Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The current essay is a reflection upon my reading of the two recent works
indicated in the note below.1 It aims at exploring afresh an intricate problem
hitherto somewhat neglected, namely, the possibility that the Son of Man
concept (Menschensohnbegriff) set forth in the Parables of Enoch contains an
Enochic response to the Son of Man christology developed in different strata
of the New Testament.2 In what follows I shall present this tentative hypothe-
1
Composed in the frame of an official Research Project belonging to the Spanish Ministry
of Science and Innovation (MICINN): “250 años de investigación sobre el Jesús histórico” [250
Years of Research on the Historical Jesús], FFI-2009-09316, this essay reflects tentatively upon
the works of M. Casey (The solution to the “Son of Man” Problem [see n. 1 below]), and G.
W. E. Nickelsburg and J. C. VanderKam (1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch,
Chapters 37-82 [see n. 1 below]) and intends to provide a new hypothesis on the history of
early Christology and what I would label its Enochic counterpart. I thank Carlos A. Segovia for
improving my weak English.
2
Because of its hypothetical character, almost no secondary bibliography will be provided
in the body of this paper. Yet I have taken into account the following studies, which, nonetheless,
deserve to be mentioned at the outset: G. Aranda Pérez - F. García Martínez - M. Pérez
Fernández, Literatura judía intertestamentaria (Estella: Verbo Divino, 1996); R.K. Bultmann,
Theology of the New Testament (2 vols.; New York: Scribner, 1951-1955; reissued in Waco,
TX: Baylor University Press, 2007); M. Casey, The Solution to the “Son of Man” Problem
(LNTS 343; London: T&T Clark International, 2007); J.H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha and the New Testament (SNTSMS 54; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1985); id., “Can We Discern the Composition Date of the Parables of Enoch?,” in Enoch and
the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, ed. G. Boccaccini (Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans, 2007), pp. 450-468; J. J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the
Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (2nd ed.; New York: Doubleday, 2010); id., The
Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (2nd ed.; Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998); F. Corriente - A. Piñero, “Libro 1 de Enoch (et y gr),” in Apócrifos
delAntiguo Testamento, ed. A. Díez Macho and A. Piñero Sáenz (7 vols.; Madrid: Cristiandad,
1984-), 4:11-143; M. A. Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A new Edition in the Light of
the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments in Consultation with Edward Ullendorff (2 vols.; Oxford:
Clarendon, 1978); D. Muñoz León, “Libro IV de Esdras,” in Apócrifos del Antiguo Testamento,
ed. A. Díez Macho and A. Piñero, 6:301-465; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary
on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1-36, 83-108 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001); id.,
Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction
(2nd ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005); A. Piñero, “Interaction of Judaism and Hellenismin
the Gospel of John,” in Hellenic and Jewish Arts: Interaction, Tradition, and Renewal: The
Hen 35(1/2013)
sis as a plausible conclusion that can be drawn from the study of these two
inter-related textual corpora.
For the sake of clarity I will first present the underlying hypothesis in this
essay, in which I will trace some tentative insights on some questions raised
after reading together the extraordinary books by M. Casey, and G. W. E.
Nickelsburg and J. C. VanderKam:
First, can the Book of Parables (BP) be read as a Jewish reply to the
ideological assumption of the first Jewish-Christians who dared to reinter-
pret Jesus – in spite of his death on the cross – as the preexistent celestial
Messiah, as the Anointed One, the Chosen One, and the Suffering Servant
of YHWH? Their assumptions seems to be the ideological assumptions of the
“Petrine” theology recorded in Acts and the Hellenistic Jewish-Christian the-
ology from Damascus and Antioch.
Second: Would it be likewise possible that the theology developed by
Mark, Matthew, and Luke about Jesus as “the Son of the Man” is a vehicle of
a Jewish-Christian response to the authors of BP, following Paul’s theology
of the cross?
Third: would it be possible, furthermore, that Chapter 71, added to the
bulk of BP, was intentionally reduced to silence in the Book of Revelation?
The Jewish-Christian author of the latter emphatically affirms that only Jesus
is the Son of the Man, the Suffering Servant of YHWH (the Lamb sacrificed
on Easter), the Anointed One, the Son of David, the Universal Judge of the
Kings and the Mighty (the Roman Empire). Could it be that John’s Revela-
tion, therefore, is the last New Testament response to the Jewish pretensions
of applying the brakes (Chapter 71 of BP) to the Christian process of heroi-
zing and divinizing Jesus?
Fourth: could it also be that, in agreement with the literary habits of the
time, these answers were not direct, but indirect ones? Responses need not
mention the adversary’s conceptions, nor need they be a direct refutation
of these. Refutations often consisted in the composition of a new work that
endorsed new perspectives. The reader, nevertheless, knew perfectly well
against whom such new perspectives were directed. In the mid-first century
C.E., prior to the Jewish Revolt against Rome, different groups of pious, mar-
Howard Gilman International Conferences I Delphi, 18-24 June, 1995, ed. A. Ovadiah (Tel
Aviv: Tel Aviv University/Ramot, 1998), pp. 93-122; A. Piñero, ed., Biblia y Helenismo: El
pensamiento griego y la formación del cristianismo (Córdoba: El Almendro, 2006); P. Sacchi,
Apocrifi dell’Antico Testamento (2 vols.; Turin: Unione Tipografica - Editrice Torinese, 1981-
1989); id., The History of the Second Temple Period (2nd ed.; London: T&TClark International,
2004); M.E. Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra (Hermeneia;
Minneapolis: Fortress,1990); D.W. Suter, “Weighed in the Balance: The Similitudes of Enoch
in Recent Discussion,” RelSRev 7 (1981), pp. 217-21. G.W.E. Nickelsburg - J.C. VaderKam, 1
Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 37-82 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis:
Fortress, 2011). In Nickelsburg’s and VanderKam’s commentary the reader will find a very
complete and updated bibliography.
ginal Jews of apocalyptic mentality seem to have defended their own ideas of
how the Messiah should be. Yet the new Jewish-Christian theology exceeded
the inner limits of Judaism and was judged impossible to accept, since it lead to
ditheism. The process of Jesus’ divinization, which is totally clear in the Fourth
Gospel, produced moments of very serious tension between Jewish-Christians
and both mainstream and marginal pious Jews, especially apocalyptic Jews.
Around the times in which the Gospel of Matthew was composed (85-90 C.E.)
it lead to the separation between Jewish and Jewish-Christians groups and tur-
ned out to be intolerable for the Jews at the end of the century.
A possible scenario
as a prophet and revealer of the mysteries of the end times. As the Enochic
corpus demonstrates, the lineaments of this figure had been already develo-
ped by earlier apocalyptic groups.
B. Between the years 30-40 C.E., a new apocalyptic group arose whose
hero was not Enoch but the almost unknown rabbi Jesus of Nazareth, killed
by the Romans but resurrected by God. Some of the Jesus’ first followers,
independent members of the Jewish-Christian church of Jerusalem, and espe-
cially the Jewish-Christian Hellenists of Damascus and Antioch, began to
construct a solid re-interpretation of Jesus as Messiah. They formulated a
Christology, which would produce Jesus’ heroization and later divinization.
Such new theology extracted Jesus out of the human sphere to place him dan-
gerously into the area of the divine. Inspired by the Spirit, as they themselves
believed to be, the members of this new apocalyptic group had dared to create
a new messianology relying on the belief that Jesus’s death was according to
a divine, eternal plan, and that Jesus had revived after his death in the cross.
The Spirit had revealed to them that a new, inspired reading of the scrip-
tures would help them discover this new divine plan for salvation. Jesus,
who had inaugurated the messianic age, was considered rather quickly to be
the only Messiah, the real Son of David, the Anointed One, the Chosen, the
Prophet, the universal Judge, the agent of God’s kingdom. He began to be
regarded as the real embodiment of the “one like a son of man” predicted in
the book of Daniel. For his followers, Jesus, the definitive messianic figure,
appeared in the fullness of the times.
It was not necessary for the moment (i.e., between 30-50 C.E.), however,
to theologically define whether the expression “son of man” (“the Son of the
Man” in Greek) was a strict messianic title that could be used to name the
Savior. Such expression pointed to a heavenly figure and this was enough.
Jewish-Christians were also claiming that, in his earthly life, Jesus himself
had already applied this expression to his own person. Jesus was the Messiah,
but a new one, a Suffering-Triumphant Messiah, and the universal Eschatolo-
gical Judge. This interpretation of Jesus was in fact very dangerous, since it
lead to an equally dangerous ditheism. There was “in heaven not one Power,
but two,” although the Second was subordinated to the First.
C. The Enochians reacted in an indirect but forceful way, according to the
style of the times. They did not compose a direct refutation of these senseless
Jewish-Christian pretensions, as they viewed them, but created a new work
which expressed a different perspective on the Messiah, although theirs is
Jewish outlook as well: the concluding in chapter 70 of BP. Their response
was based upon very ancient material, the Book of the Watchers, re-read and
reinterpreted by them on a traditional scheme of revelatory visions from God
or his angels. This was a very old scheme which is already found in Ez 40-48.
