Below is a conversation resulting from a post by Charles Bledsoe at BSA in September 2025.
Did Jesus Self-Identify with the Son of Man?
Charles Bledsoe – Aug 10 – Original Post
If I’m not mistaken, Dr. Ehrman still holds the view that Jesus probably didn’t self-identify with the Son of Man, but a large number of other scholars disagree with that position, I’m curious to know what view other members hold. If you hold a view on the question please share. I lean toward Dr. Ehrman’s view, that Jesus conceived his own role in the eschaton to be (judge in the limited sense of) declaring divine judgment, and the Son of Man to be a distinct angelic entity, a “cosmic judge” whose role was delivering judgment upon the world—carrying out judgment, and destroying the evil powers that according to Jewish apocalyptic belief rule the world.
(Not that Jesus believed in this eschatological division of labor out of modesty, I also subscribe to Dr. Ehrman’s view that Jesus grandiosely fancied that he would be king in God’s imminently coming earthly kingdom. Although the Gospels attest that he was a person of much better character than David Koresh, his grandiosity is comparable to that of Koresh, and alas ended as well for him as Koresh’s—well, a little better, at least his disciples survived, although many Jesus followers would also eventually lose their lives because of their belief in an exalted conception of him.)
I have been persuaded by Maurice Casey’s book The Solution to the Son of Man Problem that Jesus did not think he was an eschatological figure or angelic entity known as the Son of Man because that concept did not exist in his lifetime and in his preaching.
The three texts into which that concept has been read back are Daniel 7, 1 Enoch, and 4 Ezra. I think Casey does a great job in demonstrating the use of the term in the Aramaic originals of those texts were simply an Aramaic idiom that had no special significance like that. “Son of man” in Daniel 7 is only meant to be someone in the form of a man and becomes a symbol of the Holy Ones – the faithful of Israel who will be given back their kingdom. In 1 Enoch, the son of man revealed to Enoch turns out to be Enoch himself translated by God. 4 Ezra has a similar explanation (which has escaped my memory, the book already being returned to the library).
Casey also does a persuasive (to me) analysis showing that any Son of Man statements in the gospels that can be put back into a satisfactory Aramaic statement (one that explains how a translator translated them in the Greek versions we have) are also simple uses of the Aramaic idiom with no implication about any pre-existent angelic being. For instance, “Jackals have holes and birds have roosts, but a/the son of man has no place to lay his head.” This is another Aramaic idiom where the general statement seems to apply in a collective way to a group of people but also hold someone (usually the speaker) out as an example of this group. Another one is “The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath, therefore a/the son of man is lord of the Sabbath.” In Casey’s explanation, an angelic entity is not Lord of the Sabbath, but people are, and that includes Jesus.
It was the translator(s)’s understandable use of the term ho huios tou anthropou in Greek to translate the Aramaic bar (e)nash(a) that created the opportunity for later Greek readers to create the position of the Son of Man. The translators wanted to preserve the sense that Jesus was referring to himself in those statements, and so they used the definite articles. But that was at the expense of the general sense of the idiom. As later Christ-followers saw the potential of the Son of Man to express Christ’s humanity as opposed to his divine nature (Son of God), they made Son of Man one of Christ’s titles. As Casey demonstrates, all the other “son of man” statements that do sound messianic and like an exalted title also do not go back into Aramaic very well and were likely the invention of the early Christ-followers or the authors of the gospels.
That concept, in turn, began to be read back into Daniel 7, which helped produce the idea that Daniel (and later 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra as later theologians discovered them) was talking about a pre-existent angelic entity for Jesus to self-identify with. But none of that was part of those original authors’ thought process or of the historical Jesus’s according to Casey.
(Casey used his great work within the language of the texts to support his theory that the gospel of Mark was written in Greek around 40 CE from a translated and embellished Aramaic original document written by or at the behest of eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus. I found it easy to separate the wheat of what I found to be solid work from the “chaff” of his authorial hypothesis. I definitely recommend the book and am looking to get his “An Aramaic Source for the Gospel of Mark” next.)
Did Jesus think he was the or a messiah of God? Maybe, possibly, probably… take your pick. But I do not think the historical Jesus thought of himself as pre-existent. He might well have thought of himself as one of the Holy Ones typified by the figure of one like a son of man in Daniel, but that would have been the same for him of any Jew who remained faithful to Israel’s God. As I recall, that is what Casey says Jesus means in his infamous “son of man” statement before the Sanhedrin. If that is something the historical Jesus said, it does not mean a single literal figure since Daniel does not mean a single literal figure. He means along with Daniel that Israel as an independent nation will soon be restored. And that would be more than enough for the Romans to put him on a cross.
