Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

THE QUESTION OF JESUS' SELF-UNDERSTANDING §16.3
hardly suggests taking over or reference to an established title. 110 So we cannot
deduce from the Similitudes and 4 Ezra themselves that their interpretation of
Daniel's manlike figure was an already established one or even drew upon an established
tradition of interpreting Daniel's vision. 111 In fact, there is a third apocalypse
which interprets Dan. 7.13 and which does so as though for the first time,
namely the Apocalypse of John (Revelation). 112 This suggests an alternative scenario,
where, inter alia, the crisis building to the first Jewish revolt (very like the
circumstances which produced Daniel 7) and the trauma of its catastrophic failure
excited renewed apocalyptic fervour in which Daniel's vision became a focus
and stimulus for fresh speculation, producing in turn the distinctive but not dis-
110. In the Similtudes, following the initial identification of the one who 'had the appearance
of a man', the reference is characteristically to 'that Son of Man' — that is, a reference
back to the figure identified in 46.1-3, not any indication of an established title (Casey,
Son of Man 99-102). Moreover, the fact that three different Ethiopic expressions are used for
'son of man' in the Similitudes suggests attempts at an innovative allusion to Daniel's vision
(by using translation variants) rather than the evocation of an established title (Casey 101 -102).
Hare notes U. B. Miiller's observation {Messias und Menschensohn in jüdischen Apokalypsen
und in der Offenbarung des Johannes [Gütersloh: Mohn, 1972] 41, that 'when "the Son of
man" is introduced by way of allusion to Dan. 7:13, it is not a known figure who is merged with
the Elect One previously depicted; "the Son of man" is a cipher requiring interpretation' (Son of
Man 13). 'The writer of the Similitudes did not just borrow; he transformed' (J. Vanderkam,
'Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One, and the Son of Man in 1 Enoch 37-71', in
Charlesworth, ed., Messiah 169-91, here 188). Likewise, the fact that 4 Ezra simply speaks of a
'man' (rather than 'son of man') strongly implies that the Aramaic idiom was still well known
at the time of writing, and that Dan. 7.13 was recognized as a case in point (cf. Casey 124-26).
Cf. also Stone, Fourth Ezra: 'It is important to observe that even if "the man" in the dream was
the traditional "Son of man", the figure seems to have needed interpretation for the author or
his readers. Moreover, the author of 4 Ezra has shorn this figure of all of its particular characteristics
in the interpretation and treated it as a symbol. This would be inconceivable if the "Son
of man" concept was readily recognizable to him and his readers' (211).
111. Equally with Akiba's reported opinion regarding the second throne of Dan. 7.9 (see
below, n. 190): it is more likely that it is remembered as the first time this view was expressed
within rabbinic Judaism rather than providing an indication of an earlier well established view.
Nor should we assume that the vision of Moses' heavenly enthronement, as in Ezekiel the Tragedian
68-89, necessarily evoked or alluded to Daniel 7 (where the enthronement of the manlike
figure is at best implied), when other texts envisage the enthronement of great heroes of the
past — e.g., Adam and Abel (T. Abr. 11), Job (T. Job 33.3), the righteous (Apoc. El. 1.8) —
without any dependence on Daniel 7 (pace Horbury, 'Messianic Association' 38, 42-43, 45-
47); Collins makes no suggestion of a link between Ezekiel the Tragedian and Daniel 7 (Scepter
and Star 144-45). In further texts where Horbury argues that 'man' was already a recognized
messianic title (48-52), 'man' is a referent, not a title.
112. Rev. 1.7, 13; 14.14. These allusions ('a son of man') are notably different from the
consistent Gospel usage ('the Son of Man') and hardly to be explained as due to the direct influence
of the latter.
732