In BP Enoch appears as a human being, a son of man, but raised to a
semi-divine status as the Chosen One, the Anointed One, the Universal Judge
of the living and the dead and the vindicator of the righteous and chosen of
Israel. His function and “name” was foreseen and created by God before he
created the universe. In this work, which followed the steps of the book of
Daniel, there was no danger of ditheism, for Enoch is in BP a mere human
being, albeit we are told he had the face of an angel. For the Enochians, he
was the personification of the human assistant and agent of God, and in his
function he did not exceed the limits of Israel’s hopes.4
D. After having knowledge of this new Enochic writing, the Jewish-Chri-
stians reacted by intensifying Jesus’ divine predicates and by composing a
“biographical” story of Jesus in a new literary mold, a gospel, which cer-
tainly extended its influence among them quickly. It was Mark who initiated
this process of identifying Jesus still more clearly as the Danielic Son of
Man, to whom God had granted divine qualities. That seems to be clear in
Mark 14:61ff. Everything about this divine decision was revealed before-
hand in the Scriptures by God’s Spirit, and could be readily deduced from
them by reading them between the lines. This new literary, biographical, and
theological work was thought to be a full and concrete specification of Jesus’
figure as Son of David, Prophet, Anointed One, “Son of Man” (in Greek),
Universal Judge, and the Incarnation of Wisdom. As incarnation of Wisdom
he was regarded as both preexistent and divine. This Jewish-Christian reac-
tion to the Enochic Messianology was rather successful and quite promptly
found its followers in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Thus we can affirm
that between 70-95 C.E. the expression “one like a son of man” evolved into
a strict messianic title, “The Son of the Man” (with two articles in Greek).
Nevertheless, it was only shortly after this that Jesus’ full figure as preexi-
sting and divine appeared within the Christian movement. In no more than
twenty years, the Prologue to John’s Gospel was composed and published.
Surprisingly, far from going back to earlier positions, Jewish-Christians radi-
cals went even further forward: there were, in fact, “two Powers in heaven”5.
4
Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 39.
5
See J. Marcus, Mark 8-16: A new Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AYB;
New Haven: Yale Universidad, 2009), 1009: “Philo (On Dreams 2.129-131; Decalogue 61-69;
Embassy to Gaius 353, 357, 367-368) denounces as blasphemers those who claim to be like God,
who give the Creator and the creature equal honor, or who “worship those who are our brothers
by nature,” though he is able, nonetheless to refer to the Logos as a second God. In b. Sanh. 38b,
similarly, R. Jose denounces R. Aqiba for profaning the divine presence by interpreting the plural
“thrones” in Dan 7:9 as a reference to the Messiah’s enthronement beside God. In y. Ta’an. 2:1
(65b; Neusner, 18.183) R. Abahu condemns any person who claims to be a god, to be the Son of
Man, or to go up to heaven. This sort of stretching of biblical monotheism is linked with the motif
of someone besides God sitting in heaven in 3 En. 16:2-3: “When he saw me seated upon a throne
like a king, with ministering angels standing beside me as servants’,” he opened his mouth and
said, ‘There are indeed two powers in heaven!’” (cf. b. Ḥag. 15a; Gen. Rab. 65.21; Alexander, “3
Enoch,” 54-66; “Family,” 292). 3 Enoch and the rabbinic traditions postdate the NT, but the same
idea is expressed in a Qumran text, 11Q17 (11QShirShabb) 7:4 “In his glorious shrines they do
not sit” (my trans.; cf. Newsom, Songs, pp. 308-309). This proscription has to do with the notion
that inferiors stand while superiors sit (cf. Mark 4:1; 10:37).”
It did not matter whether mainstream Jews could understand this theology
as a strong case of ditheism. It was after all already present in Philo Judaeus.
E. Enoch’s followers reacted in turn by affirming once more that the pree-
xisting Son of Man was not Jesus, but Enoch. The support of this contention
was the composition of a powerful appendix to BP, Chapter 71, added to the
bulk of the writing. For the Enochic Jews Enoch was not a new, second God.
He could be human and divine simultaneously, without contradiction6.
F. As far as we know, the last first-century C.E. Jewish-Christian reaction
to the Enochians is John’s Revelation. According to its author, Jesus was the
Son of David, the Anointed One/the Messiah, the Son of Man (an expression
that he interprets as a messianic title), the Suffering Servant of YHWH (i.e.,
the Lamb sacrificed in Easter), the only Son of God subordinated as such to
the Father, and the universal Judge who would finally destroy the mighty and
the kings, namely, the Roman Empire.
G. But let me insist upon what seems to me essential for my argument. A
direct refutation was not the Jewish standard in polemical texts of this time.
A direct response to the arguments of the adversary, one by one, was not as
usual as the presentation in a new book of the same motif addressed from a
different perspective. It was by no means necessary to write a direct, concrete
story in opposition to a similar story7. Let me give two examples of this:
(a) Two passages from the book of Wisdom, namely 2:23-3:10 and
6:18. These were probably composed as a reply to Qohelet 3:21-22 and
8:15; that is, they were probably written against the Preacher, but neither
mentioning him nor in the manner of a direct refutation.
(b) The composition of John’s Gospel. The relationship between the
Synoptics and John is disputed, but it seems impossible to me that the
author of the Fourth Gospel did not know the Synoptic Gospels at all or
at least some Synoptic material. Its author implicitly refutes the Synoptic
views on Jesus which he considered to be “material,” i.e., not spiritual
or pneumatic, without mentioning them (Clement of Alexandria dixit ac-
cording to Eusebios of Caesarea, who accepts the notice on John from
Clement’s Hypotyposeis or Adumbrationes; see Eusebius, Eccesiastical
History VI 14.7). In short, John proceeds by omissions and allusions,
he sets forth complementary stories and composes new Jesus’ speeches
6
Cf. 4Q246 (4Q540?), 11Q13Mel, where there seems to be contradiction between these
two attributes. But see also Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 52, referring to 1 En 51:1-
5 + 61:5 /39:4-5: “The scenario in both passages, 51:1-5 + 61:5, appears to stand in blatant
contradiction to 39:4-5.”
7
Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 3 do not seem to be aware of this when they
write: “Like the Epistle BP is set in a time of political, social and economic oppression; but
different from the Epistle, BP does not indicate that the author and his audience belong to a
group that contrasts itself with other Jews whose religious practice (and belief) they consider
to be in error…”. See further p. 57.
H. If, as a hypothesis, we presuppose a late date (ca. 50 C.E.) for BP, his
author would have had a similar attitude to that of the Fourth Gospel author
or editor. His reply to the Christian authors would have been more or less as
follows: “You, Christians, contend that your Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, is
the real Son of Man; conversely we Jews claim with equally good or better
arguments that the Son of Man was, and is, the prophet Enoch.” The twofold
composition of the Similitudes of Enoch (BP + chap. 71 afterwards) was
the Enochic answer to the Jewish-Christian messianic claims, but it was not
construed as a direct refutation in so far as its potential readers knew well its
target.
I cannot give here an absolute demonstration or proof of this hypothe-
sis and scenario, which could probably help to understand the relationship
between BP and the New Testament, since such a task would very likely
require a complete monograph! Yet it is possible to offer at last some indica-
tions in favor of its fairness:
8
For a thorough-going assessment of the Fourth Gospel’s critique of the Synoptic Gospels see
J. Harold Ellens, The Son of Man in the Gospel of John (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2009).
9
See the correspondences and contrasts provided in Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 13, 56, as well
as those provided in Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 79.
I.
and no other, was the Messiah, the Son of Man. He knew in advance God’s
plan about the need of his suffering, death and resurrection as the suffering
Servant of YHWH (Mark 8:27-29; 9; 10). He also knew that his appointment
as Messiah made him divine and guaranteed him a seat at the right hand of
the Father, or to stand before Him (Acts 7:56). As a consequence of his divine
designation, Jesus was entrusted by God to perform the role of supreme Jud-
ge at the divine Judgment after his second and definitive coming (Mark 14:62
+ Matt 25:31-46, though there is no second coming in John. Moreover in the
Fourth Gospel, 5:27-47, Jesus insists he will not act as judge or prosecutor).
Most New Testament scholars suppose that, to a great extent, the featu-
res of the Son of Man figure remain unchanged in the Gospels, especially
in the Synoptic Gospels, which in their view drew upon the Similitudes of
Enoch. There Jesus is presented as the Son of Man (taken as a messianic
title), the Righteous One, the Servant of YHWH, the Chosen One, the Davi-
dic Messiah, the Anointed One, the preexisting Judge who will punish the
sinners together with the rebellious angels and will reward the righteous,
resurrecting them to live in a transformed land. It has been argued that “BP
is deservedly considered to be a link between Daniel’s prophecy and the
New Testament”10.
This kind of argument supposes that in the first century C.E. there existed
among the Jews a clear and universal conscience of the existence of a hea-
venly messianic figure alluded to in several writings as the Son of Man. Jesus
simply claimed that he was such a figure. This position has been defended
by arguing first,
(A) An early, high, pre-Christian date for BP; and
(B) The existence in BP of a “Son of Man Concept” which would translate
into a messianic title; that is, the messianic title “Son of Man” existed as
such before the appearance of Christianity and every pious Jew knew and
understood it without problem.
(A) One of the supporters of a pre-Christian date for BP is Paolo Sacchi,
who dates it back to the year 30 B.C.E. The argument in his book The Histo-
ry of Israel in the Second Temple Period, runs as follows: The figure of the
Son of Man as such comes certainly from Daniel’s book, but now it is a real
autonomous figure that is identified as Enoch (1Hen 71,14) and is declared
Messiah (1 Hen 52,4). “Son of Man,” therefore, seems to be a title that ap-
plies to a mysterious and superhuman figure that has Messianic functions and
that the Similitudes identifies with Enoch, probably in an added fragment, but
surely not of a Christian hand (1En [LP] 71,14).
My first suggestion in this essay would be: the reasons for sustaining (A)
BP’s early date and (B) that “Son of Man” figures in BP as title are far from
being convincing, and are probably erroneous.
10
Aranda Pérez - García Martínez - Pérez Fernández, Literatura intertestamentaria, p. 280.