Charles Bledsoe Aug 10 Joseph Nobles Thank you for that very substantive reply!
Joseph Nobles That is quite interesting. There’s a lot here I intuitively agree with, and a lot I’m skeptical of. I may need to read Casey’s book.
It’s certainly true that “son of man” (ben-adam) was often used in the Hebrew Bible as an alternate way to say “a person”, as Psalm 8:4, “What is a man that you think of him, a son of man that you visit him?” Although Daniel is intentionally and excessively cryptic, I’m confident that Daniel uses the term the same way. In chapter 7, Daniel has a vision of an awe-inspiring figure coming from the clouds to reign forever. He’s clearly a messiah figure, although he’s also equated with “the holy ones of the Most High”. Daniel describes him as someone “like a son of man” simply to indicate that he looks vaguely human; that’s not his name or title. Later in Daniel, the angel Gabriel calls Daniel “son of man” to emphasize his mortal limitations, so it’s clearly not a stock phrase or proper noun to Daniel.
But 1 Enoch seems to adapt the wording and imagery of Daniel 7 to create a new understanding of the Son of Man as a specific character. Here are some snippets of what Enoch sees in heaven (lightly excerpted, since 1 Enoch has a lot of repetitive fluff):
And there I saw the Eternal One, and his head was white like wool. With Him was another one, whose countenance had the appearance of a man, and his face was like one of the holy angels. I asked the angel who went with me about that Son of Man and who he was, and he answered “This is the Son of Man who has righteousness and who reveals all hidden treasures. This Son of Man shall raise up the kings and the mighty from their seats and the strong from their thrones, and shall break the teeth of sinners. Yes, before the sun and the signs were created, before the stars of the heaven were made, his name was named before the Lord of Hosts. He shall be the light of the gentiles and the hope of those who are troubled of heart. All who dwell on earth shall fall down and worship before him. For this reason he was chosen and hidden before the creation of the world and forever more. He has preserved the lot of the righteous, for in his name they are saved.”
I can’t read Aramaic, but this really sounds to me like a pre-existent angelic being who fulfilled messianic expectations. I don’t see how Casey could argue that such an idea did not exist in Jesus’ day.
I also agree that some of Jesus’ “son of man” sayings just mean a person—among them, the “no place to lay his head” and “lord of the Sabbath” examples given. (Personally, I suspect these were aphorisms in common circulation, attributed to Jesus because of his association with the other kind of “Son of Man”, but that’s just a guess.) But other sayings seem to reflect the Enochian sense, like Mark 8:31 (“he began to teach them that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering and be rejected by the elders”), 9:9 (“he ordered them to tell no one about what they had seen, until after the Son of Man had risen from the dead”), and 13:26 (“Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory, and he will send out the angels and gather the elect from the four winds”). The first two are probably Markan inventions, but even so, I don’t see any reason to think that Mark in 70 CE (let alone 40 CE!) would have access to an angelic conception of Son of Man that did not exist in Jesus’ day.
Michael Waddell the trouble with 1 Enoch is that we do not have a complete version in Aramaic. Some scraps in Aramaic are in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but the most complete ancient copy is in the Ge’ez translations from Ethopia which have big textual problems and none of which go back earlier than the 16th century CE. When Casey reconstructed Aramaic texts behind the various Ge’ez documents (and Latin, Syriac, Greek, and Coptic ones too), he found the son of man statements fit quite well into the Aramaic idiom and that the exalted figure being shown to Enoch is the being he is becoming. But as this being was being revealed to Enoch, the being is not called “the Son of Man.” He only looks like a son of man.
Casey does say that some of Mark’s son of man sayings start to go that directions like Mark 8:31 and 9:9, but those verses don’t fall back into Aramaic easily by his estimate and have a better Sitz im Leben in the early church than in the historical Jesus’s ministry. The gospel of Mark is the work that begins the process of inventing the Son of Man the way that many understand that concept today.
A good question for me is: do you think Jesus identified as the glorified figure being revealed to Enoch, whether he’s called the Son of Man or not? Possibly. Enoch being shown the being he would become feels aspirational to me. It encourage dedication in the readers. Should others walk the path Enoch walked, they too would become exalted figures. Jesus may well have thought he was on that same path. But Casey doesn’t see Jesus making that clear or saying he was already there by calling himself the Son of Man. The son of man is just this guy, you know? El Duderino, if you’re not into the whole brevity thing.
