Son of Man’s Coming

(Matt. 24:29-31; Mark 13:24-27; Luke 21:25-27)

(Huck 219; Aland 292; Crook 332)^[138]

וּבְאוֹתָם הַיָּמִים הַחַמָּה תַּשְׁחִיר כְּשַׂק וְהַלְּבָנָה תַּאֲדִים כְּדָם וּצְבָא הַשָּׁמַיִם יִפּוֹל לָאָרֶץ כִּתְאֵנָה שֶׁמְּנוּעֲנַעַת בְּרוּחַ מַשֶּׁרֶת אֶת נוֹבְלוֹתֶיהָ וְהַשָּׁמַיִם יִקָּרְעוּ כְּסֵפֶר נִגְלָל וְיִרְאוּ כְּבַר אֱנָשׁ בָּא בְּעָנָן עִם שִׁלְטוֹן וִיקָר וּגְדוּלָּה [וְהַמַּלְאָכִים יְקַבְּצוּ אֶת שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר שִׁבְטֵי ⟨בְנֵי⟩ יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאַרְבַּע רוּחוֹת ⟨הַשָּׁמַיִם וּ⟩מֵאַרְבַּע כַּנְפוֹת הָאָרֶץ]

“When that time finally comes, the sun will turn black as sacking, the moon will turn red as blood, and the starry host of heaven will fall to the ground like windblown figs. And heaven will tear open like a scroll being rolled away. And the Gentiles will see one like a Son of Man coming in a cloud into God’s presence to receive all dominion and honor and majesty. For the angels will gather the twelve tribes of the children of Israel from every direction.^[139]

Reconstruction

To view the reconstructed text of Son of Man’s Coming click on the link below:

Conclusion

Due to intense redactional activity on the part of all three synoptic evangelists, Son of Man’s Coming is practically impossible to reconstruct in its earliest forms. We have proposed a possible reconstruction here in order to give an impression of what Son of Man’s Coming might originally have looked like. Our reason for doing so is our belief that the extant versions of Son of Man’s Coming are descended, however remotely, from a section of Jesus’ prophecy of destruction and redemption in which he describes the cessation of the times of the Gentiles and the ultimate vindication of Israel in terms of the apocalyptic image of “one like a son of man.”

---

Click here to return to The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction main page. _______________________________________________________

---

• ^[1] On the Markan and Matthean insertions into the framework of the prophecy preserved in Luke 21, see the introduction to the “Destruction and Redemption” complex. ↩
• ^[2] On the Anth. block of Son of Man material preserved in Luke 17, see Days of the Son of Man, under the “Story Placement” subheading. ↩
• ^[3] See Robert L. Lindsey, “From Luke to Mark to Matthew: A Discussion of the Sources of Markan ‘Pick-ups’ and the Use of a Basic Non-canonical Source by All the Synoptists,” under the subheading “An Examination of the Editorial Activity of the First Reconstructor”; idem, JRL, 167-169; idem, TJS, 72-75. ↩
• ^[4] See David Flusser, “The Times of the Gentiles and the Redemption of Jerusalem,” under the subheading “Lindsey’s Hypothesis and Jesus’ Prophecy”; idem, “Jesus Weeps Over Jerusalem” (Flusser, Jesus, 235-250, esp. 240 n. 9); idem, “Jerusalem in Second Temple Literature” (Flusser, JSTP2, 44-75, esp. 71-72). ↩
• ^[5] See R. Steven Notley, “The Season of Redemption”; idem, “Learn the Lesson of the Fig Tree” (JS2, 107-120, esp. 111). ↩
• ^[6] On the relationship between the “times of the Gentiles” and the filling up of the Amorites’ sin in Gen. 15:16, see Yerushalayim Besieged, Comment to L47. ↩
• ^[7] Flusser (“Jesus Weeps Over Jerusalem,” 245) believed Jesus implied that the completion of the times of the Gentiles would not take place until the distant future. ↩
• ^[8] According to Flusser (“Jerusalem in Second Temple Literature,” 72 n. 58; “Jesus Weeps Over Jerusalem,” 240 n. 9), the phrase “when these things begin to take place” (Luke 21:28) refers to the completion of the “times of the Gentiles.” But how, apart from the astronomical signs described in Luke 21:25-26, were observers to ascertain that the times of the Gentiles were drawing to a close? ↩