Regarding A)
The first argument to date BP before the common era is an erroneous
interpretation of 1 En 56:5-7:
“5 And in those days the angels will gather together, and will throw
themselves towards the east upon the Parthians and Medes; they will stir
up the kings, so that a disturbing spirit will come upon them, and they
will drive them from their thrones; and they will come out like lions from
their lairs, and like hungry wolves in the middle of their flocks. 6 And
they will go up and trample upon the land of my chosen ones, and the
land of my chosen ones will become before them a tramping ground and
a beaten track. 7 But the city of my righteous ones will be a hindrance to
their horses, and they will stir up slaughter amongst themselves and their
own right will be strong against them”11.
It is normally assumed that this text refers to the invasion of the Parthians
in 40 B.C.E.; according to Sacchi, exactly ten years before the composition of
BP. It is legitimate to think that, if such a little time has passed, the historical
account provided in BP should be very precise. But it is not. The argument,
therefore, does not seem to me convincing for the following reasons:
First, the text refers to Parthians and the Medes, not just to the Parthians.
It is possible, therefore, to argue that the passage alludes to a group of tra-
ditional enemies of Israel, living in diverse epochs. Conversely, according
to Flavius Josephus (Ant. 14.330 and Bell. 1.248), the Parthians were those
who invaded Israel in 40 B.C.E.
Second, BP speak of “kings” in plural, when in fact there was no king
among the invaders: they were lead by a son of the Persian king, Pacorus,
and a satrap, Barzafranes, both of whom were Persians/Parthians. Jerusalem
was not fortified in a special way against them, and indeed the city proved
not a serious impediment for the invading army, at least not for the claimant
Antigonus, who, after recruiting some followers among the Jews, entered the
city with relative facility and launched some skirmishes from inside against
the troops of Fasael, Herod’s brother.
When the Parthians managed to attract Fasael to a mortal trap, a small
detachment of the Parthian cavalry stayed before the walls and fought against
Herod, who was still inside the city. Herod, knowing that the country was full
of Jewish adversaries, that is, of Antigonus’ supporters and of Parthians in-
vaders who up to the moment had plundered the land but had scarcely fought
seriously, left the city without any battle and fled toward Masada and Petra…
In any case, if there was some struggle, it was against a skirmish of Jews who
uselessly tried to prevent Herod’s retreat.
Therefore, I do not see in BP 56:5-7 any certain allusion to 40 B.C.E. In
my opinion the author of this text is thinking of the last battle against Israel
11
Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch, 2:140.
conducted by the kings of the earth. The author is drawing his inspiration
from Ez 38 and 39. The Parthians and the Medes, the most powerful kings of
his time are representing Gog and Magog. In this text however, the kings are
not taking their impulse from God, as in Ez 38:14-17, but from angels as in
Dan 10:13ff. With D. W. Suter, therefore, I rather think that the controversial
passage is an atemporal and an ahistoric reference to the ancient motive of
the attacked Sion, as it is reflected, for example, in Psalms 48:2-8 and 76:2-7.
See, for instance, the Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah and its references in 2:42-
43 to the war waged in the last days between the Persian and the Assyrian
Kings in Jerusalem.12
The second argument in favor of BP early, pre-Christian date is BP 67:8-
13:
“8 And in those days those waters will serve the kings and the mighty and
the exalted, and those who dwell upon the dry ground, for the healing of
soul and body, but (also) for the punishment of the spirit. And the spirits
are(so) full of lust that will be punished in their bodies, for they denied
the Lord of Spirits. And they see their punishment everyday, yet they do
not believe in his name. 9 And the more their bodies are burnt, the more
a change will come over their spirits for ever and ever; for no one can
speak an idle word before the Lord of Spirits. 10 For judgment will come
upon them, for they believe in the lust of their bodies but deny the spirit
of the Lord. 11 And those same waters will undergo a change in those
days; for when those angels are punished in those days the temperature of
those springs of water will change, and when the angels come up (from
the water), that water of the springs will change and will become cold. 12
And I heard the holy Michael answering and saying: ‘This judgment with
which the angels are judged is a testimony for the kings and the mighty
who possess the dry ground. 13 For these waters of judgment (serve) for
the healing of the bodies of the kings, and for the lust of their bodies; but
they do not see and do not believe that these waters will change, and will
become a fire which burns forever”13
“But though he (Herod) was suffering greater misery than could well be
endured, he still had hopes of recovering, and so he summoned his physi-
cians and made up his mind to use whatever remedies they might suggest.
He therefore crossed the river Jordan and took baths in the warm springs
at Callirrhoe, the water of which beside all their other virtues are also
good to drink… And when his physicians decided to warm his body there
and had seated him in a tub of (warm) oil he looked to them as though he
had passed away. But he was brought round by the cries of lamentation
12
See H. P. Houghton, “The Coptic Apocalyse of Elijah,” Aegyptus 39 (1939), pp. 43-67.
13
Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch, 2:157-8.
uttered by his servants, and since he had not the slightest hope of being
restored to health he gave orders to distribute fifty drachmas apiece to all
his soldiers… Then he once more came to Jericho” (Trans. by R. Marcus
[Loeb Classical Library] 8:451).
had ascended into heaven (BP 70:2; not 70,1!). There is no direct, verbal
contact between the Wisdom of Solomon and BP in these passages. Con-
sequently one may argue that both authors thought independently of Enoch
as the prototype of the righteous human being carried off by God, since this
was a common concept understood by any Jew who had read or listened to
the recitation of the book of Genesis (5:18-24) hundreds of times. Therefore,
Wisdom 4:10-15 can be inspired by Gen 5 rather than by BP.
The fourth argument is as follow. After a comparison of the “Son of
Man” theology in BP with the “Son of Man” Christology of the Synoptic Go-
spels, one discovers that in the first we have a theology in progress, whereas
in the Gospels this theology is already well developed and fixed. Therefore,
taking for granted the axiom that, in any ideological construction, the sim-
plest form always precedes the more complex one, a usual, chronological
norm in Formgeschichte studies, it is deduced that BP predates the Synoptic
Gospels. Hence BP was written in the first century B.C.E. One could be in ac-
cord with this argument, but, in good logic, such argument would only prove
that BP is pre-Synoptic, not that BP was composed in the times of Herod,
i.e., ca. 40 B.C.E! (see also Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 60-63).
Apart from the fact that this formgeschichtliche “norm” is neither fixed nor
even generally accepted or applied, the argument presupposes what must be
proved. Consider, for example, the complexity and tediousness of many of
Jesus’ miracle narratives in Mark later lightened, simplified and synthesized
by Matthew.
II.
No other fully convincing arguments have been raised against the as-
sumption that BP was probably composed in the mid-first century C.E.15 This
assumption relies on one complementary argument, which is not at all new.
Its strength consists of supporting the previous ones: No BP fragments have
been discovered at Qumran.
This very well-known argument, hoisted by many experts, seems to me
decisive for dating BP after 68 C.E. more in fact than any of the other afore-
mentioned arguments. The import of what we now label as “1 Enoch” was
considerable for the Qumran “librarians.” Among the texts found at Qumran,
there are, at least, fragments of eleven manuscripts that cover all the pre-
vious works assembled in 1 Enoch. So the only exception is BP (Knibb; Ni-
ckelsburg). Such a high number of manuscripts devoted to 1 Enoch indicates
the extreme importance ascribed to this work by the Qumran sectarians. If BP
15
Nicklesburg, 1 Enoch 2, p. 4: “We cannot place the text and its author’s social context in
the exact time and place that are often the (d)elusive goal of our scholarly quest”. In pp. 62-63:
“I date the Parables between the latter part of Herod’s [the Great] reign and the early decades of
the first century c.e., with some preference for the earlier part of this time span”.
had existed towards 30 B.C.E. (Sacchi’s date), that is to say, ca. 100 years be-
fore the destruction of the settlement in 68 C.E., there should have been found
traces of its text. In my opinion, therefore, it would be more likely to date BP
in the first century C.E., and even more likely to date it in its second half; the
opposite seems to me much more unlikely. It has been argued that the absence
of certain Enochic documents from Qumran (BP included) could be the result
of sectarian censorship due to the existence of possible internal, ideological
conflicts within the Essene movement concerning the primitive history of the
sect. It could be so. Likewise, J. J. Collins claims that the absence of many
important works from the Qumran library only proves that, as a matter of fact,
certain writings were not included in it. Strictly speaking, it can be so. But, in
my opinion, in ancient history-making we must admit hints as hints, and even
more so if they are cumulative. The fact that BP is absent from Qumran is only
a mere hint, but this unquestionable reality joins the set of hints that point to
the weakness of the arguments that support a pre-Christian date.
Synthesis up to the moment:
- It seems to me that there are no powerful reasons to regard BP as pre-
Christian (pace Sacchi and many others, Nickelsburg included).
- It seems to me much more reasonable to date BP ca. 50 C.E., certainly
before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. The similarities between the
theological atmosphere of BP and that of the Hellenistic Jewish-Christian
theology from Damascus and Antioch, the genuine Pauline letters writ-
ten between 51-58 C.E. and presupposing Jesus’ preexistence, the Jewish
apocalyptic works composed at the end of the first century C.E. (2 Baruch
and 4 Ezra: an a fortiori argument), and the book of the Wisdom (ca. 50
C.E.) support this view.
the new group was to give a satisfying explanation to the scandal of Jesus’
death on the cross. This explanation could only be sought in the Scriptures,
i.e., in God’s word. Yet prior to the time of the Messianic advent, the Spirit
had not revealed a right understanding of God’s plans. The Christians’ claims
were ignored because of what was judged to be a defective reading of the
Law and the Prophets.