Manny5 I believe that Dr. Ehrman’s argument against that passage conclusively establishing that Jesus believed himself to be the Son of Man in question—the “cosmic judge” figure whose coming would be a key eschatological event—is that the term “son of man” didn’t have a single, consistent meaning or reference, and that Jesus used it here to claim authority but not necessarily the authority of the particular Son of Man at issue.
For me, it makes more sense that the first-century followers of Jesus dealing with the Great Disappointment of him not fulfilling the triumphant Messiah role during his lifetime, moved on to him fulfilling the triumphant conquering Messiah role in a Second Coming. That concept was then paired with Daniel’s Son of Man and then retrojected into statements on the lips of Jesus as presented in the Gospels.
My sense drawn from wide reading (of the sort a lot of us here do) is that there were several loosely defined figures and roles associated with “the age to come.” I’m sure 1st-century Christian ideas about who, what, and where were fairly fluid.
David Banack I like that you brought in the Great Disappointment (of William Miller fame)
The “Son of Man” problem is a difficult shoreline upon which many great ships have floundered. My favorite work on the historical Jesus is the magisterial multi-volume work A Marginal Jew by John P. Meier.[*] When he published Volume One in 1987 he planned for it to be a two-volume work, and he put off all discussion of whether Jesus called himself “Son of Man” and what that may have meant, until the second volume. When he published Volume Two in 1994 (over twice the length of the first volume), it begins:
The best laid schemes of mice and exegetes…. In the beginning, A Marginal Jew was to have been a one-volume work on the historical Jesus. Then two volumes became necessary; now there will be three.
Volume 2 discusses John the Baptist, Jesus’ idea of the Kingdom of God, and the issue of his reported miracles. It’s magnificent. He talks a little about the “Son of Man” title in the context of the Kingdom, calling it “probably the most problematic and controverted title or designation for Jesus in the whole of the Gospel tradition,” but he holds off a full analysis until Volume 3.
In 2001 the third volume was released to much fanfare, and Meier revealed that it was yet another penultimate work. (This is when I was first introduced to the series.) Volume 3 covers Jesus’ relationships with Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and other groups. At the end, Meier teased what would be in his fourth and final volume:
I think it best to understand the ways in which the historical Jesus may have referred to himself (e.g., Son of Man, Son) as enigmatic riddle-speech not unlike the parables. Like the parables, the strange phrases he used to refer to himself were meant to tease the mind of his audience into active thought, to pose uncomfortable questions instead of supplying pat answers.
Intriguing! Eight years later the highly anticipated fourth-and-not-quite-final volume was released, and in its introduction Meier maps out the final stages of his quest. There remain “four questions, which seem to pose intractable problems for any quester”, which he lists as “the riddle of Jesus and the Law, the riddle-speech of Jesus’ parables, the riddle-speech of Jesus’ self-designations (or titles), and the ultimate riddle of Jesus’ death.” Carefully prioritizing, he stated, “I think it logical to take up as the first enigma the question of Jesus and the Law. This will be the focus of Volume Four, while the other three enigmas will be treated in Volume Five.”
Such optimism! Volume Four did indeed cover Jesus’ views on the Law and his teachings on love, and it did not disappoint. But could he really fit the remaining three enigmas into one final volume?
In 2016, at the age of 76, Meier released Volume Five on the parables of Jesus. To my mind, it’s the best work on the historicity of the parables ever published. The introduction reveals:
Put simply, my strategy [for the entire series] mimics the approach used in all sorts of contentious negotiations, from labor contracts to middle east peace plans: deal with easier issues first, treat intractable problems later. Hence, A Marginal Jew grappled early on with those large swaths of material that enjoyed broad attestation along with a wide variety of literary forms and religious content…. From there we moved on from volume to volume, gradually taking up more difficult, not to say recalcitrant, topics.
In an unprecedented move, he made no promises about how many more volumes would be required, but it was clear he was saving the best for last.
He died a few years later at the age of 80, still working on volume six. His was one of the greatest minds of the last century, and he spent half his life tackling issues of historical Jesus studies, gearing up over four decades to finally solve the “Son of Man” problem. It was always just around the corner, but in the end, one lifetime was not enough.
As for me personally, on those days when I believe in Q (Mondays, Wednesdays, and every other Friday), I have a lot to work with. I see a range of “Son of Man” sayings that are early and multiply attested, so I have a reasonably high confidence that we can know some of what Jesus actually taught. Most of these sayings look like self-designations, but a few seem to refer to a separate figure. This is most neatly resolved by imagining that Jesus started out predicting a coming Son of Man, as his mentor JBap did before him, but decided at the end (through a vision?) that he was that figure, leading to the Triumphal Entry and its not-so-triumphal consequences. This all seems completely plausible to me, and it explains the different kinds of “Son of Man” sayings, the Messianic Secret, JBap’s sayings about preparing the way (he didn’t mean Jesus), the story where JBap’s disciples asked if Jesus was the one they waited for, and the very different reception that Jesus received at the end vs. throughout his previous ministry.