• ^[9] Wolter (2:428) noted that there is no temporal distance between the fulfillment of the times of the Gentiles (Luke 21:24) and the appearance of the astronomical signs that frighten the Gentiles (Luke 21:25). ↩
• ^[10] Manson (Sayings, 332) observed that “If we apply the Danielic interpretation [i.e., that the 'one like a son of man' represents Israel’s faithful—DNB and JNT] to the Danielic figure in its new context [i.e., Jesus’ prophecy—DNB and JNT], the coming of the ‘Son of Man’ with power and great glory ought to mean the triumphant vindication of the faithful disciples.” Similarly, according to N. T. Wright, “The ‘coming of the son of man’ is...good first-century metaphorical language for two things: the defeat of the enemies of the true people of god, and the vindication of the true people themselves” (Jesus and the Victory of God [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996], 362). However, we heartily disagree with Wright’s conclusion that the destruction of the Temple is the vindication of the people of God reconstituted in the person of Jesus. Such an inverted conception of vindication is as perverse and preposterous as the insistence of the wicked ape Shift in C. S. Lewis’ The Chronicles of Narnia that Aslan is Tash. (For readers unacquainted with The Chronicles of Narnia, Aslan is a typological representation of Christ, while Tash is a typological representation of Satan.) This perverse view of vindication as the Temple’s destruction is also espoused by Gill (7:295), Gould (251) and France (Mark, 530-535; cf. Matt., 924). ↩
• ^[11] See George W. E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and Early Christianity (rev. ed.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2006), 283. ↩
• ^[12] We believe the First Reconstructor’s adaptation of Anth.’s version of Son of Man’s Coming was minimal. ↩
• ^[13] It is not necessary to suppose that the First Reconstructor was conscious that by his redactional activity he was reinterpreting Son of Man’s Coming. It is just as likely that his (mis)interpretation of Son of Man’s Coming motivated his redactional insertions of Son-of-Man-related pericopae into Jesus’ prophecy, which had the effect of reinforcing his (mis)interpretation. Neither was the First Reconstructor unique in reading Dan. 7:13 as a prophecy concerning Jesus’ eschatological return. Daniel 7:13 is also applied to Jesus in Rev. 1:7 and Did. 16:8. ↩
• ^[14] That Lindsey himself did not make this observation simply attests to the overwhelming success of the First Reconstructor’s reinterpretation of Son of Man’s Coming. ↩
• ^[15] Cf. Flusser’s judgment (“Jesus Weeps Over Jerusalem,” 240 n. 9) that “Luke 21:25-26 [sic, read: 27]...is purely Greek and does not betray any traces of Hebraisms (or even pseudo-Hebraisms).” ↩
• ^[16] On the revelator’s dependence in Rev. 6 on FR’s version of Tumultuous Times, see the “Conjectured Stages of Transmission” discussion in the commentary to Tumultuous Times. ↩
• ^[17] Here we exclude Matthew’s version of Son of Man’s Coming from the discussion because it is so similar to Mark’s, upon which it is based. ↩
• ^[18] The reference to an earthquake in Rev. 6:12, which is absent in the Lukan, Markan and Matthean versions of Son of Man’s Coming, is due to the revelator’s merging of the portents described in FR’s version of Tumultuous Times with the astronomical phenomena described in FR’s version of Son of Man’s Coming. See Tumultuous Times, under the subheading “Conjectured Stages of Transmission.” ↩
