[1] This term is used here to refer to a method involving the interpretation or application of scripture (see Suter, D. W., Tradition and Composition in the Parables of Enoch [SBLDS 47; Missoula: Scholars, 1979] 39).Google Scholar

[2] No attempt is made here to answer definitively the question of a hypothetical original passion-resurrection prediction.

[3] Whether or not vv. 18, 21–22, 25 and v. 27 refer to the same group is irrelevant to the present discussion.

[4] Compare the interpretations of Collins, John J. (‘The Son of Man and the Saints of the Most High in the Book of Daniel’, JBL 93 [1974] 50–66Google Scholar; the Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel [Missoula: Scholars, 1977]Google Scholar and DiLella, A. A. (‘The One in Human Likeness and the Holy Ones of the Most High in Daniel 7’, CBQ 39 [1977] 1–19Google Scholar; with Hartman, L. F., The Book of Daniel [AB 23; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1978])Google Scholar, in regard to the identity of this figure.

[5] Hartman, (Daniel, 207)Google Scholar translates in 7. 25 as ‘he will devastate’, on the basis of the use of the cognate Hebrew in 1 Chron 17.9 with the sense of oppressing people.

[6] Hooker, M., ‘Is the Son of Man problem really insoluble?’ Text and Interpretation (ed. Best, E. and Wilson, R. McL.; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1979) 166.Google Scholar

[7] Collins, .Apocalyptic Vision, 132.Google Scholar

[8] Ibid., 133. The fourth element is missing in the third parallel. Dan 9. 24–27 is a similar formulation, but it contains no mythological elements.

[9] Even though the calamity of three and a half years, for the author, ‘is specifically expressed in the debasement of the Law and the liturgical periods of the festivals’ (Lacocque, A., The Book of Daniel [Atlanta: John Knox, 1979] 154)Google Scholar, it is the holy ones (and not the times or the law) who are the they of the last clause (Lacocque, , Daniel, 149Google Scholar; DiLella, , Daniel, 207)Google Scholar. In 1 Enoch 38. 5 where the kings and mighty are ‘given into the hands of the righteous and holy’ (cf. 48. 9), there may be a reversal of the theme of Dan 7. 25.

[10] N. Perrin notes that one cannot distinguish between διδόναι and παραδιδόναι in the Koine (‘Towards an Interpretation of the Gospel of Mark’, Christology and a Modern Pilgrimage [ed. Betz, H. D.;SBL, 1971] 73, n. 26).Google Scholar

[11] There is a further Danielic allusion to Dan 7. 21 (see Theodotion and Dan 7. 8 LXX) in Rev 11.7b(cf. 12. 7a).

[12] An allusion to Dan 7. 25 in Rev 11. 9, 11 is recognized by Ford, J. M. (Revelation [AB 38; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975] 170)Google Scholar. She suggests that the computation of the epoch in Daniel is an interpretation of Hos 6. 2 (177).

[13] J. Jeremias thinks that Mark 9. 31 is the earliest passion prediction because of its brevity, indefiniteness and terminology, but he does not connect it to Daniel (New Testament Theology [New York: Scribner's, 1971] 281)Google Scholar. See below, n. 22.

[14] McArthur, H. K., ‘“On the Third Day”’, NTS 18 (1971/1972) 81–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar;Cf. Delling, , ‘ήμέρα’, TDNT 2 (1964) 949–50.Google Scholar

[15] Strecker, G., ‘The Passion- and Resurrection Predictions in Mark's Gospel’, Int 22 (1968), 429Google Scholar, n. 19. See also Walker, N., ‘After Three Days’, NovT 4 (1960) 261–2.Google Scholar

[16] Strecker, , ‘The Passion- and Resurrection Predictions’, 429.Google Scholar

[17] Perrin, N., ‘Towards an Interpretation’, 27Google Scholar; Tödt, H., The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition (London: SCM, 1965) 185Google Scholar; Black, M., ‘The “Son of Man” Passion Sayings in the Gospel Tradition’, ZNW 60 (1969) 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Delling, , ‘ήμέρα’, 949Google Scholar. McArthur, (‘“On the Third Day”’, 86)Google Scholar thinks that Hos 6. 2 is ‘the outstanding, single scriptural passage behind the “on the third day” tradition, although the phrase “according to the Scriptures” in 1 Cor. xv.4 may have been based on the general “third day” motif which the Rabbis found in numerous passages [such as Gen. 22. 4; 42. 17;Exod. 19. 16; Jonah 2. l;Esth. 5. 1] and not exclusively on Hos. vi.2’.