The ideal and programmatic scene painted in Luke 24 clearly explains
this process. Luke tries to say that Jesus’ followers had found in the Scrip-
tures the solution to the mystery of the cross thanks to the inspiration of the
Spirit coming from the living Jesus: “He said to them: Oh, fools and slow of
heart to believe all that the Prophets have spoken; Ought not Christ to have
suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses
and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things
concerning himself”. Acts 3:18-19 expresses it as follows: “But those things,
which God before had showed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ
should suffer, he hath so fulfilled. Repent ye therefore, and be converted,
that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come
from the presence of the Lord”. There was, therefore, a divine plan which the
disciples had not properly understood, in spite of three Passion and Resur-
rection predictions! It was necessary that the Messiah suffered and that he be
raised before his immediate coming as the agent who would establish God’s
kingdom. This suffering Messiah, seemingly failed, had been resurrected by
God and was now seated at God’s right hand, according to a divine plan for
the salvation for mankind.
Luke 24:19 (“Jesus of Nazareth who was a mighty prophet in deed and
words before God and all the people…”), together with some other passages
such as Acts 3:22 (“For Moses said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord
your God raise up unto you and unto your brethren, like me; him shall ye
hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you”) make us think that some
members of the group considered Jesus to be a messianic prophet with simi-
lar features to the prophets of Israel. Nevertheless, most of them saw Jesus
simply as the Messiah, with the special connotation of having suffered death
and having been resurrected: “This Jesus has God raised up, whereof we all
are witnesses… Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God
hath made that same Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ”
(Acts 2: 32, 36).16
These expressions of Peter in Acts allow us to understand that for the
early Jewish-Christian community Jesus was a mere human being, an excep-
tional one indeed, a prophet, a miracle worker, a preacher of the coming
of the Kingdom, but a mere human being as any other one.17 Nevertheless,
because of his divinely acted resurrection, this man had been exalted to the
16
See in general on that matter, M. Barker, The Risen Lord: The Jesus of History as the
Christ of Faith (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996); L.W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to
Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2003).
17
See Ellens, Op. Cit., on the Synoptic Jesus (note 7).
status of “Lord and Messiah,” that is, God has disposed that he would finally
be able to finish his mission on earth as Lord and Messiah. Jesus somehow
belonged already to God’s area. He was God’s assistant or agent and he could
be like Elijah, the prophet Enoch or Melchizedek. At the appointed time,
this Messiah would come down from heaven as the messianic Judge of the
twelve tribes of Israel and the whole world, to establish God’s Kingdom.
Because the Messiah, according to the common Jewish faith, had to be the
Son of David (Mark 12:35-37), Jesus was told that he had not been born in
Nazareth but in Bethlehem, which was David’s city (Matt 1-2; Luke 1-2), and
two different genealogies were formed to prove Jesus’ Davidic origin (Matt
1:1-18/Luke 3:23-38).
The news that Jesus, the Messiah, should come soon to the earth to con-
clude his mission ought to be announced to everyone. All the Jews had to join
this belief. The formation of the new Messianic congregation was therefore
equal to the formation of the true Israel which would be well prepared for
the establishment of the Kingdom, the end of all oppression of Israel, and the
triumph of the righteous. Acts 2 tell us that the first expansion of the Christian
faith took place at Pentecost, fifty days after Jesus’ death, among diaspora
Jews, from foreign lands. They were called “Hellenists” because their mother
tongue was Greek rather than Aramaic or Hebrew. They had a different menta-
lity not only for having been born outside of Israel but because of having been
educated in a Greek cultural environment. Nevertheless, these Hellenists were
very pious Jews; they had probably moved to Jerusalem because they hoped
that the Messiah should first appear in that city. They also hoped that if they
died they would be raised up by the Lord to take part in the messianic king-
dom, which would begin in Jerusalem. These Hellenistic Jews, who had their
own synagogues in Jerusalem (Acts 6:9), must have received with great joy
the religious program preached by Peter and his companions, which according
to Acts, signified the end of the oppression, the terrible political and religious
situation in which Israel was living. The end of all anguish would come soon,
not by the hands of men but by God’s own hand with the cooperation of Jesus,
who had been appointed Lord and Messiah after his resurrection.
Probably, the title “Son of God” was soon added to those of “Lord” and
“Messiah.” Initially, this “Son” was considered a human being adopted by
God, just as the king of Israel was adopted as God’s son in Psalms 2, 8, 110,
and later translated to the divine sphere. It is probable too that this latter no-
tion was introduced by means of certain theological categories readily avai-
lable, such as a human being changed into an angelic entity or spirit. One of
the first categories possibly used by these Jewish-Christians for re-imagining
Jesus, transformed into a semi-celestial being, was the figure of the “one like
a son of man” mentioned in the book of Daniel (Ch. 7 and 11). It was an easy
move, since Jesus had used this expression to refer to himself instead of the
troublesome “I.”
Jesus’ disciples probably thought that this symbol, translated into Greek
language as “the Son of the Man,” was not to be understood as referring to
the Jewish people as a collectivity, as had been done frequently up to that mo-
ment, but to a concrete person, Jesus of Nazareth. It is also possible that the
Jerusalem community regarded Jesus as “Lord,” “Messiah,” “Son of Man,”
and God’s agent, who would come in the future to establish God’s kingdom
and to judge the mighty and the wicked. Another mythical category used
by the same disciples could be the identification of Jesus as God’s viceroy,
sitting on his right side or standing nearby him (Acts 7,56), a viceroy whom
God had charged with a messianic task for the future.
The Hellenistic Jewish-Christian communities settled outside of Israel
were formed by the dispersion of the “Hellenists,” expelled from Jerusalem
by force by the religious authorities of the city (Acts 8:1-2). Since Greek was
the preferential language of the Jewish Hellenists, the Jesus tradition origi-
nally gathered in Aramaic were translated into Greek. This version had the
great advantage that the Jesus story could be potentially used by all the in-
habitants of the East Mediterranean countries whose common language was
Greek. No doubt that the change of language involved a change of mentality
and an alteration of the tradition itself.
I take for granted that from the very beginning the “Hebrew” Jewish-
Christian communities used the titles “Son of Man,” “Lord,” “Messiah,” and
“Son of God” to place Jesus in the sphere of the divine, but without properly
considering him God. I also suppose that it is not surprising that in a Hellenist
environment, surrounded by gentiles for whom the contact of human beings
with the divine was much easier to conceive, such titles soon acquired much
more consistency. To Pagan ears such terminology would have an overtly
divine meaning.
Another important step toward the divinization of Jesus took shape in
the liturgical meetings of the Hellenistic Jewish-Christian communities that,
prior to the appearance of Paul, worshiped Jesus as Kýrios, “Lord,” in an
absolute sense.18 That is to say, with a deeper theological density than the one
corresponding title “Lord and Messiah” used by the Palestinian community.
“The Lord,” without modifiers, i.e., in an absolute sense, was a title which
the Hebrew Bible and the Qumran Scrolls normally attributed only to God,
although there are some exceptions. The utilization of this title in the genuine
Pauline letters indicates an already well-formed use that Paul took from the
Jesus tradition (Phil 2:11; Rom 10:9; 2 Cor 4:5). That tradition had deve-
loped in the Hellenistic Jewish-Christian communities from Damascus and
Antioch, where the Apostle was converted and developed as a Christian. This
absolute and forceful language, “the Lord,” confirms a change of perspective
in the consideration of Jesus as divine, that can be distinguished from the
shy and incipient terminology that had developed within the Jerusalem “He-
brew” community. Applying to Jesus this appellative, normally reserved for
God, was a still greater indication that Jesus belonged to the divine sphere.
18
See in general James Waddell, The Messiah: A Comparative Study of the Enochic Son of
Man and the Pauline Kyrios (Edinburg, T&T Clark, 2011).
From this point it was quite easy to take the next step, i.e., to believe that
Jesus, already before his death, would have had a divine nature. The analogy
with the figure of the “divine men” of the Hellenistic culture was of great
help, no mater whether this figure existed as such or was only a rather nebu-
lous concept. We certainly know that the Pagans believed that certain men,
such as ambulant ascetics, preachers, miracle workers, healers, and mythic
heroes, had superior qualities and the ability to do amazing things in contrast
to common mortal men, since they somehow possessed a divine nature. The
same was applied to Jesus: he had to be divine prior to his death.
Initially this “Son” figure, human and divine at the same time, close to
God the Father, dead but raised up to God and sitting on God’s right hand,
greater than Melchizedek, Enoch or Elijah, must have possessed ambiguous
features. God was normally thought to be above his “Son”; the Son was su-
bordinated to the Father (subordinationism) and the Father was granted the
absolute primacy of a monarch (monarchianism). This is reflected in the New
Testament in a twofold manner. First, until John 1:1; 20:28; 2 Thess 1:12; Ti-
tus 2:13; and 2 Peter 1:1 we do not find any text where Jesus is named “God.”
One risked certain opposition to doing so. Second, the creation of the world,
the initiative of redemption, and the prayers addressed to the divinity, all go
back to God the Father, not to Jesus.
The same must have happened with the title “Lord” (Kýrios) in an abso-
lute sense: it became equal to “Son of God” later on.19 It is not strange that
this happened in Antioch as indicated in Acts 11:26, where the followers
of Jesus are first designated as “Christians.” Christians differed from main-
stream Jews in that they invoked Jesus as “Lord,” i.e., more or less as God,
thus using this appellative not only for the God of the Scriptures, but also for
his Son, Jesus. For the Christian Hellenists, the “Son of God” was a divine
being; the title “Lord” (Kýrios) expressed his high status in life and worship.