But on days when I don’t believe in Q, I think Mark contains the only reliable gospel traditions about Jesus we have, and there’s no good way to know which are authentic and which are later inventions. Matthew’s additions were most plausibly his own creative work based on his own beliefs, the post-Jewish-War situation, and a retrojection of prophesy. Luke and John would be even less reliable. So the most I could say is, Mark seemed to think that Jesus was the Son of Man. Mark was writing during the Temple’s siege, during what he thought was the end of the world, so all kinds of eschatological hopes must have been flying around. The Son of Man is coming! Angels will fight for us! The temple will be destroyed and replaced by a heavenly temple! These ideas would be more likely to arise during the Jewish War than during Jesus’ life—especially the “coming on the clouds” bit. So the Son of Man identity would most plausibly be a post-resurrection phenomenon.
I kind of enjoy the Q days more.
[*] Footnote: This is an excursus, but for a taste of what I love about A Marginal Jew, here is an excerpt from the introduction to Volume One:
[T]he scattered rubble left by two centuries of questing for Jesus has often made me ask: Why even try where so many have failed? Why join the legion of scholars who have peered narcissistically into the pool of the historical Jesus only to see themselves? No other line of research seems so geared to making skeptics out of scholars. From Jesus the violent revolutionary to Jesus the gay magician, from Jesus the apocalyptic fanatic to Jesus the wisdom teacher or Cynic philosopher unconcerned about eschatology, every conceivable scenario, every extreme theory imaginable, has long since been proposed, with opposite positions canceling each other out and eager new writers repeating the mistakes of the past. In one sense, there are enough “Jesus books” to last three lifetimes, and a sinful Buddhist might well be condemned to spend his next three incarnations wading through them.
Michael Waddell I love the excerpt. I suppose it applies to many of us here. But it’s nevertheless a lot of fun to explore the questions of Jesus scholarship even if we’ll never be able to prove the correctness of our views. The best we can do is form views that are grounded in good scholarship, and well reasoned.
I guess it really depends on how much you believe Mark as “eyewitness testimony”. Paul likely thinks The Lord would come on the clouds of heaven-
“Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will be with the Lord forever.”
1 Thessalonians 4:17 NRSVUE
https://bible.com/bible/3523/1th.4.17.NRSVUE
The son of Man in Daniel had various interpretations- Yahweh, Michael, the Messaiah etc (the 2nd power in Heaven) under the Ancient of Days (El-Elyon) who will be worshipped by the nations.
We have to ask which of the above do we think Mark is pointing to? And who does the term “The Lord” mean to Paul and the Gospel writers when they refer to him from the LXX? Who was “The Lord” in the Septuagint?
“the voice of one crying out in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight,’ ””
Mark 1:3 NRSVUE
https://bible.com/bible/3523/mrk.1.3.NRSVUE
I have posted most of my thoughts about this here-
https://biblical-studies-academy.circle.so/c/general-discussion-a52be5/does-mark-actually-have-the-highest-christology
In my reading, the self-identification of Jesus as the Son of Man of Daniel 7:13 is plausible on multiple grounds.
- Jesus was a famous religious healer who could heal people with a touch, a word or a prayer. (His enemies admitted this.) But in Judaism, healing was associated with God’s Forgiveness (MK 2:7) so was considered a Divine Power.
- Believing himself to have Divine Powers, Jesus would likely have attached the relevant Jewish mythology (Son of Man) to himself.
- Son of Man was a code word for the Son of Divinity (Son of God), which was part of Jesus’ Messianic Secret — his means of staying alive while a few accused him of Satanic practices (MK 3:22).
- The Talmud (vol. Sanhedrin) speaks of the Trial of Jesus and accuses him of sorcery. Jesus denied the charge (MK 3:26). He was guilty of faith-healing and no more or less.
- The transcendental Self-image of Jesus is consistent with calling himself the Son of Man to suggest the Messianic Son of God.
- Jesus was not the first to do this — the Book of Enoch from the 1st century BC also did that.
- So, yes, I find the tradition plausible.
- All the alternatives I’ve seen presented I find implausible.
For example, locking Jesus into a strict Aramaic culture is too restrictive, insofar as five of Jesus’ twelve Apostles had Gentile names — and Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter. Hellenism was rampant in Second Temple Judaism. In my reading, scholars still don’t fully appreciate the diversity in Second Temple Judaism (as did Davies, Vermes, Ford).
