Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

THE QUESTION OF JESUS' SELF-UNDERSTANDING §16.4
whether Jesus could or could not have so spoken usually depends more on a prior
judgment as to whether Jesus would have used apocalyptic imagery, and as to
whether there was a Son of Man expectation to which Jesus could have referred.
But the possibility can hardly be excluded that the saying reflects Jesus' own expressed
hope for the future, drawing on the imagery of Daniel's vision. 171
Two other features call for comment. One is that the action envisaged
seems to be in heaven, where the cosmic events take place (all three Synoptics),
where the sign of the Son of Man appears (Matthew), and from which the Son of
Man sends angels (Matthew/Mark). The implication is that the 'coming' is, as in
Dan. 7.13, a coming in heaven, 172 though it could also be understood as a coming
from heaven. 173
The other is that Matthew's version seems to have added another Son of
Man reference (Matt. 24.30) and in so doing blended an echo of Zech. 12.10-
14 174 into the Dan. 7.13 allusion. 175 This seems to accord with a particular
Matthean interest in the Son of Man. Of the nine Matthean references, 176 two
were probably drawn from Mark, 177 the two most explicit allusions to Dan. 7.13
itself. Two seem deliberately to have strengthened the Danielic allusion, by adding
a 'Son of Man' reference. 178 And three more are unique to Matthew, without
171. A. Yarbro Collins criticizes Perrin for narrowing the options to either a clearly defined
preexisting conception of the Son of Man or a post-Easter Christian construction; 'he
failed to consider the possibility that Jesus interpreted Dan 7:13 in an innovative way in his
teaching' ('Influence of Daniel' 92). M. Stowasser, 'Mk 13,26f und die urchristliche Rezeption
des Menschensohns. Eine Anfrage an Anton Vögtle', BZ 39 (1995) 246-52, regards Mark
13.26-27 as the earliest Son of Man saying in the NT. Casey is scrupulously fair in not closing
off options on indecisive data (Son of Man 165-77; Aramaic reconstruction 165).
172. Wright presses the point: 'The "son of man" figure "comes" to the Ancient of
Days. He comes from earth to heaven, vindicated after suffering' {Jesus 361).
173. See the discussion in Hooker, Son of Man 158-59; Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the
Last Days 429-30. Perrin assumes only a parousia reference (Rediscovering 173-76). Sanders
sees an expectation of Jesus (of a heavenly figure who comes with angels) reflected also in
1 Thess. 4.15-17 (Jesus 144-45; Historical Figure 246-47).
174.Zech. 12.10, 12, 14: '... when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall
mourn, . . . each tribe by itself . . . and all the tribes that are left . . .'
175. The fact that Zech. 12.10 is also conflated with Dan. 7.13-14 in Rev. 1.7, and without
obvious dependence on Matt. 24.30, suggests that Matthew's tradition was not the only one
to develop a Christian apologetic along these lines (cf. Crossan, Historical Jesus 244-46). See
further Davies and Allison, Matthew 3.360-61.
176. Matt. 10.23; 16.27-28; 19.28; 24.30 (twice), 44; 25.31; 26.64. 28.18 may also contain
an allusion to the dominion granted to the manlike figure/saints of the Most High in Daniel
7. For detail see my 'Danielic Son of Man' 529-32.
177. Mark 13.26/Matt. 24.30b; Mark 14.62/Matt. 26.64; see further below §16.4c(2).
178. Mark 9.1/Matt. 16.28 (cited above, in §12.4h); Matt. 19.28/Luke 22.30 are cited
below in §16.4e.
748