In short, between Jesus’ death (ca. April 30 C.E.) and the moment pre-
vious to the composition of the first draft of the first letter of Paul (1 Thes-
salonians, ca. 50/51 c.e.) we can observe a most remarkable progress in the
history of the Christian theology that leads to the heroization/exaltation and
divinization of Jesus. These consecutive steps are reflected with relative cla-
rity within the New Testament:
19
See Waddell, Op. Cit. in this regard.
the wicked, a figure framed within what has been called “ascent apo-
calypticism.”
20
Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, p. 68.
of Man.” His role is more that of a priest-king, which is not to say that the
Testaments develop a double-messiah notion. Such a notion is only neatly
expressed in the Qumran Scrolls.
Alexandrine Judaism around the beginning of the first century C.E. may
be regarded, on the other hand, as the ideological background of the Testa-
ments on account of the relevancy granted in them to the fulfillment of the
ancient rule requiring love to the neighbor (Lev 19:18) and given their uni-
versalism, which finds its best parallel in several Jewish-Hellenistic writings
of the period such as 4 Maccabees, Aristeas, Joseph and Asenet, and Philo.
Carlos A. Segovia, with whom I have largely discussed the present to-
pic, claims that, in contrast to 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra, there are no allusions
to the destruction of the temple in BP and thus opts to place its composition
within pre-70 Judaism. J. J. Collins also notes the absence of any reference
to the temple in BP (The Apocalyptic Imagination, 178). More recently, Ni-
ckelsburg and VanderKam have argued in the same way: “A date before 70
C.E. is almost certain. It would be odd indeed if in pseudepigraphic disguise
one predicted after 70 C.E. that the walls of Jerusalem would not be breached
by the Parthians and Medes but ignored the fact that the Romans devastated
the city. In view of the latter event, the former one would be irrelevant”.21
Nor is there in BP a theodicy similar to that of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch.
They both claim that this absence is also relevant and impossible to ignore.
Whatever it could possibly be, the existing conceptual parallelisms and cor-
respondences between these three writings (BP, 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra), these
differences have to be taken into consideration. In the opinions of the authors
cited, these differences seem to indicate that the contexts and perhaps also
the periods of composition are altogether different.
Apparently, these contrasts speak against BP’s “post-synoptic” date,
though not against a date in the mid-first century C.E. On the other hand, they
form a single argument inasmuch as the theodicy of 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra is
substantially joined to the topic of the temple destruction in 70 C.E. I would
suggest, however, that BP can be read as a reply to a different and extremely
serious problem which also deserved an outright answer: Jewish-Christianity.
Its author focuses the challenging question raised by the Jewish-Christians,
i.e., Jesus’ divinization, joined to the Christian “Son-of-Man-as-a-messianic-
title” theology. This is why he or she obviates other possible topics.
Were the absence of any mention of the temple’s destruction and any
adjoined theodicy a conclusive argument for a pre-Christian dating of BP,
and this is my main point, the Mishna tractates Bikkurim and Temura, which
take the temple to be actually existing, would have also been composed be-
fore 70 C.E.!
Partial conclusion: apart from the fact that not even a single trace of
BP was found at Qumran, BP’s messianic theology seems to fit well into
the times when the Testaments, and especially 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra, were
21
Nickelsburg and VanderKam,1 Enoch 2, p. 60.
composed, namely, the first century C.E.; although BP does not mention the
temple’s destruction and presents no concomitant theodicy. 4 Ezra also spe-
aks of a “man,” presumably bar nash in Aramaic or ben adam in Hebrew,
whatever its original language could be. That is highly remarkable. There are
hints, therefore, that the theological environment of BP is not pre-Christian.
Its setting can be thus placed after the turn of the era, especially in the mid-
first century C.E.
In addition, it could also be argued that it is possible to conceive the se-
cond half of the first century C.E. as the scenario in which different apocalyp-
tic groups, such as the Jewish-Christians, Pauline or not, and the authors of
2 Baruch and 4 Ezra, all presenting a high Christology or at least symptoms
of what can be labeled as binitarianism, were struggling and defending their
own theological positions.
III.
22
This is the claim that lies at the heart of Ellens’ The Son of Man in the Gospel of John.
23
See my Biblia y Helenismo: Pensamiento griego y formación del cristianismo, 511.
A. Daniel 7:13
“I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like a son of man came with
the clouds of heaven, and came to the Head of Days, and they brought
him near before him”
Moreover, there is no clear reason to claim that the Son of Man in Daniel 7 is a messianic
figure; certainly he is not enthroned, pace Nickelsburg and J. J. Collins.
dance with the fact that all the extant fragments of 1 Enoch found at Qumran
are written in this language. This fact does not prevent that, in some cases,
the translators could also have used a Greek text. This would explain certain
mistakes in the Ethiopic version that can be easily explained if it is born in
mind that, in those cases, the base language could be that of a Greek text26.
In general, the hypothetical Aramaic text lying behind the three Ethiopian
expressions (walda sab’e; walda be’esi or walda ‘eguala’ emmaheiaw) must
always be reconstructed as bar (’)nash(’). This is the only reasonable possi-
bility according to the context in which the three variant sentences appear in
the Ethiopic translation, though it is not always possible to explain the exact
reason for such variants. It has been supposed that there could have been
several translators. Conversely, if the translators had in mind a fixed Christo-
logical title already existing as such in Greek (ho huiòs toû antrôpou), such
variants are difficult to explain, not to speak of the different demonstrative
adjectives used in each.
Casey reconstructs, and comments as follows on, the Aramaic text behind
the Ge‘ez:
- 46:1-3, in an explicit but indirect way, not naming him, the passage
refers to Enoch’s individual figure, which has the following featu-
res: he is the righteous par excellence; he is the revealer of all divine
treasuries and mysteries; he is the Chosen One and the strongest one
before the Lord of Spirits. Accordingly, he is designated as “this or
that son of man”.
- 48:2-7: “The name of ‘this son of man’ is named before the Lord of
Spirits.” This means that his name exists before the creation of the
universe; he is the Chosen One, the Support of the righteous and the
Light to the gentiles.
- 61:8: “This son of man” is the Chosen One and the eschatological Judge.
- 62:5-9: The mighty, the powerful and the exalted on earth will be terri-
fied when they come to see “that son of a woman” sitting in the Jud-
ge’s throne (v. 5). “From of old this son of man was hidden… and the
Most High revealed him to the elect (v. 7). “That son of man” (v. 9).
- 69:26-29: The primacy in God’s Judgment is granted to “that son of
man,” whose name was revealed to the elect. That son of man has
appeared and sits on his glorious throne. “And He (God) will go and
speak to ‘that son of man’ and he (‘this son of man’) will be strong
before the Lord of Spirits.”
- 70:1 “And after this, while he was living, his name was lifted up into
the presence of that son of man, and into the presence of the Lord of
the Spirits.”
considerations, I work from the hypothesis of an Aramaic (most likely) original of the Parables,
translated into Greek, and from Greek into Ethiopic” (p. 33).
26
See the 10 suggested cases in F. Corriente - A. Piñero, Apócrifos del Antiguo Testamento
IV 26.
It seems clear that the case here is of a concrete person, not of a title. Ca-
sey’s conclusion on the Similitudes is fundamental to my argument:
“In the vision of Ch. 46, before the description which would alert devotees
of Enoch to the identity of the son of man figure, he is first of all described
in more mysterious terms with some reminiscences of Dan. 7.13. This is
where the term bar (’)nash(’) was originally drawn from. Throughout
the Similitudes, this term (’)nash(’) was used in accordance with normal
Aramaic usage as an ordinary term for ‘man’. In every case, something
makes clear reference back to the original appearance of this figure at the
beginning of ch. 46. Much the commonest device is the anaphoric use of a
demonstrative. It follows that this work, The Similitudes, does not provide
evidence of a ‘Son of Man Concept’. It is however the central work on
which the existence of this figure has been based”27.
C. Casey aptly argues that 4 Ezra 13 has also been traditionally used as
evidence for the existence of a “Son of Man Concept.” But this work must
be dated ca. 100 C.E., so it requires the support of earlier works to be taken
seriously as evidence for a “Son of Man Concept” already existing by the
time of Jesus. This is Casey’s final analysis:
Ezra (AAT I 335, footnote 109) the commentary of the translator/editor, which
is normally good, reads as follows:
“La visión sexta es un testimonio de finales del siglo I del empleo de la figu-
ra de el Hijo del hombre de Dn 7 con los siguientes elementos: a) El Hijo del
hombre es el mesías (13,26: aquél a quien el Altísimo reserva); b) El Hijo
del hombre es el “Hijo” de Dios o el “Servidor de Yahvé” (13,32.37). Véan-
se las notas a estos lugares; c) Sale de lo profundo del mar para indicar su
origen misterioso (13,52); d) Viene sobre las nubes del cielo (13,3) para mo-
strar su identificación con la figura daniélica; e) Vence en el combate esca-
tológico (13,33-38.49); e) Restaura las doce tribus de Israel (13,39-50)”.
I will not spend time in the analysis of other passages as Tg. Ps. 8:5 or
Tg. Ps. 104:14-15, occasionally endorsed by some scholars to reinforce the
idea that in first-century Judaism the expression “Son of Man” worked as a
messianic title. A careful examination shows that these two targumim use the
term bar(‘) nash(‘) as a generic designation for the human being.
M. Casey’s general conclusion deserves to be quoted at this juncture:
“Although the Parables employ ‘Son of Man’ as a designator for the mes-
sianic… judge and they allude to a figure known from Daniel 7, they do
not employ the expression as a formal messianic title nor do they indica-
te that ‘Son of Man’ was a traditional messianic title. To quote Sjöberg:
‘There is a heavenly entity that is thought of as a heavenly human being,
and after it has been seen in chap. 46, this heavenly entity can be desi-
gnated as ‘that son of man’, or only ‘the son of man’ and (it) is thereby
adequately specified. In this context it can be named ‘the son of man’, and
one knows what is being spoken of’” (my emphasis).
