Tag: Similitudes of Enoch

“Who Is This Son of Man…?”: Daniel 7:13-14 (Part 3)

In Part 2 of this study, we explored the use of Daniel 7:13-14 in two Jewish writings from the first century A.D.: the Similitudes (or Parables) of Enoch, and 2/4 Esdras (also known as 4 Ezra). The time-frame and eschatological orientation of these works is significant in relation to the Gospel Tradition—particularly with regard to the expression “(the) son of man”. Actually, this expression does not occur in 2/4 Esdras; however, the vision in chapter 13 clearly alludes to the “(one) like a son of man” in Dan 7:13f. There are similar allusions in the Similitudes of Enoch, along with specific (and repeated) use of the expression “son of man”, in three different Ethiopic (Ge‘ez) formulations. The Similitudes offer a much more robust work for comparison with the Gospel Tradition; and, since the treatment of Dan 7:13f in 2/4 Esdras is generally comparable to that in the Similitudes, we can use the Similitudes as the basis for consideration of the Dan 7:13f tradition in first-century Judaism.

The Similitudes of Enoch and the Gospel Tradition

There are actually a number of significant (and meaningful) parallels between the use of the expression “son of man” in the Similitudes and the expression, as applied to Jesus, in the Gospel Tradition. The following three points may be noted for comparison:

    1. Daniel 7:13-14 is given an eschatological and Messianic interpretation, with the “(one) like a son of man” being understood as a Messianic figure. The specific title “(the) Anointed (One)” is applied to this figure.
    2. This figure is referred to by several Messianic titles, derived from Scriptural tradition (interpreted in a Messianic way), most notably: “the Righteous (One)” (e.g., Isa 53:11), and “the Elect/Chosen (One)” (Isa 42:1).
    3. Ultimately, this figure is identified with an exalted human being (“son of man”), a man who was exalted to a divine/heavenly position and status—namely, Enoch.

Let us briefly discuss each of these points.

1. Apart from the fact that the title “Anointed (One)” is used at 48:10 and 52:4, the general Messianic character of the “son of man” in the Similitudes is clear from his role in the end-time Judgment (cf. the discussion and references in Part 2)—acting as God’s representative in judging the nations, bringing punishment upon the wicked. At the same time, this figure functions as leader/ruler and protector of the righteous (the people of God). These are eschatological roles associated with several different Messianic figure-types, including the royal/Davidic type. The royal character of the “son of man” in the Similitudes is generally clear, even though specific references to his kingship tend to be avoided; for the author, it would seem that ultimately Kingship belongs to God, with the “son of man” as His subordinate ruler (and representative). The Davidic aspect of the royal figure-type is more or less absent from the Similitudes; this is a key point of difference with the Gospel Tradition, where Jesus’ specific identity as the Davidic Messiah (“son of David”) is very much emphasized (cf. Parts 6–8 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”).

2. The Messianic titles “Righteous (One)” and “Elect/Chosen (One)” are applied to the “son of man” in the Similitudes (38:2; 39:6; 40:5; 45:3-4; 49:2, 4; 51:3, 5; 52:6, 9; 53:6; 55:4; 61:5, 8, 10; 62:1) and also to Jesus in the Gospels and early Christian tradition. For the title “(the) Righteous (One)” ([o(] di/kaio$), see Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14; 1 Jn 2:1; cf. also 1 Jn 2:29; 3:7; Matt 27:19; 2 Tim 4:8. The title “Elect/Chosen (One)” ([o(] e)klekto/$) occurs in Luke 23:35 and John 1:34 v.l., with an equivalent title using the verbal noun (perfect participle) e)klelegme/no$ in Luke 9:35; cf. also 1 Peter 2:4, 6 (citing Isa 28:16). There is a clear correspondence between “the Righteous (One)” in heaven and the community of the “righteous (one)s” on earth; similarly, the title “Elect/Chosen (One)” relates to the righteous people as “elect/chosen (one)s”. A similar correspondence is found in the New Testament, with believers in Christ referred to as “righteous (one)s” and “elect/chosen (one)s” (for the latter, cf. Mark 13:20ff; Lk 18:7; Rom 8:33; Col 3:12; 1 Pet 1:1, etc). The righteous are also referred to as “(the) holy (one)s” in the Similitudes, even as they are in Daniel 7 (vv. 18, 21-22, 25, 27). The parallelism in Daniel 7 suggests that the title “Holy (One)” could be applied to the heavenly figure (“[one] like a son of man”), even though that title is not actually used. Nor is it used of the Messianic figure in the Similitudes; however, it is a title applied to Jesus the Messiah in the New Testament (Mark 1:24 par; John 6:69; Acts 2:27 [13:35]; 3:14; 1 Jn 2:20; cf. also Lk 1:35; Acts 4:27, 30; Rev 3:7 [cf. 6:10; 16:5]). Believers, of course, are regularly referred to as “holy (one)s” (i.e., ‘saints’).