I should do a seperate post on this: But I just thought I’d highlight some verses from the minor prophets linking Paul’s 1 Thessalonians and the eschatological concept that Yahweh himself coming with the trumpet sound and reigning as King of the nations- again perhaps alluding to Daniel 7 where it may be that it is Yahweh who is the anthropomorphic being (son of man) being given the nations by the son of El-Elyon/ God most high? The allusions to Yahweh still being portrayed as a storm God so late in history is fascinating!
The Day of the Lord!
“As for you also, because of the blood of my covenant with you, I will set your prisoners free from the waterless pit. Then the Lord will appear over them, and his arrow go forth like lightning; the Lord God will sound the trumpet and march forth in the whirlwinds of the south. On that day the Lord their God will save them, for they are the flock of his people, for like the jewels of a crown they shall shine on his land.”
Zechariah 9:11, 14, 16 NRSVUE
https://bible.com/bible/3523/zec.9.11-16.NRSVUE
“Ask rain from the Lord in the season of the spring rain, from the Lord who makes the storm clouds, who gives showers of rain to you, the vegetation in the field to everyone.”
Zechariah 10:1 NRSVUE
https://bible.com/bible/3523/zec.10.1.NRSVUE
“And the Lord will become king over all the earth; on that day the Lord will be one and his name one.”
Zechariah 14:9 NRSVUE
https://bible.com/bible/3523/zec.14.9.NRSVUE
“If any of the families of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, there will be no rain upon them. and every cooking pot in Jerusalem and Judah shall be holy to the Lord of hosts, so that all who sacrifice may come and use them to boil the flesh of the sacrifice. And there shall no longer be traders in the house of the Lord of hosts on that day.”
Zechariah 14:17, 21 NRSVUE
https://bible.com/bible/3523/zec.14.17-21.NRSVUE
“For all the peoples walk, each in the name of its god, but we will walk in the name of the Lord our God forever and ever. On that day, says the Lord, I will assemble the lame and gather those who have been driven away and those whom I have afflicted. The lame I will make the remnant, and those who were cast off, a strong nation, and the Lord will reign over them in Mount Zion now and forevermore.”
Micah 4:5-7 NRSVUE
https://bible.com/bible/3523/mic.4.5-7.NRSVUE
“See, the day is coming, burning like an oven, when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble; the day that comes shall burn them up, says the Lord of hosts, so that it will leave them neither root nor branch. See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes.”
Malachi 4:1, 5 NRSVUE
https://bible.com/bible/3523/mal.4.5.NRSVUE
“On that day his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives, which lies before Jerusalem on the east, and the Mount of Olives shall be split in two from east to west by a very wide valley, so that one half of the mount shall withdraw northward and the other half southward. And you shall flee by the valley of the Lord’s mountain, for the valley between the mountains shall reach to Azal, and you shall flee as you fled from the earthquake in the days of King Uzziah of Judah. Then the Lord my God will come and all the holy ones with him. And the Lord will become king over all the earth; on that day the Lord will be one and his name one. Then all who survive of the nations that have come against Jerusalem shall go up year after year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Festival of Booths. If any of the families of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, there will be no rain upon them.”
Zechariah 14:4-5, 9, 16-17 NRSVUE
This is also consistent with Mark’s belief that Yahweh (the Lord) himself is the Messiah:
Mark relays his philosophy that the Messaiah will actually be Yahweh:
“While Jesus was teaching in the temple, he said, “How can the scribes say that the Messiah is the son of David? David himself, by the Holy Spirit, declared, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.” ’ “David himself calls him Lord, so how can he be his son?” And the large crowd was listening to him with delight.”
Mark 12:35-37 NRSVUE – https://bible.com/bible/3523/mrk.12.35-37.NRSVUE
Look at Psalm 110:
“The LORD says to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.”
Psalms 110:1 NRSVUE – https://bible.com/bible/3523/psa.110.1.NRSVUE
In the above statement, Mark questions how the scribes believe that the Messiah is a descendant of David when David calls Yahweh his LORD. This illustrates that Mark (and likely his stream of Judaism/ Yahwism) had a distinct messianic belief that was different from the mainstream- wherein Yahweh himself would be incarnate as the Messiah.
I do wonder whether clubbing early Christians with Jews/ Judeans who may not have held to similar beliefs is a miss-classification eg the Paul within Judaism camp.