“The term ‘Son of Man’ never occurs in the writings of Paul; the Semitic
expression would not have been understood by Paul’s Gentile audience.
Nonetheless, at least two Pauline passages reflect the Apostles’ knowled-
ge of an early stage of Synoptic Son of Man tradition: first Thessalonians
1:10; 4:13-18…. This Pauline description is followed immediately by an
admonition to vigilance, which also echoes Synoptic Son of Man tradi-
tions of (5:1-11). In 1 Cor 15:23-28, Paul argues from Christ’s resurrec-
tion to the Christians’ resurrection at the manifestation of the parousia…
Paul’s special nuance interprets the Danielic nouns to refer to angelic
powers…. Different from Daniel 7, the enthronement here envisioned is
33
Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, p. 113.
temporary; final kingly ruled will belong to God… The subduing of death
parallels the references to resurrection… in 1 Enoch 51-62… Other Pau-
line texts refer to the judicial function of Christ (2 Cor 5-10 and Rom 2:1-
11,16), where Christ is the agent of the judgment first ascribed to God.”34
about Jesus what they already knew by tradition, though probably not with
so much precision, of Enoch.
Yet there was no need for the author of BP to focus his reply on Jesus,
since the falsehood of his proclaimed messianism was evident to any pious
Jew: he had died on the cross.
IV.
In sum up to moment:
1. There is no convincing argument against the view that BP was probably
composed in the mid-first century c.e.
2. Nor was there a Son of Man concept prior to Mark’s Gospel. In Mark
14:65 the use of the expression as messianic title is extremely clear. There-
fore no messianic figure had carried such title up to that moment. But these
conclusions also raise a difficult question. On the one hand, in the Aramaic
of the time of Jesus:
a) There is only evidence for a “normal” use of the expression “son of
man,” either in undetermined/indefinite state or in a definite/determinate
state, since it is a generic expression36 meaning “human being” and also a
specific designation for a concrete human being. In Aramaic such a term
is normally used when the speaker wants to designate himself as a human
being in special circumstances, e.g. in an ironical or humiliating manner,
which prove applicable to any other human being as well. Hence it has
been held that such term was never used as a messianic title.
b) But, on the other hand, it is obvious that, in the Synoptic Gospels,
Jesus does not always use that very term according to its normal Aramaic
use. Some times he seems to use it himself as a messianic title. Accor-
ding to the Synoptic tradition, this title expresses Jesus’ almost divine
foreknowledge, which enables him to reveal his future death and resur-
rection with all necessary details and also his future role as the divine
universal Judge (Mark 8;9;10: ). Moreover, the Synoptic Jesus does not
feel the need to explain such titular use of the Son of Man expression to
his disciples or to the people. The very same happens with the “kingdom
of God” concept, a term which Jesus never clarifies to his listeners. Does
this mean that his Jewish audience would have understood the expression
“Son of Man” as a proper messianic title, just as they were able to under-
stand the expression “Kingdom of God” without any further explanation?
There could be several possibilities to explain this odd situation:
A. The “Son of Man” concept existed before Jesus and was widely known
among pious Jews. Jesus simply indicated that he was that “Son of Man.”
36
See the 52 cases documented in Casey, The Solution to the “Son of Man” Problem, pp.
61-80.
B. The “Son of Man” concept was Jesus’ own creation, but the Synoptic
writers forgot to present any scene in which Jesus himself explained its me-
aning to his audience. The historical Jesus, as a powerful religious personality,
created this concept after Daniel 7, which he knew by heart and which he inter-
preted in light of an apocalyptic exegetical tradition that he knew equally well.
If so, the Synoptic evangelists would have faithfully transmitted his thought.
C. The “Son of Man” concept was created by the Synoptic writers by
reflecting upon real scenes such as that contained in Mark 8:27-31, which
partly contained a nucleus of historical truth, i.e., the dialogue between Jesus
and Peter, according to whom the former was in fact the Messiah; and partly
not, e.g., Jesus’ cursing Peter as Satanic and explaining to his disciples alone
[“Messianic Secret”!] that he is the Messiah.
With regard to A. As said above, we have no evidence that such a concept
existed within first-century Judaism. So this hypothesis is to be rejected. For
it is extremely improbable if we agree with the arguments developed in II
and III.
With regard to B. One cannot deny Jesus being a religious, creative genius;
nor that he used the term “Son of Man” with all the nuances that his native
Aramaic language could afford. Likewise, it cannot be excluded that Jesus fo-
resaw his own death, especially during his last trip to Jerusalem. His radical
opposition to the temple authorities, to the Herodians, to the Sadducees/Scri-
bes, his implicit refusal to pay the tax to the Caesar, an exegesis confirmed by
Luke 23:2 and accepted by many scholars after S. G. F. Brandon, his preaching
of God’s kingdom, which totally excluded the Romans, all this made his death
easily predictable. Indeed, Jesus’ religious preaching had many indirect and
direct political consequences and implied very serious risks.
As for his future resurrection, I am also sure that the historical Jesus could
have spoken about it, but not as something exceptional. The righteous and
chosen ones, and especially the assassinated martyrs who died before the
coming of the Kingdom, should be revived to take part in it. All pious Jews
believed in this. In the New Testament we have the most brilliant testimony
to this belief (Rev 20:4-6).
However, as we shall see later, none of the sentences of Jesus, whether
Synoptic or Johannine, containing the expression ho huiòs toû anthrôpou
used as a Messianic title, expresses Aramaic thought-forms. They are all
native Greek. They all express very probably, a theology that fits very well
into the post-Easter Church. Conversely, the historical Jesus ignored, very
probably too, such development.
With regard to C. That all Jesus sentences containing the expression “ho
huiòs toû anthrôpou” and predicting a suffering/triumphant messianism and/
or the assimilation of Jesus to the figure of the divine Judge awaited at the
end time are a post-Easter product of the Church has been often pointed out
in New Testament scholarship in the past hundred years. It would be non-
sense to repeat arguments surely well-known for all readers. Yet it seems
worthwhile to mention Rudolf Bultmann’s own words:
At any rate, the synoptic tradition contains no sayings in which Jesus says
he will sometime (or soon) return. Neither was the word parousía, which
denotes the “coming” of the Son of Man, ever understood in the earliest
period of Christianity as “return,” but correctly as “arrival, advent.” The
apologete Justin in the second century was the first to speak of the “first,”
prôte, as “second coming” deutera parousía (Dial. 14:8; 40:4) and of the
“coming back” pálin parousía (Dial. 118:2). And how would Jesus have
conceived the relation of his return as Son of Man to his present historical
activity? He would have had to count upon being removed from the earth
and raised to heaven before the final end, the irruption of God’s Reign, in
order to come from there on the clouds of heaven to perform his real of-
fice. But how would he have conceived his removal from the earth? As a
miraculous translation? Among his sayings there is no trace of such a fan-
tastic idea. As departure by natural death, then? Of that, too, his words say
nothing. By a violent death, then? But if so, could he account on that as an
absolute certainty – as the consciousness of being raised to the dignity of
the coming Son of Man would presuppose? To be sure, the predictions of
the passion (Mk. 8:31; 9:31; 10:33f.; cf. Mk. 10:45; 14:21, 41) foretell his
execution as divinely foreordained. But can there be any doubt that they
are all vaticinia ex eventu. Besides, they do not speak of his parousia! And
the predictions of the parousia (Mk. 8:38; 13:26f.; 14:62; Mt. 24:27, 37,
39, 44 par.) on their part, do not speak of the death and resurrection of the
Son of Man. Clearly the predictions of the parousia originally had nothing
to do with the predictions of death and resurrection; i.e. in the sayings that
speak of the coming of the Son of Man there is no idea that this Son of
Man is already here in person and must first be removed by death before
he can return from heaven.37
Briefly: all sentences announcing the death and resurrection of the Son of
man are ex-eventu prophecies. Besides, the Judge who is to come is not Jesus
but a different celestial figure that is not yet on earth. These Jesus’ “prophe-
cies” are the product of the Gospel’s author.
I think it is unnecessary to spend any more time on these well-known
arguments. For more details on the Synoptic creation of the “Son of Man”
theology I suggest the reader carefully read M. Casey’s book38. Casey regards
as authentic the following sayings: Mark 2:10; Matthew 8:19-20/Luke 9:57-
58; Luke 12:8-9/Matthew 10:32-33 + Mark 8:38; Luke 22:48 and Mark 8:31.
The exceptions he thinks are those details clearly added by the evangelist,
which must in turn be understood as indicated above, that is, as alluding
to the possible death of the martyr and to his resurrection, which is taken
37
Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, pp. 29-30.
38
The Solution to the “Son of Man” Problem, pp. 211-245.
for granted as also is that of those elect who died before the coming of the
kingdom.
Conversely, he labels as secondary the following sayings: Mark 13:26;
14:62; Matthew 10:23; 16:27; 19:28; 24:27.37.39; Luke 17-18:8 and 21:27).
The main reason for pushing back these last sentences as inauthentic
sayings of the historical Jesus is twofold:
a) They reflect Greek thought forms, with allusions to and echoes from
the LXX Greek text; and secondly
b) They seem to reflect an urgent theological need of the primitive Church.