• ^[19] Cf. Nolland, Luke, 3:1005; Bovon, 3:117 n. 92, 93, 94. ↩
• ^[20] If Luke 21:25-26 had reverted easily to Hebrew, we would have attributed the disparity between Luke’s version and the Markan-Matthean versions of Son of Man’s Coming to the author of Mark’s editorial activity and the author of Matthew’s reliance on Mark. ↩
• ^[21] Reasons for suspecting that, like Rev. 6, FR (and Anth. before it) had a series of similes describing the frightening portents include 1) the revelator’s probable dependence on FR’s version of Son of Man’s Coming, 2) the relative ease with which the similes in Rev. 6 revert to Hebrew, and 3) the attestation of most of these similes in Hebrew sources. ↩
• ^[22] See Yerushalayim Besieged, under the “Story Placement” subheading, and LOY Excursus: The Dates of the Synoptic Gospels. ↩
• ^[23] Cf. Davies-Allison, 3:357. ↩
• ^[24] See Gundry, Matt., 487. ↩
• ^[25] On the stacking up of prepositional phrases as typical of Markan redaction, see LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style, under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
• ^[26] On θλῖψις as a redactional term in Mark, see Four Soils interpretation, Comment to L46-48. ↩
• ^[27] See Tumultuous Times, under the subheading “Conjectured Stages of Transmission.” ↩
• ^[28] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:606-607. ↩
• ^[29] In Codex Sinaiticus ἥλιος also occurs as the translation of חַמָּה in Isa. 24:23. ↩
• ^[30] Mark’s phrase ὁ ἥλιος σκοτισθήσεται (ho hēlios skotisthēsetai, “the sun will be darkened”) is almost identical to the phrase καὶ σκοτισθήσεται τοῦ ἡλίου ἀνατέλλοντος (kai skotisthēsetai tou hēliou anatellontos, “and the sun will be darkened as it rises”) in Isa. 13:10. The author of Matthew accepted Mark’s wording. ↩
• ^[31] Since some of the similes in Rev. 6:12-14 are based on Isa. 34:4, the author of Mark’s editorial changes are comprehensible. ↩
• ^[32] The verb שָׁחַר (shāḥar, “be black”) in the qal stem occurs only once in MT (Job 30:30). ↩
• ^[33] Cf. As. Mos. 10:5; L.A.B. 19:3. ↩
• ^[34] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1262. ↩
• ^[35] In Codex Sinaiticus σελήνη also occurs as the translation of לְבָנָה in Isa. 24:23. ↩
• ^[36] Cf. As. Mos. 10:5; L.A.B. 19:3. ↩
• ^[37] In LXX [ἡ] δύναμις τοῦ οὐρανοῦ occurs as the translation of צְבָא הַשָּׁמַיִם in 4 Kgdms. 17:16; 21:3, 5; 23:4, 5; 2 Chr. 18:18. ↩
• ^[38] The verb σείειν is not strongly rooted in the synoptic tradition, being attested only in Matthew’s Gospel three times (Matt. 21:10; 27:51; 28:4). The verb σαλεύειν, on the other hand, is firmly rooted in the synoptic tradition, being attested by both Luke and Matthew in Yeshua’s Words about Yohanan the Immerser, L9 (Matt. 11:7 ∥ Luke 7:24). ↩
• ^[39] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1301. ↩
• ^[40] See Dos Santos, 218. ↩
• ^[41] Here we read לְהַשִּׁירוֹ in accordance with Jastrow (942), as opposed to להסירו in Buber’s edition. ↩
• ^[42] See Jastrow, 883. ↩
• ^[43] Cf. Bultmann, 123. ↩
• ^[44] For more on Luke’s insertion in L12-20, see Be Ready for the Son of Man, under the subheading “Redaction Analysis: Luke’s Version,” Comment to L9. ↩
• ^[45] Cf. Moulton-Geden, 434. ↩
• ^[46] See Moulton-Geden, 885. ↩
• ^[47] On the insertion of genitives absolute as a feature of Lukan redaction, see LOY Excursus: The Genitive Absolute in the Synoptic Gospels, under the subheading “The Genitive Absolute in Luke.” ↩
• ^[48] Cf. Fitzmyer, 2:1349. ↩
• ^[49] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:150. ↩