Dr. Ehrman is correct and many are incorrect on this point. How can I say this? From many years of studying Aramaic it is obvious that Bar Nasha or Brei Nasha (literally “son of man”) is not a title but is a commonly used expression meaning “human being.” It is similar to “ben adam” in Hebrew meaning also simply “human being.” That is an answer from linguistics. From theology Christianity took this expression as a title from the book of Daniel (bar enosh in more ancient Aramaic) and placed it upon Jesus. Earlier today I was teaching a class and a student asked about Mark 2:27-28. Looking at the language used in Aramaic I explained that this passage simply means that men make the rules for keeping the Sabbath. That means that various groups have different rules. In the case specifically dealt with in Mark the Judeans keep the Sabbath more strictly than the Galileans. Jesus was a Galilean.
James DeFrancisco unfortunately Ehrman’s view may be incorrect because as Michael Waddell pointed out these are not simply linguistic expressions found in the gospels- these are christological expressions scattered (Non-linguistically) throughout the Pauline corpus: quoting Michael-
“Paul’s description of the parousia in 1 Thessalonians 4 includes images like the voice of an archangel, the trumpet of God, and Jesus’ descent from heaven, which parallel “Son of Man” expectations in Mark 13 and Matthew 24.
In 1 Thessalonians 1, Paul states that Jesus will come from heaven as a divine judge to rescue Christians from the coming wrath, a clear “Son of Man” role.
Paul’s description of the parousia in 1 Thessalonians 4 includes images like the voice of an archangel, the trumpet of God, and Jesus’ descent from heaven, which parallel “Son of Man” expectations in Mark 13 and Matthew 24.
In 1 Thessalonians 5, Paul compares the day of the Lord with a thief, paralleling a Son of Man saying in Matthew 24. Paul’s comparison to a woman’s birth pangs also parallels Son of Man sayings in Mark 13:8 and 1 Enoch 62:4
In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul describes what will lead to the parousia. Christ will destroy “every rule and every authority and power”, language borrowed directly from the LXX of Daniel 7.”See moreLikeReply
James DeFrancisco Dr. Ehrman doesn’t reduce the meaning of the term to “human beings”, he notes in his writings on the Son of Man question that the term is multivocal, that it has three distinct meanings or references: it’s used to refer to human individuals; in Daniel, and in Jesus’ usage, it’s the title of an eschatological “cosmic judge” figure”; and Jesus also uses it to refer to himself, however not in the role of “cosmic judge”. In any case, Jesus doesn’t use the title in the Nicene sense that Christians might retrojectively attribute to him—to refer to the human part of the Christological equation described by the term hypostatic union. Nor, in my and Dr. Ehrman’s opinion, does he identify with the Son of Man in sense #2, a “cosmic judge” who will come at the eschaton to deliver divine judgement upon the world.See moreLikeReply
Pritish Korula See my reply to James.
The Book of Daniel (c. 165 BCE) 7:13-18 places the “Son of Man” in parallel with the “Saints/Holy ones of the Most High” as a Collective human figure —a group. Other works of that era, such a 2 Maccabees, flesh out a portrayal of a persecuted yet faithful group of dissenters against imperialist pagan persecutors. Later writings such as I Enoch continue this theme. See Anathea Portier-Young, “Apocalypse Against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism,” 2016.
Figures such as John the Baptizer (see Joel Marcus, “John the Baptist in History & Theology”, 2018) and Jesus of Nazareth almost certainly thought of the “Son of Man as having a collective sense (who might be embodied in an individual leader).
James H. Galloway yes, absolutely. Daniel 7 clearly identifies the “one like a son of man” as the saints of the Most High a few times. The “one like a son of man” is no more pre-existent in Daniel 7 than the beasts representing the four kingdoms. (Of course, the four kingdoms had been in existence before Daniel 7 was written, but Daniel 7 presents itself as being written before most of the kingdoms had come into existence.)
Well, you know, I’m going to caveat that. The saints of the Most High are pre-existent. There will always be a group of people faithful to God according to the prophets. But single members of that group will come and go, and there’s no reason to think of any of them as pre-existent – just the collective. And unlike the warped and beastly presentation of the four kingdoms, their collective figure in Daniel 7 is simply “like a son of man,” i.e., human.
Dale – I disagree sort of. I don’t feel he would self identify as God. I feel he very possibly identify as the Son of Man. I am more of a Thomas. I think he thought of all people as Sons of God and he would fill a special place as Rabbi to all humanity. Of course we will never know. To me what is important is feeling we are part of creation.