Casey claims:
“This dominant eschatological reference was the need for it. One of the
church’s most profound needs was to believe in the second coming of
Jesus. In Matthew, we can see the creative stage of this need in full flow,
and in Mark we can see its clear beginnings”.39
The years of publication of the last two synoptic Gospels were momen-
tous for the theological and social relations between Christ-believing and
“normal” or “normative” Jews. The new messianic title applied to Jesus
reinforced his divine and mediatorial character. To be sure, this idea beca-
me intolerable to first-century mainstream Jews. It seems probable, on the
other hand, that the partings of the ways between Judaeo-Christianity and
first-century mainstream Judaism was further hastened with the publication
of the Fourth Gospel. That gospel exhibits with maximum clarity the role
of Jesus as the preexistent Logos incarnated in a human being. The Fourth
Gospel also contends that Jesus was the true “Son of Man” (John 1:51; 3:13-
15; 5:27; 6:27, 53, 62; 8:28; 9:35; 12:23, 34; 13:31-32). The creators of the
term ho huiòs toû anthrôpou were the first Greek translators of the “genuine
(Aramaic) sayings of the Lord.” They committed no mistake by choosing
this term, however. In fact, they did the best possible work.40 The chosen
translation, ho huiòs toû anthrôpou, with two articles, fulfilled the semantic
requirements of the Aramaic expression bar (’)nash(’), by which Jesus had
doubtless intended to say something about himself. He used it at the very
same time as an expression that included a more general meaning.
“They rendered bar with its precise perceived equivalent huiós, and bar
(’)nash(’) with its precise perceived equivalent anthrôpou. They had to
take a decision about whether to use Greek articles, because the original
Aramaic might use either state of (’)nash(’). They decided to use both def-
inite articles, to give the Christological title ho huiòs toû antrôpou. This
was a wonderful creative outburst, not some sort of mistake. It selected in
the target language the most important reference of the original idiom, the
reference to Jesus himself. Any other decision would have been a failure,
39
The Solution to the “Son of Man” Problem, p. 245.
40
The Solution to the “Son of Man” Problem, pp. 246-273.
because the reference to Jesus himself would have been lost, and it would
not have been in accordance with the needs of the earliest Christians. Bi-
lingual translators suffering from interference could continue to see both
original levels of meaning in their translation, because the articles could
both be interpreted generically, as the second one always must be”.41
But even though the translators leveled the way, the creator of the title ho
huiòs toû anthrôpou (“Son of Man”) was properly, both in my opinion and in
that of many other scholars, the Gospel writer Mark. He coined it:
(a) From real sentences of the historical Jesus which contained this term
devoid of any eschatological meaning, a Jesus who repeatedly thought that
his death was possible. As a pious Jew, he simultaneously believed in his
resurrection as a martyr;
(b) from the well-known eschatological references to Dan 7:13 that had
spread within the apocalyptic milieu, some of which should be regarded as
authentic and some of which should not. This can be demonstrated by the
editorial work of the evangelist on the authentic material nonetheless con-
tained in Mark 13; and
(c) from his need to construct a “messianic secret.” Likely Mark drew
upon the common Jewish notion of a hidden messiah, such as is found in BP,
where we read, for instance, that “this Son of a Man” is hidden in the bosom
of the Lord of the Spirits [48:6; 62:6-7])42. The awareness of this construction
of a “Messianic Secret” is extremely important for properly understanding
the beginnings of the Son of Man Synoptic theology. In my opinion, shared
as well by many New Testament scholars, the scene of the “Secret” (Mark
8:27-33) is the key pericope of Mark’s Gospel, and it directly concerns the
creation of the Son of Man term as Christological title. In that Gospel it ap-
pears for the first time. The construction of the “Messianic Secret” reveals
itself as a fictitious, literary creation of Mark43.
41
The Solution to the “Son of Man” Problem, p. 272.
42
Likewise, 1 En 12:1 says that Enoch was hidden and nobody knew where he was. See in
this respect Paolo Sacchi, Gesù e la sua gente (San Paolo: Milano 2003), p. 103.
43
The topic is very well known. I will simply sum up the main reasons traditionally
adduced to explain it: First, to claim a complete lack of comprehension on the part of a few
disciples regarding their Master’s messianism is both absolutely improbable and inexplicable.
Jesus was an excellent teacher, and it would have been immoral to maintain that his disciple,
those very disciples to whom, according to Mark 4:11, he explained the secrets of the kingdom,
were totally ignorant of his Messianism They had lived together with Jesus, after all, for at least
two years and a half, according to the Gospel of John.
Second, through the insistence on the roughness, intellectual inefficiency, and lack of
understanding of Jesus’ disciples, one can perceive the interest of the evangelists, especially
Luke, in emphasizing the work of the Holy Spirit after the resurrection, since it is only the Holy
Spirit who finally makes them understand. Yet this is theology, not history.
Third, neither such “secret” nor the warnings about the passion, death and resurrection
of Jesus left any fingerprints in the memory of Jesus’ own disciples. After the Easter event,
they rather refused to believe that Jesus was resurrected and continued believing that he was a
Davidic, traditional Messiah (Luke 24:21), the restorer of Israel’s kingdom on earth (Acts 1:6).
In fact, and in spite of so many warnings, they did not even believe that he had been raised
from the dead! It must be insisted at this point that the whole crucial scene of the wayfarers
to Emmaus (Luke 24:17-27) completely ignores such a secret. Finally, the Markan Jesus
constantly breaks such claimed “secret,” which is also ignored by the whole set of the Gospels:
on many occasions Jesus published his Messianism before his resurrection!
44
“Although the Parables were not composed as a Christian text, the parallels between
the Parables’ and the Gospels’ teaching on the Son of Man suggest a common milieu for one
branch of the early Jesus movement and the community that generated the Book of Parables”
(Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, p. 66).
glory he has received there (Dan 7:14). Although the judicial function
described in 1 Enoch is not explicit, the influence of that tradition is sug-
gested by two elements not found in Daniel 7. Certain unnamed persons
“will see” the Son of Man, who will send angels to gather “the chosen
ones” (cf. 1 Enoch 51; 61:2-5; 62:14-15).
Alongside the Markan texts about the eschatological Son of Man is a set
of texts that predict that the Son of Man will die and rise again (8:31;
9:9-12,31; 10:33-34,45). Each of these passages uses a verb that occurs in
Second Isaiah’s last Servant passage (52:13-53:12). The pattern of suffe-
ring and vindication will be embodied in chaps. 14-16 in a genre whose
prototype is found in the recasting of Isaiah 52-53 in Wisdom 2 and 5. The
use of the term “Son of Man” in these predictions plays on the ambiguity
of the expression. Jesus the man will be vindicated in his resurrection and
will then appear as the glorified Son of Man. The term is further legitima-
ted in the present usage because of the traditional conflation of Servant
and Son of Man materials in the Parables of Enoch. Mark identifies the
vindicator with the persecuted one, as in Wisdom, but he parallels the
Enochic form of the tradition by using the term ‘Son of Man’ as a desi-
gnation for the unique future champion of the chosen”.45
V.
I would suggest further that the Enochians’ response to the Synoptic Son
of Man theology was its re-attribution to Enoch the glorifying contents of the
added Chapter 71 to BP22.
By using anaphoric terms and a vocabulary similar to that of BP, this
Chapter implicitly assumes all the trappings accorded to Enoch, even his full
preexistence (48:2-3). He is the true and preexisting Son of Man.
As a possible response to Christian theology, Chapter 71 adds some inno-
vations, yet the principal elements are taken from the Book of the Watchers,
chs. 14-18. For our purpose the most important texts of Chapter 71 are:
71:1ss, which tells Enoch’s final translation to heaven: “And it came to
pass that after this my spirit was translated (taken away) and ascended to
heaven.”
71:14-17: These verses identify Enoch again as the Chosen One and the
eschatological Judge. V. 14 reads: “And he (the angel) came to me and kissed
me with his voice and said to me, ‘ You are the Son of man (walda be’esi: ‘
they are of the male ’) who is born to righteousness and righteousness dwells
with you, and the righteousness of the Head of Days will not leave you’ ”.
45
Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, pp. 71-72. Nickelsburg aptly proves that
Matthew is also a Christian response to BP. But this does not prove that BP is pre-Christian.
In my opinion, we are facing here a theological dispute between two first-century apocalyptic
groups; for behind BP and the Gospel of Mark we must see two Jewish sectarian/apocalyptic
communities.
“And it came to pass… that the living name of this son of man was exal-
ted with (i. e. raised up to) the Lord of Spirits more than those who dwell
on the ground” (70:1).
- “And he (one of the angels) answered and said to me: ‘This is that (son
of) man who has righteousness, and righteousness dwells with him, and
he reveals all the treasuries of the mysteries, for the Lord of the Spirits has
chosen him, and his lot is stronger than all before the Lord of the Spirits
in truth for ever” (46:3)
- “And he (either an unnamed angel or the Head of Days) came to me
and kissed me with his voice and said to me: ‘You are the son of man
who is born to righteousness, and righteousness dwells with you and the
righteousness of the Head of Days will not leave you’”.
c) 69:29 was already aiming at this last section of the book. At the end of
the third vision, there are deliberate pointers to Enoch’s translation in Ch.
71. Casey excludes Sacchi’s opinion that “this sentence belongs probably
to an added fragment”.
d) Enoch had had (from Ch. 46 onwards) visions referring to himself, just
as Levi in TLevi 8:1. There it is said that Levi saw in a vision that seven
men in white clothing covered him with the vestments of the priesthood,
the crown of righteousness, the oracle of understanding and the robe of
truth. Something similar happens to Enoch himself in another section of
1 Enoch 85-90. In 90:40, Enoch affirms that “This is a vision which I
saw while I was sleeping,” that is (90:31): three men wearing snow-white
(clothes)… grabbed me by my hand… and I ascended; they set me down
in the midst of those sheep prior to the occurrence of this judgment, the
elect ones who will be saved in the Great Judgment.
e) To Casey’s own arguments one could add 46:3: “This is that/the son of
man who has righteousness and righteousness dwells with him and all the
treasuries of what is hidden he will reveal”. Nickelsburg’s commentary to
this verse reads as follows:
“In addition to being the executor of divine justice, the Son of Man (capi-
talized) will be the revealer of all hidden treasures. The expression is a bit
surprising since it is Enoch in his writing who is shown and then reveals
the hidden things of the universe, some of them described as treasures”46.
