The seeming obviousness of the use of the expression in the New Testament, that is, in the Gospels, stops almost immediately upon leaving them.1 It is clear that its meaning changes. Apparently, it does not survive in continuous use but primarily in an interpretation of the Son of man sayings in the canonical Gospels.2 The few examples of a use similar to the one found in the Gospels are exceptions which prove the rule. It comes to be understood genealogically, with a self-contained content. Very soon, the context becomes mostly polemical. Thus Irenaeusâ treatmentâand a little later Tertullianâsâreflects the Gnostic interpretation which, in all its diversity, is uniform in that the genitive âof manâ is generally understood as referring to the divine Anthropos, an interpretation which has its own ratio and will therefore be treated separately (see below Chapter 2, âThe Son of Man in Gnosticismâ). Besides these, there also exist examples of interpretations which take into account Son of man sayings in the Gospels and what is said about the Son of man. We see this expression in the Gospels about the Son of man introduced in different ways in the often ardent strife about the correct understanding of the nature of Christ and his role in redemption.
1. Apocryphal Sayings and the Apostolic Fathers3
The above pertains less to the New Testament Apocrypha and agrapha, where it is difficult to distinguish between quotation and agraphon, as for instance in Clement of Alexandria, Stromata IV 6.35: âThe Son of man, on coming to-day, has found that which was lostâ.4
Other places offer examples of a varied use.
5 In
Acts of John 109, in eucharistic praise we find it as an apposition to âthe diademâ: âhim that for us was called Son of manâ
;
Acts of Peter 24 quotes Dan. 7.13, while
Acts of Thomas 66 lets Thomas declare himself in contrast to Jesus to be only a human: âFor I also am a man clothed with a body, a son of man like one of youâ
Apocalypse of Peter 1 quotes Mt. 24.27, while in
Apocalypse of Peter 4 it introduces words from Ezek. 37.4 as prophesied by the Son of Man. None of these resembles the use in the New Testament Gospels.
Only in a few places outside the New Testament has the expression survived in apocalyptic sayings, as, for instance, in a saying which stems from James, the brother of Jesus, according to Hegesippus, giving Jesusâ reaction to the question of the Scribes and Pharisees:6
âWhat is the gate of Jesus?â [cf. Jn 10.9]. And he answered with a loud voice, âWhy do ye ask me concerning [Jesus,]
7 the Son of man
? He himself sitteth in heaven at the right hand of the great Power, and is about to come upon the clouds of heaven
â.
The familiarity with texts such as Mk 14.62par. is obvious, the more so if the saying is understood as pointing to the exaltation and not the Parousia. The two parallel participles in the Gospel saying are replaced by two finite verbs (Matthewâs âyou will seeâ, áœÏΔÏΞΔ, is left out) where âsittethâ refers to the present time, while the Parousia appears in a separately in the future tense. There also seems to be a connection with Acts 7.56. At both places, a persecuted person speaks about the Son of man at the right hand of God.
Another example comes from the Gospel to the Hebrews, from a legend about a meeting between the risen Christ and the same James who âhad sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour wherein he had drunk the Lordâs cup until he should see him risen again from among them that sleepâ. The risen Christ invites him to supper with the words:
âBring ye, saith the Lord, a table and breadâ, and immediately it is added, âHe took bread and blessed and brake and gave it unto James the Just and said unto him: My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of Man is risen from among them that sleep (quia resurrexit Filius hominis a dormientibus).â8
The connection with New Testament tradition is obvious, for example, with Mk 14.22par and 8.31par. Both apocryphal sayings probably originate in the second century, the Gospel to the Hebrews being known to Hegesippus. There seems no need to take these two instances as evidence of a special Jewish Christian Son of man concept,9 which is also found in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions. The interpretation of the Son of man characteristic of this literature is not present in these sayings.10
As will be seen in the next chapter, there are a few instances of a similar, seemingly obvious use of Son of man in Gnostic sources, but the context indicates that it has a special meaning.
Otherwise, outside the New Testament, the expression always occurs with a definition or within an argument, if not directly interpreted.
11 Among the
Apostolic Fathers
12 it turns up once in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch (died c.110),
13 where in
Ephesians 20.2, with regard to the breaking of the one bread, âwhich is the medicine of immortality (ÏÎŹÏΌαÎșÎżÎœ áŒÎžÎ±ÎœÎ±ÏίαÏ)â, the congregation is admonished to come together âin one faith and in Jesus Christ, âwho was in the family of David according to the fleshâ, the Son of Man and Son of God
. In spite of the indefinite form, the saying seems to reflect the Gospel usage of the expression. On the other hand, it is also clearly understood as a designation for the human nature of Christ. The background should be seen in Rom. 1.3 or in the eventual source for the creedal formula there. Clearly, it is not a title, but a definition.
14 The same seems true of the use of the expression in the expanded Georgian translation of Didache 16.8, with content which differs from the Greek text: âThen this world will see our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of man, who (at the same time) is Son of God, (as) coming on the cloudsâ, and so on.15 In spite of the connection with Mk 14.62par (and Dan. 7.13), the translator obviously felt it necessary to underline that Jesus is Son of God.16
This is not quite the case in the
Epistle of Barnabas. Here, in 12.9, the unknown author points to what Moses said âto Jesus the son of Naue, after giving him this name, when he sent him to spy out the land, âTake a book in thy hands and write what the Lord saith, that in the last day the Son of God shall tear up the roots of the whole house of Amalekââ. In 12.10, he then urges: âSee again Jesus, not as son of man, but as Son of God, but manifested in a type in the fleshâ
. The expression does not designate the human nature of Christ, but Jesus as human, not with regard to one of his two natures, but exclusively in his human appearance.
17 Thus the
Epistle of Barnabas (probably from c. 130) rejects, on the basis of Ps. 110.1 and Isa. 45.1, that Christ should be the son of David.
Already in the Apostolic Fathers, Son of man is perceived as an alternative to Son of God. âOf manâ has been ascribed a new and independent signification, qualifying the one so designated as of a different nature than indicated by the title Son of God. Such an understanding is, however, not obvious anywhere in the Gospels, whereâwith the possible exception of Jn 5.27âthe expression never appears with a clear predicative meaning. This contrast, suggesting that Son of God and Son of man say something fundamentally different, became dominant in the interpretation in the following periods and was only neutralized where âmanâ was taken as the god âManâ as in Gnostic texts, the whole expression being...