• ^[50] See Moulton-Geden, 103. ↩
• ^[51] See Moulton-Geden, 861; Bovon, Luke, 3:117 n. 92. ↩
• ^[52] See Bovon, Luke, 3:117 n. 92. The verb προσδοκᾶν occurs 2xx in Matthew (Matt. 11:3; 24:50), 0xx in Mark, 6xx in Luke (Luke 1:21; 3:15; 7:19, 20; 8:40; 12:46) and 5xx in Acts (Acts 3:5; 10:24; 27:33; 28:6 [2xx]). See Moulton-Geden, 861. ↩
• ^[53] See Yohanan the Immerser’s Eschatological Discourse, Comment to L1. ↩
• ^[54] See Moulton-Geden, 353-354. ↩
• ^[55] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:150. ↩
• ^[56] See Charles, Revelation, 1:181. ↩
• ^[57] Cf. Charles, Revelation, 1:181. ↩
• ^[58] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:218-219. ↩
• ^[59] See Dos Santos, 144. ↩
• ^[60] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:453. ↩
• ^[61] See John S. Kloppenborg, “Didache 16 6-8 and Special Matthean Tradition,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 70.1-2 (1979): 54-67; Jonathan A. Draper, “The Development of ‘The Sign of the Son of Man’ in the Jesus Tradition,” New Testament Studies 39.1 (1993): 1-21, esp. 15; Kurt Niederwimmer, The Didache: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), 223; Sandt-Flusser, 39. Cf. Davies-Allison, 3:359. ↩
• ^[62] Earlier in Matthew 24, in his version of Betrayal of Friends (Matt. 24:9b-12), the author of Matthew had incorporated material from this source parallel to Did. 16:3-5. ↩
• ^[63] Hagner (2:710) wrote that the author of Matthew “created the reference to ‘the sign of the Son of Man’ to correspond to the question of v. 3,” but the Didache’s parallel to Matt. 24:30 surely demonstrates that it was the other way around. The author of Matthew crafted the disciples’ question in Matt. 24:3 (“What is the sign of your parousia?”) in order to prepare for the reference to “the sign of the Son of Man,” which he added to Son of Man’s Coming. ↩
• ^[64] See Allen, 259; Krister Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew and its Use of the Old Testament (2d ed.; Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1968), 213; Craig R. Koester, Revelation (AB 38a; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2014), 218; Davies-Allison, 3:360; Nolland, Matt., 984. ↩
• ^[65] Cf., e.g., Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, “σημεῖον,” TDNT, 7:200-261, esp. 237-238 n. 264; Carsten Colpe, “ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου,” TDNT, 8:400-477, esp. 437. ↩
• ^[66] Cf. Keener, 586. ↩
• ^[67] On τότε as an indicator of Matthean redaction, see Jesus and a Canaanite Woman, Comment to L22. ↩
• ^[68] Cf. Allen, 259; Gundry, Use, 53. ↩
• ^[69] Cf. Gundry, Matt., 488. On φαίνειν as an indicator of Matthean redaction, see Darnel Among the Wheat, Comment to L12. ↩
• ^[70] See Beare, Matt., 471. ↩
• ^[71] See Rengstorf, “σημεῖον,” 238. ↩
• ^[72] Cf. Allen, 258. ↩
• ^[73] Cf. Higgins, “The Sign of the Son of Man (Matt. xxiv. 30),” 381; Schweizer, 455; Hagner, 2:713. ↩
• ^[74] See McNeile, 352. ↩
• ^[75] See Hagner, 2:713. ↩
• ^[76] See LSJ, 1593. ↩
• ^[77] Text according to Joseph H. Hertz, The Authorized Daily Prayer Book (rev. ed.; New York: Bloch, 1975), 282. ↩
• ^[78] Cf., e.g., Didascalia 49:8; Apocalypse of Peter §1; Epistola Apostolorum 16 (27); Apocalypse of Elijah 32:4-5; John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew 76:4. ↩
• ^[79] See Niederwimmer, The Didache: A Commentary, 223; Sandt-Flusser, 36, 39. ↩
• ^[80] Cf. Draper, “The Development of ‘The Sign of the Son of Man’ in the Jesus Tradition,” 14; Davies-Allison, 3:360. ↩