[18] Contrast Strecker, who argues that ‘after three days’ may show the influence of Jonah 2. 1, but in the light of 1 Cor 15. 4 ‘this notice can hardly claim priority’ (‘Passion- and Resurrection Predictions’, 429, n. 20).Google Scholar

[19] Black, M., ‘The “Son of Man” Passion Sayings’, 3.Google Scholar

[20] Tödt, , Son of Man, 188.Google Scholar

[21] Hooker, M., The Son of Man in Mark (Montreal: McGill University, 1967) 135CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Gould, E. P. (The Gospel according to St. Mark [ICC; Edinburgh: Clark, 1896] 172)Google Scholar remarks that the present is used here to denote the certainty of the future event.

[22] Jeremias, on the other hand, thinks that Mark 9. 31a, with the present tense in contrast to the future in the second part of the verse, goes back to Aramaic tradition and was current independently (cf. Mark 14. 41). It points to an underlying Aramaic participle () denoting the near future and wrongly rendered as present. He argues that 9. 31a could have been received from Jesus as a mashal (mysterious saying or riddle: God will [soon] deliver up the man to men) forming the basis or ancient nucleus for the (para)didonai tradition and hence ultimately the passion predictions (New Testament Theology, 281, 295–6).Google Scholar Perrin agrees that 9. 31a is pre-Markan (‘Towards an Interpretation’, 71, n. 10).Google Scholar

[23] Jeremias, , New Testament Theology, 281.Google Scholar

[24] Some of the Synoptic passion sayings have no allusion to resurrection (Mark 9. 12; 10. 45, par.; 14. 21, 41, pars.; Matt 26. 2, 45; Luke 9. 44; 13. 32–33; 17. 25). These are regarded by some as earlier than those which mention passion-resurrection (see Black, , ‘The “Son of Man” Passion Sayings’, 7Google Scholar; ‘The Son of Man Problem in Recent Research and Debate’, BJRL 45 [1963] 317Google Scholar; Perrin, N., ‘Towards an Interpretation’, 23–4)Google Scholar. However, , see below, pp. 216–17.Google Scholar

[25] Collins, , Apocalyptic Vision, 162Google Scholar; see above, n. 8.

[26] If Dan 12. 1–3 is understood as continuing the prediction of 11. 40–45, the time intended by the author is the period after Antiochus' death (DeLella, , Daniel, 305).Google Scholar

[27] A universal resurrection is probably not envisioned (Nickelsburg, G. W. E., Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism [HTS 26; Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 1972] 19, 23Google Scholar; DiLella, , Daniel, 307–9).Google Scholar

[28] See Nickelsburg, , Resurrection, 24–6Google Scholar; Ginsberg, H. L., ‘The Oldest Interpretation of the Suffering Servant’, VT 3 (1953) 400–4Google Scholar; Collins, , Apocalyptic Vision, 170.Google Scholar

[29] DiLella, , Daniel, 101Google Scholar; Montgomery, J. A., The Book of Daniel (ICC: Edinburgh: Clark, 1950) 471Google Scholar; Nickelsburg, , Resurrection, 24.Google Scholar

[30] Collins, , Apocalyptic Vision, 136–8.Google Scholar

[31] Ibid., 195, 208; ‘Apocalyptic Eschatology as the Transcendence of Death’, CBQ 36 (1974) 30, 34, 37Google Scholar. Collins stresses that eschatological formulations are essentially projections of hopes experienced in depth in the present (41).

[32] See DiLella, , Daniel, 100–2, 313.Google Scholar

[33] Hooker, ,‘Insoluble?’, 167.Google Scholar

[34] G. Vermes contends that the association between ò υίός τοῡ άάθρώπου and Dan 7. 13 constitutes a secondary midrashic stage of development (Jesus the Jew [NY: Macmillan, 1974] 177– 86, 260–1Google Scholar; ‘The “Son of Man” Debate’, JSNT 1 [1978] 28.Google Scholar

[35] Moule, C. F. D., ‘Neglected Features in the Problem of “the Son of Man” Neues Testament und Kirche (ed. Gnilka, J.; Freiburg: Herder, 1974) 421.Google Scholar

