Is the Son of Man Pre-existent and Enthroned?Introduction Talkback Add Your Comment
 The January/February 2011 issue of BAR featured a book review, written by James C. VanderKam, of King and Messiah as Son of God. We then received a letter from J. Harold Ellens, retired professor of philosophy and psychology at Calvin Seminary and Princeton Theological Seminary, wishing to clarify the terms and concepts used to describe the Son of Man in the ancient literature. Dr. Ellens’s letter is below, followed by responses from the book’s authors, Adela Yarbro Collins and John J. Collins.
 Dr. Ellens’s letter:In your superb January/February 2011 issue, you published a welcome book review of Adela Yarbro Collins’s and John J. Collins’s King and Messiah as Son of God. The review was written by James C. VanderKam. The review is in many ways quite helpful and the book itself is genuinely useful for our field. However, there is in this review, and in the volume itself, an error that seems to surface frequently when a discussion of Second Temple Judaism is involved regarding the concept of the Son of Man. The review contends that the Son of Man in 1 Enoch, and by implication in Daniel 7, as well as 4 Ezra and other documents, is pre-existent and enthroned. More care must be taken regarding this issue. Nowhere in Second Temple Jewish literature is the Son of Man both pre-existent and enthroned. In Daniel 7–9 he is neither pre-existent nor enthroned. He simply appears in the presence of God in Daniel’s vision sometime around 535 B.C.E. and is given authority and power, but no throne. In 1 Enoch he is enthroned but not pre-existent. Only the idea of the Son of Man and his name is pre-existent in the mind of God in 1 Enoch. Enoch is there named the Son of Man. In the Synoptic Gospels, the Son of Man seems possibly to be enthroned but is not pre-existent. He starts out as a human on earth and ends up in heaven as the Judge (enthroned?). In the final redaction of John’s gospel, with its prologue and final chapters, the Son of Man is pre-existent (1:1–3), and in the end exalted, but not described as enthroned. Many scholars continue to make these mistakes, as in this review. We should let the texts, in each case, say exactly what they literally say.
Adela Yarbro Collins responds:The Son of Man is quite clearly expected to be enthroned when all things are renewed (Matthew 19:28). In Mark the Son of Man is very probably expected to be enthroned at some point after Jesus’ death, since he is described as “seated on the right of the Power,” i.e., God (Mark 14:62). The same is true of Luke 22:69. Although it is not stated explicitly, it is likely that the Son of Man is depicted as enthroned for the future judgment in Luke 21:36. Those being judged will “stand” before the judge, the Son of Man, who is expected to be seated.
John J. Collins responds:I have three brief comments on Hal Ellens’s letter:
1. While the point is tangential to the issue at hand, no critical scholar can date Daniel’s visions to “some time about 535 B.C.E.” They date from the time of the Maccabean revolt in the second century B.C.E.
2. The statement “only the idea of the Son of Man and his name is pre-existent in the mind of God” fails to understand the relation of the name to the person. The naming of his name is a form of pre-existence.
3. Whether the identification of Enoch with the Son of Man is integral to the Similitudes of Enoch is perhaps the most controversial question in the study of 1 Enoch. It is found only in the last chapter of the work (chapter 71), and even there the interpretation is disputed. There are good literary reasons for regarding that chapter as a secondary addition to the Similitudes. Prior to that chapter, there is no hint that Enoch is identical with the Son of Man, or that he is seeing himself in his visions. The interpretation of chapter 71 is admittedly disputed, and this is one issue on which Professor VanderKam and I disagree.
Son of ManI thought Jesus in the synoptic Gospels uses the title Son of Man as to humble his status in order to identify with Man. Whereas in Enochs use or Daniel the title is used as for a glorious one ,a mysterious man among the host of Heaven.Sometimes theologians debate writings so independantly from the meanings and context intended is this correct theological study or debate? I have many questions to ask! • • • • • • • Son of Man statusIf only all disagreements could be discussed / argued as calmly and reasonably as this! • • • • • • • Status of the Son of ManFirst, let it be clear - I am not a scholar. It has been my experience that tone often tells as much or more than content. I do find a genteelness in Dr. Ellens words that seems consistent with his days. On the other side however, there is a brusque unseasoned tone that belies their words. We readers would benefit hearing things said in considerate words. That same give-and-take in such a context would, I believe, tell us a good deal more than we are currently getting. • • • • • • • son of godMost of these writings are more fictional than historical, even by ancient standards. While I am not a scholar of these pseudipigrapha, I am of the gospel of John and his interpretation precedes the synoptics and is jewish and not a gnostic appendage. • • • • • • • Son of ManA number of colleagues emailed me that they perceived Collins'remark about critical scholars denigrated me. I think not. John and I are friends andesteem for each other's work. However, while I agree on the 2nd or 3rd C dating of Daniel, and the late addition of Ch 71 to I Enoch, it is important that the narrator in the final redaction of both intends us to think of Daniel as a figure in the 6th C Babylon and Enoch as Son of Man. So my original point in my letter was correct, in that sense. Hal • • • • • • • Food for ThoughtIt's my belief that every single author had his own view and represented that view. 1 Enoch represents its own discombobulated eschatological view which differs from Daniel (and 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, etc.). It is wrong to take a thesis and an antithesis and create an absolutely new synthesis. Which Collins is unfortunately doing. • • • • • • • Son of ManI agree with Professor J.J. Collins on the dating of Daniel 7, of course, as well as on the issue of the uncertainty of the import of I Enoch 71 and Enoch's idendification as the Son of Man. Neither of these factors turns the flank on my basic point; moreover, Professor A.Y. Collins' remarks on the Synoptic Gospels confirm my point. Thanks to them both for this pleasant dialogue. Dr. Ellens • • • • • • • |
 The Biblical Archaeology Society is an educational non-profit 501c(3) organization. Make a tax-deductable gift today. BRAND NEWTel Aviv University Scholars Discuss Jewelry Discovery at Megiddo May 23, 2012 Jerusalem Cabinet Invests in Biblical Sites in Jerusalem May 21, 2012 Oil Pipeline Threatens Ancient Babylon and World Cultural Heritage May 18, 2012 Babylonian Talmud Translated into Arabic May 17, 2012 4,000 Year Old Texts Survive the Attacks of Time and 9/11 May 16, 2012 MOST POPULARA New Dead Sea Scroll in Stone? Why Is the Newest Bible Translation in Modern Hebrew? What Jews (and Christians too) Should Know About the New Testament FREE BIBLE AND ARCHAEOLOGY ARTICLESAncient Inscription Refers to Birth of Israelite Monarchy FIRST PERSON: Relics vs. “Real” Archaeology BIBLICAL VIEWS: Spirited Discourse About God Language in the New Testament ARCHAEOLOGICAL VIEWS: An Anthropologist’s View of Early Israel THE BIBLE IN THE NEWS: Self-Help for Doctors and Others SCHOLAR’S STUDYA Minimalist Disputes His Demise February 19, 2012 Allan J. Pantuck: Response to Tselikas Handwriting Analysis August 19, 2011 Agamemnon Tselikas: Response to Allan J. Pantuck August 19, 2011 Oded Golan’s Commentary on the Expert Witnesses of the Case March 2011
 |
INFORMATION |
PUBLICATIONS |
BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY SOCIETY NETWORK LINKS |