• ^[81] Translation according to The Ante-Nicene Fathers (10 vols.; ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and Allan Menzies; repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980-1986), 1:181-182. ↩
• ^[82] The staurogram, written ⳨, combines the Greek letters τ (tav) and ρ (rho) to depict the crucified Jesus. The τ depicts the cross, while the ρ depicts the head and torso of Jesus. On the staurogram, see Demands of Discipleship, Comment to L21-22. ↩
• ^[83] See Higgins, “The Sign of the Son of Man (Matt. xxiv. 30),” 382. ↩
• ^[84] On the variant readings in Zech. 12:10, see David Flusser, “Hystaspes and John of Patmos” (Flusser, JOC, 390-453, esp. 423). ↩
• ^[85] See Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament, 213. Torrey believed that the allusion to Zech. 12:10-12 in Matt. 24:30 is an interpolation from Rev. 1:7 made by a later copyist of Matthew’s Gospel. See Charles Cutler Torrey, Documents of the Primitive Church (New York: Harper & Bros., 1941), 83. However, there is almost no manuscript evidence to support Torrey’s theory. Cf. Gundry, Use, 53. Moreover, the author of Matthew displayed particular interest in the book of Zechariah, alluding to or quoting Zechariah in Matt. 21:5 (cf. Mark 11:3; Luke 19:31); 23:35 (= Luke 11:51); 26:31 (= Mark 14:27); 27:9 (unparalleled). The author of Matthew’s familiarity with the book of Zechariah means that he was perfectly capable of making the allusion to Zech. 12:10-12 on his own. ↩
• ^[86] The revelator may have been more faithful to the common tradition in placing the allusion to Dan. 7:13 ahead of the Zech. 12:10-12 allusion, for the author of Matthew was constrained by his desire to make the tribes mourn at the sign (perhaps envisioned as the cross) rather than the parousia itself. The revelator was certainly more faithful to the earlier tradition by including the reference to the one who was pierced. While the sign (of the cross) reminded the author of Matthew of this common tradition, he was once again constrained by his desire to make the tribes react not to the parousia itself but to the sign that the parousia was imminent. On the other hand, Matt. 24:30 may be closer to the earlier tradition in using the third person plural ὄψονται (opsontai, “they will see”) as opposed to the revelator’s use of ὄψεται (opsetai, “he/she/it will see”) in Rev. 1:7, since Matthew’s ὄψονται makes a better wordplay with κόψονται (kopsontai, “they will mourn”). Note, too, that in John 19:37, where there is a non-Septuagintal quotation of Zech. 12:10, the verb for seeing is ὄψονται (“they will see”). John’s Gospel does not link Zech. 12:10 to Dan. 7:13, but this does not mean that he was unfamiliar with the tradition known to the author of Matthew and the revelator. The account of the crucifixion was hardly the place for the author of John to refer to the Son of Man’s coming. ↩
• ^[87] Gundry (Matt., 488), Hagner (2:710) and Davies and Allison (Davies-Allison, 3:359) note the wordplay. ↩
• ^[88] See Marc Turnage, “Jesus and Caiaphas: An Intertextual-Literary Evaluation” (JS1, 139-168, esp. 146-147 n. 25). ↩
• ^[89] Pace Keener, 586. ↩
• ^[90] See McNeile, 352-353; Meier, Matthew, 287; Gundry, Matt., 488; Hagner, 2:714; Keener, 586; Nolland, Matt., 984. Cf. Luz, 3:202. ↩
• ^[91] See Gundry, Use, 234; France, Matt., 925. ↩
• ^[92] See Gundry, Use, 234. ↩
• ^[93] See Gundry, Matt., 488; Hagner, 2:714; Nolland, Matt., 984. ↩
• ^[94] See Richard Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993), 318-322. ↩
• ^[95] See, for instance, Yerushalayim Besieged, Comment to L36. ↩
• ^[96] Cf. Draper, “The Development of ‘The Sign of the Son of Man’ in the Jesus Tradition,” 16, 17. ↩