[36] Lindars, B., ‘The Son of Man in the Johannine Christology’, Christ and the Spirit in the New Testament (ed. Lindars, B. and Smalley, S.; Cambridge, Cambridge University, 1973) 57, n. 32.Google Scholar

[37] Hooker, , Son of Man, 163, 108–9, 111, 113, 115.Google Scholar

[38] Best, E., The Temptation and the Passion: the Markan Soteriology (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1965) 164, following Davies, W. D. and Dodd., C. H.Google Scholar

[39] Hartman, L., Prophecy Interpreted (Uppsala: Almquist and Wiksells, 1966) 150, 168.Google Scholar

[40] Jeremias, , New Testament Theology, p. 296Google Scholar; cf. Black, , ‘The “Son of Man” Passion Sayings’, 4.Google Scholar

[41] Tödt, , Son of Man, 161.Google Scholar

[42] Fuller, R. H., The Foundations of New Testament Christology (NY: Scribner's, 1965) 152–3.Google Scholar

[43] See Black, M., ‘The Christological Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament’, NTS 18 (1971/1972) 12CrossRefGoogle Scholar. There are indications in several later texts that Daniel 2 and 7 were linked by means of this wordplay (see 1 Enoch 52. 1–6Google Scholar; 4 Ezra 13. 6–7, 36; Josephus, , Ant. 10. 210Google Scholar; Pirqe R. El. 11; Tanhuma B Terumah 6 [46 b]).

[44] Jeremias points out that παραδίδοσθαι used without further explanation means to deliver up to death (New Testament Theology, 296)Google Scholar. In the Danielle context, some of the faithful ‘fall’(11. 32–33).

[45] See Jeremias (ibid., 285) for discussion of ‘three days’ meaning ‘soon’, an indefinite but not particularly long period of time (also Hooker, , Son of Man, 115).Google Scholar

[46] The expression ‘corporate personality’ as used by H. Wheeler Robinson and others is applied to an aspect of ‘ancient Hebrew thought’ said to involve the ideas of corporate responsibility and representation, and of ‘psychic community’ or ‘psychical unity’. But see criticisms of Rogerson, J. W., ‘The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality: a Reexamination’, JTS 21 (1970) 1–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarMoule, (The Origin of Christology [Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1977] 47–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar), wrestling with what ‘the understanding and experience of Christ as corporate’ might mean in the intellectual context of the twentieth century, speaks of Christ as an inclusive person, more than individual, more than representative; in short, like the omnipresent God.

[47] The famous theory of T. W. Manson, that the Son of Man in the gospels is an embodiment of the Remnant idea, is based in part on Manson's understanding of the Danielic one like a son of man as a corporate ‘ideal’ or ‘idea’, actualized in history by groups and individuals. Manson sees Jesus' ministry as the attempt to create the Son of Man, the kingdom of the holy ones, ‘to realize in Israel the ideal contained in the term’. He thinks that what was in the mind of Jesus was that he and his followers together should share the destiny of the Son of Man, should together be the Son of Man. That he suffered alone was due to the failure of the people and then of the disciples to rise to the demands of the‘idea’of the Son of Man; Jesus becomes the Son of Man (the ideal incarnated) by a process of elimination. But in Paul's writings the idea is carried to further realization by a process of inclusion (The Teaching of Jesus [Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1963Google Scholar; reprint of 1935 edition] 35, 227–8, 232–5). Manson unfortunately presented his theory only in broad outline, and did not apply it in sufficient detail to individual texts, enmeshing it with his presentation of the thinking of the historical Jesus. See also John J. Collins' discussion of ‘idea’ as a Hellenistic category which ‘fails to do justice to the concrete vitality of mythological thinking’ (‘The Heavenly Representative: The “Son of Man” in the Similitudes of Enoch’, Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism [ed. Nickelsburg, G. W. E. and Collins, John J.; SBLSCS 12; Chico: Scholars, 1980] 129, n. 28).Google Scholar But something of what Manson calls the ‘challenge’ may be present at some stage of the NT passion resurrection tradition.

[48] Compare 1 Enoch 48 with Isa 49. 1–8; 1 Enoch 49. 4 with Isa 42. 1; and perhaps 1 Enoch 38. 2 with Isa 53. 11 (Nickelsburg, G. W. E., ‘Enoch, Book of’, IDBSup, p. 266).Google Scholar Nickelsburg also considers that the principal judgment scene in 1 Enoch 62–3 is a variation of a traditional expansion of Isaiah 52–3, in which the exalted one executes judgment on his former persecutors.

