If you study Jesus or the Gospels or New Testament christology, Son of Man is more than a big deal. There are number of books that summarize the history of scholarship on what Son of Man means, and why Jesus used it. And does it refer to Daniel 7? Or is it little more than “one” or “that man”? It takes courage to weigh in. On Son of Man, which as upper case is an interpretation itself for it could be “a son of man,” it seems everything has not only been said but it has been repeated in cycles of scholarship. I remember as a PhD student seeing an article “The Son of Man — One More Time,” or something like that. Delbert Burkett some twenty years ago published a 150 page monograph on the history of interpreting Son of Man. So, there you go: enter at your own risk.
“It is hard to believe that any one in late Second Temple times could have recognized the phrase “the Son of Man” as an illusion to Daniel 7:13.” - Wow! If this is true it will change how I understand Jesus' interactions with the religious leaders of his day. If they didn't make the connection why would they accuse him of claiming to be king? Did Jesus have Daniel 7:13 in mind when he called himself Son of Man? Did the early Christians make the connection?
“It is hard to believe that any one in late Second Temple times could have recognized the phrase “the Son of Man” as an illusion to Daniel 7:13.” - Wow! If this is true it will change how I understand Jesus' interactions with the religious leaders of his day. If they didn't make the connection why would they accuse him of claiming to be king? Did Jesus have Daniel 7:13 in mind when he called himself Son of Man? Did the early Christians make the connection?
Just read this one recently. Bauckham is always great.
Can’t wait for the follow up on this
Thank you