• ^[97] Cf. Randall Buth, “Distinguishing Hebrew from Aramaic in Semitized Greek Texts, with an Application for the Gospels and Pseudepigrapha” (JS2, 247-319, esp. 302). ↩
• ^[98] On the τότε in Luke 21:10, see Tumultuous Times, Comment to L1. ↩
• ^[99] On the τότε in Luke 21:20, see Yerushalayim Besieged, Comment to L5. ↩
• ^[100] On the τότε in Luke 21:21, see Yerushalayim Besieged, Comment to L11-12. ↩
• ^[101] See Taylor, 518. ↩
• ^[102] Marcus, 2:908. ↩
• ^[103] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1005-1007. ↩
• ^[104] See Dos Santos, 188. ↩
• ^[105] Flusser made this point in his essay “Jewish Messianism Reflected in the Early Church” (Flusser, JSTP2, 258-288, esp. 267 n. 21), but it was unfortunately obscured by poor translation. Flusser’s statement, corrected from the Hebrew version of his article, should have read as follows: “There is only one place where all three Synoptic Gospels attribute to Jesus a reference to Daniel 7:13: the apocalyptic vision at Luke 21:27 (and parallels). Even this may not be an authentic saying of Jesus. But even if we assume it is, it is a remarkable fact that Jesus does not allude to Dan. 7:13 in the rest of his Son of Man references, even though he was undoubtedly familiar with the Book of Daniel.” On this and numerous other errors of translation in the posthumously published two-volume collection of Flusser’s essays entitled Judaism of the Second Temple Period, see the JP blog post “Corrections and Emendations to Flusser’s Judaism of the Second Temple Period.” ↩
• ^[106] Dalman (257) based his view that Jesus derived his self-designation as the Son of Man from Dan. 7:13 on Jesus’ “apocalyptic discourse” (Matt. 24:30 ∥ Mark 13:26 ∥ Luke 21:27) and on Jesus’ testimony “before the Sanhedrin” (Matt. 26:64 ∥ Mark 14:62 ∥ Luke 22:69). But we do not view either of these instances as a solid basis for Dalman’s conclusion. As we have seen, Jesus’ allusion to Dan. 7:13 in Son of Man’s Coming was probably not self-referential. The apocalyptic image of the Son of Man coming on the clouds probably represented the vindication and exultation of Israel after the long period of Jerusalem’s trampling by the Gentiles.
  
  With regard to Jesus’ testimony before Caiaphas, it is true that in the Markan and Matthean versions of the pericope an allusion to Dan. 7:13 is undeniably present, but if Lindsey’s hypothesis that the order of transmission was from Luke to Mark to Matthew is correct, then it is likely that the Dan. 7:13 allusion is secondary. In Luke 22:69 Jesus does not refer to the Son of Man's coming on the clouds of heaven as he does in Mark 14:62 and Matt. 26:64. (Indeed, there is a logical contradiction between the images of a stationary Son of Man seated at the right hand of the power and a mobile Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven. See Turnage, “Jesus and Caiaphas: An Intertextual-Literary Evaluation,” 146-147.) All that Jesus says in Luke 22:69 is “From now on the Son of Man will be sitting at the right hand of the power of God.” Jesus’ answer, as it is given in Luke 22:69, appears to be a combination of Ps. 8:5-7 (“What is...the son of man [בֶּן אָדָם] that you care for him? ...you have placed [שַׁתָּה] everything under his feet [תַחַת רַגְלָיו]”) and Ps. 110:1 (“Sit at my right hand [לִימִינִי] until I place [אָשִׁית] your enemies as a footstool for your feet [לְרַגְלֶיךָ]”). (It may be that Ps. 80:18, which states, “Let your hand be upon the man of your right hand [יְמִינֶךָ], upon the Son of Man [בֶּן אָדָם] whom you have strengthened for yourself,” played a