46
Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 2, p. 158.
VI.
“The Revelation of John of Patmos, also from the end of the first Century
C.E., provides the closest parallel to BP. Although it is framed roughly
by a pair of passages that are reminiscent of the framing of Daniel 10-12
(an epiphany, Rev. 1:10-20; cf. Dan 10:2-20; a reference to the sealing
of the revelation, Rev 22:10; cf. Dan 12:9), aspects of the content of the
book approximate those of the Parables. John ascends to heaven (in the
spirit, 1:10;4:2), to the divine throne room, where he sees the four living
creatures and hears the praises of the heavenly choruses (Rev 4), inclu-
ding a version of the Trisagion (4:8; cf.. 1 Enoch 39:11, 12), as well as
the cry of the dead pleading for vindication (6:9-11). From the heavenly
vantage point he sees events connected with the endtime and the coming
judgment. This judgment and the revelations that embody its prediction
respond to persecution by imperial Rome (cf. 6:9-11 with 39:5; 47:1-4).
The enactor of the judgment is the counterpart to the Parables’ Son of
Man/Chosen One/Anointed One. He is ‘one like son of man’ (Dan 7:13; 1
Enoch 46:1), who is the depicted with traits of the servant of YHWH (the
lamb who is slain, 5:6; cf. Isa 53:7) and the Davidic king (11:15, 18; 12:5;
19:15,19; cf. Pss 2:2,9 and 19:13,15; cf. Isa 11:4), who shares the throne
of God (22:1) and is given power and might, honor and glory (5:12; cf.
Dan 7:14). Although the final locus of salvation is a newly created earth
beneath a newly created heaven (21:1-4), John receives the revelations
about this future during an ascent to heaven.
Taken together these features suggest some knowledge of the Parables,
though certainly not anything resembling quotation. The otherworldly
apocalyptic viewpoint of the Parables reemerges here providing the au-
thor a good number of motifs. One could even say that both texts kind of
breath together. On the other hand, John’s wording is also reminiscent of
other canonical and pseudepigraphic texts such as Daniel 7 and 4 Ezra.
A single revelatory atmosphere embraces all these texts and it is within it
that John plays out his own song of salvation” (p.69).
4. The Enochic group reacted again adding to the bulk of the Book of
Parables ch. 71, in which they claimed for their hero the fullness of power
belonging the Son of Man figure. They explicitly or implicitly accepted all
the trappings and prerogatives of this figure already expressed in BP’s core,
such as Enoch’s preexistence and his messianic and judicial functions.
5. The ultimate Jewish-Christian reaction to this Enochian addendum was
John’s Revelation.
To make this hypothesis commendable I have argued:
1. Against a pre-Christian date for BP. The hypothesis of a post-Christian
composition is much more probable.
2. Against the notion that a Son of Man concept can be found in any
Jewish text prior to the appearance of Mark’s Gospel.
3. That Mark, even if he did not created it himself, was responsible for
spreading by means of his Gospel the new “Son of Man” theology, which
must be furthermore read with and awareness of the literary device of a
“messianic secret”.
4. That the theology of the Son of Man as developed in BP was the Eno-
chian, Jewish response to the blasphemous theological boldness of the Chri-
stians. According to the literary habits of the moment, however, such respon-
se was not a direct one.
5. That the Synoptic Son of Man theology might be seen as a response to
the core of BP (without chapter 71)
6. That, in turn, the Enochic response to this consisted in the addition of
chapter 71 to the bulk of BP.
7. And that the last Jewish-Christian response to the Enochians was
John’s Revelation.
General Conclusion
I would like to insist that all that is said in this paper should be regarded as
a modest, though perhaps reasonable, hypothesis. My point is a general one
and calls for further reconsideration of the entire issue. I am completely awa-
re that to fully prove my hypothesis I would need to carefully contrast BP’s,
the Synoptic, and the Johannine “Christology.” Therefore I do not pretend to
have resolved the fascinating issue one is forced to deal with when reading
together BP and the New T.
As a general conclusion let me quote again Nickelsburg’s commentary
(my additions in italics):
man’ into a title of Jesus, and consonant with the Danielic text, he is de-
picted as en exalted eschatological figure. However, different from Daniel
and like the Son of Man in the Parables, the Son of Man in the Gospels
is the executor of the final judgment rather than the bearer of God’s eter-
nal reign. ‘Son of Man’ occurs in the Gospels, first in Mark, also as the
title of Jesus that governs statements about the death and resurrection (a
suffering Messiah totally unknown in Jewish circles)47 that contain verbs
drawn from the last Servant song of Second Isaiah…
“From this I conclude that, although the NT speaks in the language of
Daniel 7, it construes Jesus’ identity as Son of Man in terms in the inter-
pretation of Daniel found in the Parables…
This could be true, according to my hypothesis for Mark’s Gospel and his
successors – the Synoptic Gospels, and partially John’s Gospel –, but not
for the first reinterpretations of Jesus by his followers, after their belief in
his resurrection. As I have tried to explain in the previous pages about the
Hellenist Jewish-Christians of Damascus and Antiocheia and the writings
of Paul, they developed their own understanding of the Scripture, they
were Jews, they knew the Scripture by heart, they knew the hermeneutical
principles as well, they did not need to copy from anyone. A different thing
is the Mark’s Gospel, an arduous task, the first ‘biography’ of Jesus accor-
ding to the general theological lines derived from Pauline cross theology.
The situation is more complex, however, since some NT Son of Man
passages are more consonant with the form of the Deutero-Isaianic Ser-
vant tradition as it is expressed in Wisdom 2 and 5. When taken together,
the Book of Parables, the Wisdom of Solomon and the ideas48 about the
Son of Man in the Gospels and Revelation attest a complex and shifting
set of exegetical49 traditions about Son of Man, Servant and Messiah…
This whole set of texts (Wisdom, Paul, Parables, four Gospels, 4 Ezra,
47
One idea that does not seem to be prominent in pre-Christian Judaism is that of the suffering
Messiah; no early Jewish text speaks of such a figure. To Christians the idea of a suffering
Messiah seems natural, but that is because it is so deeply rooted in a Christian understanding
of the OT. In Judaism, however, the Davidic Messiah is associated with triumph, not defeat and
death; Peter’s shocked reaction to the Markan Jesus’ announcement of his coming passion (Mark
8:31-32), therefore, is realistic. Deutero-Isaiah, to be sure, speaks of the Lord’s Servant, who
suffers and dies an atoning death (Isa 50:4-9; 52:13-53:12), but this figure is not identified with
the Messiah. Indeed, while the Targum sees references to the Messiah in Isaiah 53, it assigns
the suffering in the Isaian passage to the Messiah’s enemies rather than the Messiah himself (cf.
Mowinckel, He That Cometh, 330–33). The later rabbinic traditions that speak of the death of
the Messiah-Son-of-Joseph were probably influenced by Christianity and/or the death of the
leader of the Second Jewish Revolt, Bar Kochba, rather than by a preexisting Jewish concept of
a suffering Messiah (cf. Klausner, Idea, pp. 483-501). The NT notion of suffering messiahship,
therefore, is a mutation of previous Jewish messianism rather than a straightforward continuation
of it (cf. Brown, Christology, p. 160) (J. Marcus, Op. Cit. n. 4 , p. 1106).
48
Nickelsburg: “traditions”.
49
As I have defended for many years, the birth of Christian Christology, i.e., the birth of
Christianity is a philological, exegetical issue. The very first Christian theologians were exegetes
who dared to find out new meanings, just like modern interpreters do. ‘Ein Altphilologe’, as a
German would say, always dared to interpret ancient texts with ideas from his own time.
In the same way I would suggest that one read both 2 Baruch and Joseph
and Aseneth as two Jewish responses to Pauline theology, particularly as a
response to Paul’s doctrine about justification by “the works of the Law” and
Paul’s Christology, plus the Pauline interpretation of the Eucharistic Meal52,
respectively. Finally, the Testament of Job (probably date: final I century;
begin II century), which offers an amazing amount of vocabulary similar to
the Deutero-Pauline corpus, could be considered a general Jewish response
to Pauline theology.
ABSTRACT
This essay argues against a pre-Christian date for the Book of Parables
(1Enoch). Afterwards it explores the possibility that the Son of Man concept
set forth in the Parables of Enoch contains an Enochic response to the Son
of Man Christology developed in different strata of the New Testament, spe-
cially in the Synoptic Gospels. Moreover, as a final hypothesis, it considers
the possibility that the Chapter 71 of the BP – an addition to the Book of Pa-
rables – could be a Jewish response to the Book of Revelation. The possible
scenario of the Jewish-Christian thesis and their Jewish responses are the
discussions of rival groups of pious apocalyptic Jews and Jewish-Christians
at the final quarter of the first century C.E. The responses are always indi-
rect, as it was usual between Jews: a new narrative about the Messiah, not a
direct argument against the adversaries’ proposals.
50
Nickelsburg: Wisdom, Parables, 4 Ezra, four Gospels Revelation and Paul.
51
See Nickelsburg’s Introduction, “Orality and the Parables,” pp. 34-7.
52
Pace G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth and the Jewish Temple in Heliopolis (Atlanta GE:
Scholars Press, 1996)