The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation

The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation, by Delbert Burkett. SNTSMS 107. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Pp. xiv + 176. $54.95. Given the current lack of concord regarding the meaning and origin of the NT's term "the Son of Man," Burkett has given us just what we need at the moment--not one more book promoting yet another thesis or resurrecting an old idea but a comprehensive survey of what everyone has had to say. Earlier surveys were produced by Wessel Scholten (1809), Heinrich Appel (1896), and Mogens Miller (1984). Now Burkett's book, which covers "the main lines of the debate from work from the patristic period to 1996" (p. 3), offers us the best, the most up-to-date, and most comprehensive review of the various views and disputations about the mysterious "Son of Man." Chapter 1 examines the so-called genealogical understanding, according to which "..." identifies Jesus as someone's son--the son of a human (so Ignatius, Bede, Theophylact), the son of Mary (so Tertullian and many in the Middle Ages), the son of Joseph (so Pseudo-Justin, Christoph August Heumann), the son of Adam (so Athanasius, Erasmus, Calvin, John Lightfoot, John Bowman), or the son of a Gnostic aeon or god (so various Gnostic ancient writings). Burkett faults all of these suggestions in part because they interpret the Greek without recognizing that it is based upon a Semitic expression. Chapter 2 reviews those who argued, after the rebirth of Semitic studies after the Reformation, that t't In or whatever Semitic expression Jesus used referred to his humanity without reference to a particular parent (Joseph, Mary, etc.). Some, such as Zwingli, took "the Son of Man" to refer to Jesus' human nature. But Martin Bucer, Heinrich Bullinger, and many after them thought it carried the connotation of lowliness. Still others, including Friedrich Schleiermacher and Augustus Tholuck, thought that "the Son of man" emphasized Jesus' status as a human being different from all other human beings-the preeminent human or ideal human. According to Burkett, this approach, which was popular in the nineteenth century, appeared only occasionally in the twentieth century. His evaluation of this fact is straightforward: "Ultimately the interpretation of `Son of Man' as an expression of Jesus' humanity failed because it made the title superfluous: Jesus had no need to emphasize his simple humanity, since it would have been apparent to all" (p. 20). Chapter 3 looks at the apocalyptic and messianic "Son of Man," which has played such an important role in the modern debate. Burkett documents a tendency to interpret the phrase either in terms of Dan 7 or in terms of the Similitudes of 1 Enoch. He says that although this interpretation prevailed until the 1960s, two questions were never resolved. First, to whom did the title refer on Jesus' lips? Second, which "Son of Man" sayings should be regarded as authentic? The fourth chapter takes up the first question and reviews the main answers-"the Son of man" was a titular (perhaps proleptic) self-designation (Johannes Weiss, Rudolf Otto) or the name for a corporate entity (T. W. Manson, C. F. D. Moule) or a messiah other than Jesus (David Friedrich Strauss, Julius Wellhausen, Rudolf Bultmann). Burkett also includes here the view of William Wrede and Wilhelm Bousset, that the thirdperson speech is a sign that Jesus never used the expression at all. The fifth chapter continues by addressing the question of authenticity. Here Burkett catalogues the opinions and arguments of those who thought only the nonapocalyptic sayings authentic, those who thought only the apocalyptic sayings authentic, those who thought sayings from both groups authentic, and those who thought none of the "Son of man" sayings authentic. Most attention is given to the arguments of Ernst Kasemann, Philipp Vielhauer, and Norman Perrin. After surveying, in chapter 6, "miscellaneous Sons of Men"--examined here are, among other views, the proposal of a connection with Ezekiel's "son of man" and the equation of "the Son of man" with so-called "Primal Man"-Burkett turns in chapter 7 to the debate over the apocalyptic "Son of Man. …