role in fusing Ps. 8:5-7 and Ps. 110:1. See Turnage, “Jesus and Caiaphas: An Intertextual-Literary Evaluation,” 149.) No allusion to Dan. 7:13 is necessary in order for Jesus’ response in Luke 22:69 to make sense. This does not mean that there could not have been such an allusion, but Occam’s razor certainly places the burden of proof on those who claim that there was. It is not sufficient simply to assume that whenever Jesus referred to himself as Son of Man he alluded to the "one like a son of man" in the vision of Daniel 7. That assumption has to be justified on other rational and verifiable grounds. ↩
• ^[107] See Robert L. Lindsey, “The Hebrew Life of Jesus,” under the subheading “Jesus’ Interrogation by the Chief Priests.” See also Randall Buth, “‘Son of Man’: Jesus’ Most Important Title”; idem, “A More Complete Semitic Background for בר־אנשא, ‘Son of Man,’” in The Function of Scripture in Early Jewish and Christian Tradition (ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 176-189. ↩
• ^[108] It is not clear whether by writing ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ the author of Matthew was attempting to conform to LXX (so Allen, 259; Gundry, Use, 53; Hagner, 2:710) or to the source behind Did. 16 (so Kloppenborg, “Didache 16 6-8 and Special Matthean Tradition,” 62-63), since both refer to a coming on the clouds of heaven (LXX: ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ; Did. 16:8: ἐπάνω τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ). ↩
• ^[109] See Conzelmann, 183 n. 1; Gundry, Use, 54. ↩
• ^[110] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:943. ↩
• ^[111] See Dos Santos, 158. ↩
• ^[112] Cf. Dan. 7:27, where dominion [שָׁלְטָנָא] and greatness [רְבוּתָא] are conferred on the saints of the Most High. ↩
• ^[113] The LXX translation of Dan. 7:14 diverges from the Aramaic, so there is no exact equivalent to יְקָר, although it probably inspired καὶ πᾶσα δόξα (kai pasa doxa, “and all glory”) in Dan. 7:14 LXX. ↩
• ^[114] See Comment to L43. ↩
• ^[115] Conzelmann’s explanation (130-131, 183 n. 1) that the author of Luke omitted the ingathering of the elect from Son of Man’s Coming because he did not approve of the subordination of the angels to Jesus is feeble. While it may explain Luke’s omission of the angels, it does not explain his omission of the ingathering of the elect from the four winds. If the author of Luke had been troubled by the subordination of the angels to Jesus, he could have written καὶ ἐπισυνάξει τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς αὐτοῦ κ.τ.λ. (“and he will gather his elect,” etc.), thereby omitting the angels, or he could have written καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι ἐπισυνάξουσιν τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς κ.τ.λ. (“and the angels will gather the elect,” etc.), thereby omitting the Son of Man’s commanding role. In either case the author of Luke could have eliminated the subordination of the angels to Jesus without discarding all of Mark 13:27. Therefore, something other (or at least something more) than the angels’ subordination to Jesus caused the author of Luke to omit the ingathering from Son of Man’s Coming. ↩
• ^[116] See Gundry, Matt., 489; Davies-Allison, 3:363. ↩
• ^[117] See Davies-Allison, 3:363. ↩
• ^[118] See Darnel Among the Wheat, Comment to L57. ↩
• ^[119] Note, however, that Rev. 7:2 has an angel call φωνῇ μεγάλῃ (fōnē megalē, “with a loud voice”). Nevertheless, Rev. 7:2 makes no reference to a trumpet, and the angel’s cry has a different function than the summons of a trumpet blast, so it seems unlikely that a trumpet call was featured in FR or Anth. ↩