[49] See Russell, D. S., The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964) 328, 339Google Scholar; Nickelsburg, , Resurrection, 71.Google Scholar

[50] As far as I can see, the only text which might imply that he does die, linking him as the Righteous One with the community of righteous ones, is 1 Enoch 47. 1–4. ‘And in those days shall have ascended the prayer of the righteous (ones), and the blood of the righteous (one) from the earth before the Lord of Spirits. In those days the holy ones who dwell above in the heavens shall unite with one voice and supplicate and pray [and praise, and give thanks and bless the name of the Lord of Spirits] on behalf of the blood of the righteous (ones) which has been shed … And the hearts of the holy were filled with joy because the number of the righteous had been offered, and the prayer of the righteous (ones) had been heard, and the blood of the righteous (one) had been required before the Lord of Spirits.’ But Charles, R. H. (The Book of Enoch [Oxford: Clarendon, 1912] 90Google Scholar) takes the singular ‘righteous’ in these verses as collective (so also Knibb, M. A., The Ethiopic Book of Enoch [2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1978] 132).Google Scholar

[51] Collins, , ‘The Heavenly Representative’, 113–15.Google Scholar Collins comments that ‘the hiddenness of the “son of man” corresponds to the sufferings of the righteous community and the hidden character of their destiny’ (115).

[52] Ibid., 116.

[53] Ibid., 123–4.

[54] Where a corporate interpretation of the Oanielic one like a son of man appears in the Rabbinic literature, as far as I know there is no reference to that figure's suffering. See Midr. Pss. 2. 9 (Yalqut); 21. 5 (S. Buber edition); 47. 1–2 (implied?); Rashi; Ibn Ezra.

[55] In other NT Son of Man sayings which also, in my opinion, make use of Daniel (e.g. Mark 13. 26–27, par. Matt 24. 30–31; Matt 13. 36–43; 19. 28), the Son of Man is obviously distinguished from his followers. These sayings appear to come from a stage of development of the Son of Man tradition within the early community different from that which I have proposed for the tradition behind Mark 9. 31, and perhaps closer to that of these more specific passion-resurrection predictions. See the proposal made by Dunn, J. D. G. (Unity and Diversity in the New Testament [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977] 39–40)Google Scholar concerning general lines of development of the tradition.

[56] Hooker, , Son of Man, 139Google Scholar; contrast Best, Temptation and Passion, 122, 155.Google Scholar In Matt 25. 31–46 the identity between the Son of Man and the ‘least’ is conceived realistically (Schweizer, E., The Good News According to Matthew [Atlanta: John Knox, 1975] 476).Google Scholar

[57] For suggestions concerning an earlier form or position of this passage, see Verities, Jesus the Jew, 162Google Scholar and Brown, R. E., The Gospel According to John (2 vols.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966, 1970), 1. 478.Google Scholar

[58] Acts 5. 30–31 also seems to play with the double meaning in an earlier Semitic saying. Black (‘The “Son of Man” Passion Sayings’, 7), Colpe, C. (‘όυίός τοῡ άνρώπου’ TDNT 8 [1972] 466)Google Scholar and Brown (Gospel According to John, 1. 146)Google Scholar point out that other verbs in Hebrew and Greek have a similar twofold use. Since the Greek is not obvious as a pun, it is clearly explained in 12. 33 (cf. 18. 31–32) that the reference is to crucifixion.

[59] Higgins, A. J. B., Jesus and the Son of Man (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964) 156Google Scholar; Brown, , Gospel According to John, 1. 146.Google Scholar

[60] On 3. 14 and 12. 32 see Schnackenburg, R., ‘Der Menschensohn im Johannesevangelium’, NTS 11 (1964/1965) 130–1Google Scholar, summarized and agreed with by Black, ‘The “Son of Man” Passion Sayings’, 5–6.Google Scholar Also Lindars, ‘The Son of Man in the Johannine Christology’, 59Google Scholar; Brown, , Gospel According to John, 1.146, 478.Google Scholar

[61] Lindars, B., ‘Re-enter the Apocalyptic Son of Man’, NTS 22 (1975) 64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[62] Black, M., ‘The Son of Man Problem’, 305–18.Google Scholar

[63] Brown, , Gospel According to John, 1. 146.Google Scholar

[64] Moule, , ‘Neglected Features’, 422–3.Google Scholar