Richard Bauckham. <i>“Son of Man” Early Jewish Literature</i>

This volume is the first of two that Bauckham, as a leading scholar of the NT and Second Temple Judaism (STJ) literature, is offering on “Son of Man” language in the Second Temple period. In this first volume, Bauckham offers two parts concerned with “Son of Man” language—the Parables (or Similitudes) of Enoch and Second Temple interpretations of Dan 7 (which is argued to never be used as a title but is capitalized throughout to indicate its “technical usage” [p. 3]). This volume offers what may likely be the most extensive treatments of the selective texts engaged to date.Part 1 offers seven sections to introduce the Parables of Enoch and seeks to identify the “Son of Man” as the messianic very-human figure of Enoch himself returning from heaven. Along the way, matters of historical reconstruction of the texts—including proposed dates and place of composition—are offered to support the claims. Part 2 provides eleven sections covering STJ interpretations of Dan 7: Greek translations, 4Q246, Sybilline Oracles Book 5, 4 Ezra, Rabbinic traditions, 2 Baruch, Rabbi Akiva, and Josephus. Scattered among the sections are numerous tables for visually tracking and showing word/idea usage comparatives/contrasts, textual affinities/allusions, etc., along with fresh English translations of the respective texts.Bauckham seems, at times, overly committed to making a case that no Jews (outside of the NT texts) held to the divinity of the “Son of Man,” but the evidence may be too insufficient to prove this. The sustained argument is that there was no STJ belief in a divine “Son of Man” or even any titled “Son of Man,” and there are particularly none that actually relied on Dan 7 for such an identifier. Instead, there was belief in an all-too-human messianic judge or king (with varying potential figures offered) who was expected to return from heaven after having ascended to heaven. He may well be correct, and if so, it is to be found in the evidence he offers here. It seems (though without stating such in this volume directly) that Bauckham is awaiting volume 2 to make the starker emphasis upon the uniqueness of the NT witnesses within the STJ period concerning the divine claims about the “Son of Man.”One curiosity about the literature engaged in this first volume is that it claims to be “Early Jewish Literature” but then is reduced to the Parables of Enoch and STJ interpretations of Dan 7. Why should this be a curiosity? At no point does Bauckham take up the usage of the phrase in connection to the usage in the book of Ezekiel. There is only a scattering of background comments made in relation to Ezekiel in this first volume and the second is expected to move to NT usages. This is all the more striking in that Bauckham concludes this volume summarizing his cumulative claim that “late Second Temple” Jews would have not likely “recognized the phrase ‘Son of Man’ as an allusion to Daniel 7:13” and that in fact “there was no Son of Man tradition or . . . concept in Second Temple Judaism” (pp. 374–75). If this is the case, then what would it be meant to draw upon? Could it be influenced by the language of Ezekiel? If it is meant as some manner of uniquely generated NT usage, this would indeed be significant. Granted his focus on “early Jewish literature” is meant to exclude texts of the OT specifically except as background, however, engagement with Ezekiel (even to discuss why it would not matter to the discussion) would seem to be essential. All this aside, Bauckham has engaged the texts that the vast majority of scholars of the NT and STJ literature read in relation to Jesus’ self-designation as “Son of Man” (with only very few outliers pointing to Ezekielian usage).The conversations concerning usage of “Son of Man” in these texts along with what will follow in his tracing of its NT usage in volume 2 is certain to change as scholars will be required to engage Bauckham’s extensive reworking of these sources and their proposed respective claims. There will be no way around engaging this monumental project that seeks to address (as its final aim) the uniqueness of the NT witnesses.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.