a needed survey and background for those interested in the interpretation of Dan 7.13 in Christian circles during the same period. Collins identifies four common features between theSimilitudes of Enochand 4 Ezra 13. First, both books assume that the humanlike figure refers to an individual and is not a collective symbol. Secondly, both identify this figure as the messiah. Thirdly, in both the messiah is preexistent and both associate with the messiah prerogatives traditionally reserved for God in Jewish literature. Finally, the messiah takes a more active role in the defeat of the ungodly in theSimilitudes of Enochand 4 Ezra than in Dan 7.13. He argues that these common features between two works which do not exhibit any direct literary or theological dependence indicate certain common assumptions in the first century CE concerning Dan 7.13, but he also states that it is difficult to ascertain how widespread these assumptions might have been.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document