Dale Worthington It seems to me that the historical Jesus had both a profound and special relationship with the divine, and alas also a somewhat exaggerated sense of eschatological importance that I’ve elsewhere characterized as grandiosity. He didn’t identify with God, and in my opinion he didn’t identify with the “cosmic judge” Son of Man figure, but he does seem to have believed that although God would of course be the ultimate ruler of the earthly kingdom of God, he (Jesus) would be the ruler on the ground, so to speak; i.e., God would rule through him (and his inner circle of twelve would be his under-bosses, to borrow a term from the Mafia). But to his credit what was important to him were the love commands, love God and your neighbor. He understood practicing these commands, practicing an ethic of love to be what properly aligns one with God’s nature, and qualifies one to be a part of the eschatological kingdom of God. And so despite his grandiosity he had a lot going for him as a spiritual and ethical teacher, and a model of godliness. I suppose one could say that he’s a bit of a contradiction, both delusional and enlightened. See moreLikeReply2 likes
James DeFrancisco Charles Bledsoe
Thank you for your responses: I hope it’s okay if I can address both of you in a common response.
1. Firstly I would just like to nuance that that what Jesus said and didn’t say really depends on how much we “eyewitness” testimony there is in the gospels.
But more to the point- Paul “our primary source” (as I pointed in the above response) quite clearly in multiple occasions identifies Christ as a cosmic being/judge who will come on the clouds to rescue his elect from “the coming wrath” and to destroy “every rule and every authority and power” echoing Daniel 7.
2. The argument is not what “Bar Nasha” means. It clearly is a poetic means of saying “human” or “man”. In the book of Ezekiel for example, it occurs 93 times- and all of them refer to “a human” or “human being” or “man”. It has no English equivalent, and has common idiomatic and poetic usage as you rightly point out.
But that is not what Daniel 7 is about. Daniel 7 points to an anthropomorphic being translated as “one like a son of Man”
Literally: “like a son of man” or “like a human being.”
• כְּ (kĕ-) = “like” / “as”
• בַר (bar) = “son”
• אֱנָשׁ (ʾĕnāš) = “man,” “human,” “mortal”
So the phrase means: “like a human being” or “like a son of man.”
⸻
Translation history
• Septuagint (Greek LXX, Old Greek version of Daniel 7:13):
ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου (hōs huios anthrōpou) → “as a son of man.”
• Theodotion’s Greek version (which most Christian Bibles used for Daniel instead of the Old Greek):
ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου → same translation, “like a son of man.”
• Modern translations:
• NRSV: “one like a human being”
• ESV: “one like a son of man”
• NJPS (Jewish): “one like a human being”
3. This being is what the gospel writers are referring to as “the Son of man”
With the gospels in Mark we have (found through ChatGPT):
Mark 8:38 –
“Whoever is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”
Here Jesus casts himself as the decisive figure at the final judgment, arriving in divine glory with angels. That’s cosmic, end-time imagery.
• Mark 13:26–27 –
“Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then he will send out the angels to gather his elect from the four winds…”
This directly echoes Daniel 7:13–14, where the “one like a son of man” is given dominion by God. Jesus identifies himself with this figure who comes on the clouds to gather and separate people—a judge-like role.
• Mark 14:61–62 (at his trial before the Sanhedrin):
When asked if he is the Messiah, Jesus replies:
“I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
Again, he identifies himself with the Danielic Son of Man who will appear as a heavenly judge.
In second temple Judaism- this is character is well known to be a “second power” in heaven who is to be have authority over the nations and be worshipped and is also described in Enochic literature as well as 4Esdras.
“As I watched in the night visions, I saw one like a human being coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One and was presented before him. To him was given dominion and glory and kingship, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship is one that shall never be destroyed.”
Daniel 7:13-14 NRSVUE
https://bible.com/bible/3523/dan.7.13-14.NRSVUE
Also unknown to most scholars is that there are debates about these “two power” in Talmudic literature termed as “shetei rashuyyot” – this is eventually termed as heresy as Judaism moved on towards monotheistic beliefs during the rabbinic period ( I would refer you to literature on the 2 powers by Dr Peter Shäfer, a retired professor from Princeton and Dr Margret Barker, Former president of the Society for Old Testament study).
It’s true that Nicene concepts take advantage of these issues. But these precede Nicene Christianity by centuries if not longer.
I must add caution (and agree with you) that the Sabbath narrative points to humans taking charge of the Sabbath and not vice versa.
So the question “Did Jesus refer to himself as The Danielic son of man/ cosmic judge/ second god”? is a loaded question- suffice to say- nearly all of NT literature aligned him with this cosmic being.
(PS: I have used ChatGPt as part of the search for the above)
Pritish Korula I am going to disagree with both you and Dr Ehrman here from my armchair (so you know you are in good company!).