• ^[120] Pace Metzger, 61. ↩
• ^[121] Cf. Kloppenborg, “Didache 16 6-8 and Special Matthean Tradition,” 63-65. ↩
• ^[122] In 1 Cor. 15:52, 1 Thess. 4:16 and Did. 16:6 the trumpet call is associated with the resurrection of the dead rather than the ingathering of the twelve tribes of Israel. But the resurrection and the ingathering of the twelve tribes are not widely separated categories, since the majority of the tribes had become extinct by the first century. Thus, resurrection was a prerequisite for the twelve tribes of Israel to be restored. See Choosing the Twelve, under the subheading “Results of This Research.” ↩
• ^[123] Cf. Davies-Allison, 3:364; Nolland, Matt., 985. ↩
• ^[124] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:534. ↩
• ^[125] See Dos Santos, 180. ↩
• ^[126] See Flusser, “Jesus Weeps Over Jerusalem,” 247-249; Sandt-Flusser, 326. Cf. Taylor, 518-519; Davies-Allison, 3:364; Luz, 3:203; Nolland, Matt., 986; Collins, 615. ↩
• ^[127] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1444-1446; Dos Santos, 110 (מַטֶּה), 203 (שֵׁבֶט). ↩
• ^[128] See Jastrow, 765 (מַטֶּה), 1513 (שֵׁבֶט). By way of example, the noun מַטֶּה occurs twice in the Mishnah: once in the sense of “staff” (m. Avot 5:6) and once in the sense of “tribe,” but in a Scripture quotation (m. Men. 11:5). The noun שֵׁבֶט, by contrast, occurs 24xx in the Mishnah: 18xx in the sense of “tribe” (m. Taan. 4:5; m. Sot. 7:5 [2xx]; m. Sanh. 1:5 [2xx]; 10:3, 4; m. Hor. 1:5 [11xx]) and 6xx in the sense of “staff” (m. Naz. 5:3 [2xx]; m. Sot. 1:8 [2xx]; m. Bech. 9:7 [2xx]). ↩
• ^[129] The “four winds” are mentioned in similar contexts without “of heaven” in Jer. 49:36 [LXX: 25:16] and Did. 10:5. ↩
• ^[130] Taylor (519) noted that the combination “from the end of earth to the end of heaven” in Mark 13:27 is peculiar. ↩
• ^[131] Gundry, Use, 55. ↩
• ^[132] On the Prayer for the Welfare of King Jonathan, see David Flusser, “A Comment on a Prayer for the Welfare of King Jonathan” (Flusser, JSTP1, 170-174); Hanan Eshel, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 101-115. ↩
• ^[133] In the Pentateuch alone, τέσσαρες occurs as the translation of אַרְבָּעָה/אַרְבַּע in Gen. 2:10; 11:16; 14:9; 31:41; 47:24; Exod. 21:37; 25:12 (2xx), 26 (2xx), 34; 26:2, 8, 32 (2xx); 27:2, 4 (2xx), 16 (2xx); 37:2, 4 (2xx), 17 (2xx); 38:3; Lev. 11:20, 21, 23, 27, 42; Num. 1:25, 27; 2:4, 6; 7:7, 8, 88; 17:14; 25:9; 26:21, 47; 29:13, 15, 17, 20, 23, 26, 29, 32; Deut. 3:11; 22:12. ↩
• ^[134] Matthew’s version of Son of Man’s Coming refers to “ends of heaven” in place of Mark’s “end of earth” (L45), but we regard this as a secondary change introduced by the author of Matthew. ↩
• ^[135] The phrase [αἱ] πτέρυγες [τῆς] γῆς occurs as the translation of כַּנְפוֹת הָאָרֶץ in Job 37:3; 38:13; Isa. 11:12; Ezek. 7:2. Cf. Isa. 24:16. ↩
• ^[136] On the revelator’s Greek style, see Jan Joosten, “Varieties of Greek in the Septuagint and the New Testament,” in The New Cambridge History of the Bible (ed. James Carleton Paget, Joachim Schaper et al.; 4 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013-2015), 1:22-45, esp. 43-44. ↩
• ^[137] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:283. ↩
• ^[138] For abbreviations and bibliographical references, see “Introduction to ‘The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction.’” ↩
• ^[139] This translation is a dynamic rendition of our reconstruction of the conjectured Hebrew source that stands behind the Greek of the Synoptic Gospels. It is not a translation of the Greek text of a canonical source. ↩