First, I do not think Daniel 7’s “son of man” is a pre-existent angelic entity. The imagery lends itself to that interpretation and it has been taken as such. But Casey has convinced me that Daniel 7’s “one like a son of man” is identified many times in Daniel 7 as the “saints of the Most High.” This collective figure stands in contrast to the four beasts who are collective figures themselves of four kingdoms, and none of those five collective figures should be thought of as pre-existent in Daniel 7’s worldview. The Seleucid Kingdom did not exist before it existed, and neither did the restored kingdom of Israel (“saints of the Most High given a kingdom”) before it did, either.
Second, there is room in the passages from Mark you quote to see this peculiar Danielic take in Jesus’s preaching – that the “son of man” figure is not pre-existent, but prophecied. When Mark has Jesus explicitly quoting or alluding to Daniel 7, it is not a comic judge Jesus either identifies with or sees himself heralding. It is the kingdom of God returning to Israel that he means. “Are you the Messiah, the son of the Most Blessed?” asks the high priest in Mark, and Jesus says, “So you have said, and you shall see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of power and coming in the clouds!” I.e., you shall see the return of the kingdom of Israel and be judged. Jesus very much does expect to be there, and probably even sees himself as king, but it’s not because he’s a pre-existent angelic being. He’s the fulfillment of prophecy. He’s not pre-existent. He’s pre-seen by God and his prophets. (This is the same sense to see Mark 8 and Mark 13.)
Third, Mark 8:31 is another of Jesus’s Son of Man statements, but here it’s that the Son of Man must suffer and die. This too fits into that Danielic “prophecied, not pre-existent” thought. Daniel 7 predicts the saints of the Most High will suffer (Dan 7:21 and 25) at the hands of the fourth beast. All Jesus would need to do, seeing himself and the faithful who follow him as the saints of the Most High (“one like unto a son of man”), is to think about what it means to suffer at the hands of the Roman Empire. Among other things, crucifixion would be right there at the top of the list. So, Jesus tells his followers to pick up their crosses and follow him. They all must suffer at the hands of the fourth beast (now reinterpreted as the Roman Empire) to fulfill the prophecy.
(That said, Paul clearly has pre-existent thought in his theology. He’s much more Enochian (without directly quoting Enoch in the letters we have) than what I see in Mark.)
Pritish Korula Joseph Nobles Thank you for your comments. Regarding Casey and Joseph’s comments I have no argument. However, regarding “But more to the point- Paul “our primary source” (as I pointed in the above response) quite clearly in multiple occasions identifies Christ as a cosmic being/judge who will come on the clouds to rescue his elect from “the coming wrath” and to destroy “every rule and every authority and power” echoing Daniel 7” I have the following: 1. The conversations using the son of man idiom by Jesus predate Paul if they ever actually happened as stated in the texts. 2. The phrase never occurs in the Pauline corpus. 3. “Coming in the clouds” is another idiom in Aramaic that is literally translated but it simply means victory by some human being, i.e. it could be an emperor or general as well as Jesus. The problem is that we often read biblical texts with commentary background in mind. If we read the pristine texts in their own context we often get a different, albeit radically different from the conventional norm, reading.
Pritish Korula thank you for quite an extensive list of information related to this post. One more comment. In the entire NT corpus Daniel is mentioned only 2 times (Mt 24:15 and Mark 13:14) and in both instances it seems to relate to forthcoming events that occurred in 70 CE when the temple was defiled by Roman troops.LikeReplyShow more replies
Separating what Hesus claimed or thought from later traditions and literary intentions of the Gospel writers is tough. It is possible that he saw himself in the writings of Enoch and Ezra. It is also possible that later writers conflated Jesus’s apocalyptic teachings with who his disciples had come to assume he was or had become, as a means to explain his death and apparent disappearance. Most of the fun I have with the NT is thinking through what goes all the way back to Jesus himself(using the work done by actual scholars, not myself obviously). Though I think there can be some confusion when looking at usages of Son of Man outside of the NT. It doesn’t seem to mean the same thing to different authors. Enoch really expanded out that concept, where I’m a lot less clear that Daniel is speaking of a specific divine entitySee moreLikeReply
Alexander Bragg I subscribe to Dr. Ehrman’s view, that although the term was multivocal for Jesus and he sometimes used it to refer to himself, when he used it to refer to a “cosmic judge” who would come at the eschaton and deliver divine judgement upon the world he was not referring to himself, he did not identify with that eschatological figure.
Jesus and the Son of Man – The Bart Ehrman Blog
https://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-and-the-son-of-man