3. Surely the most distinctive parallel between the Similitudes and the Gospel Tradition is that the heavenly “son of man” (from Dan 7:13-14) is identified with an exalted human being—Enoch (70:1; 71:14, 17) and Jesus, respectively. In this regard, it would seem that the author of the Similitudes (at least, the person who made this identification) understood the expression “son of man” in the concrete sense of a human being. That is to say, this figure is not simply “like a son of man” (Dan 7:13); rather, he is a “son of man” (human being). He is an exalted human being, raised to become “that son of man” seen in the heavenly visions (46:1ff). It seems likely that the original application of the Dan 7:13-14 tradition to the person of Jesus was also focused on his exaltation to heaven. This, certainly, is the emphasis in the Mark 14:62 par saying—particularly in the Lukan version of the saying (22:69, see the recent study on Acts 7:55-56). The use of Dan 7:13f in the context of Jesus’ subsequent return to earth (Mark 13:26 par) probably represents a secondary application, even though it came to be the primary association for early Christians by the end of the first century (see the prior study dealing with Revelation 1:7; 14:14). It is from Jesus’ exalted position in heaven (primary point of reference) that he will return to earth (secondary reference), as he ushers in the end-time Judgment.

The Enoch/Jesus parallel is striking indeed, especially when one combines all three points of comparison outlined above. Is it possible that this treatment of Enoch as the “son of man” in the Similitudes could have influenced the Gospel Tradition—and even Jesus’ own use of the expression “the son of man”? Many New Testament scholars would answer in the affirmative. A dating of the Similitudes in the early first century makes such a line of influence at least conceivable. Even if Jesus and/or the early Christians did not know or make use of the Similitudes directly, it is possible that the tradition(s) regarding Enoch’s exaltation (to become the “son of man” figure of Dan 7:13-14) could have been in circulation during the first century, to be utilized as a traditional type-pattern applied to Jesus.

Personally, I can find no clear evidence for any such influence, apart from the general (though definite) parallels cited above. It may well be that the parallelism is coincidental, reflecting (at best) certain basic currents in Jewish eschatology and Messianic thought, as they relate to the interpretation of Daniel 7:13-14. Once the possibility, that the heavenly “(one) like a son of man” referred to an exalted human being, was established, there were only a few candidates available for such an identification. Clearly, Enoch was one of these, based on the tradition(s) regarding his exaltation to heaven (cf. Gen 5:24); Moses and Elijah are two others. The exaltation of Jesus naturally would lend itself to a similar identification. The idea of his exaltation, however, is not rooted in Scriptural tradition, but in the immediate historical tradition of his resurrection (and ascension to heaven). According to the early exaltation-Christology, the Divine/heavenly status and position of Jesus—his Messiahship and Divine Sonship—was understood primarily in terms of his resurrection and exaltation to heaven (at God’s right hand): cf. the emphasis especially in the early kerygma (Gospel proclamation), [Mark 16:19]; Acts 2:33-34; 5:31; 7:55-56 [Mk 14:62 par]; Rom 1:3-4; 8:34; Heb 1:3; 10:12; 1 Pet 3:22, etc. The place of the expression “(the) son of man” in the subsequent pre-existence Christology is less clear; it definitely played a role in the Johannine Christology (at least, in the Gospel). Some of the broader implications, in relation to orthodox Christology, will be discussed in the Conclusion to this series.

It is in the kerygma—the early Gospel preaching, as presented in the first half of the book of Acts—that the combination of elements found in the Similitudes is most clearly present: (1) Jesus as the Messiah, (2) the theme of his exaltation to heaven, and (3) the titles “Righteous (One)”, “Holy (One)”, and “Elect/Chosen (One)”; cf. the references above. In addition, the identification of Jesus with the “son of man” of Dan 7:13f is found in the context of the Acts sermon-speeches (7:55-56), where the emphasis is unquestionably on the exaltation of Jesus to heaven, echoing the Lukan version (22:69) of the “son of man” saying in Mk 14:62 par.

Another interesting parallel involves the use of the demonstrative pronoun in the Similitudes—viz., “that son of man”, utilizing the Ge‘ez demonstratives zekku (46:2; 48:2; 62:5, 9, 14; 63:11) and we’etu (69:26, 29; 70:1; 71:17)—and, in one case, “this son of man” (zentu, 46:4). In my studies on the Synoptic “son of man” sayings, I argued that translating the definite article (in the Greek “the son of man” [o( ui(o\$ tou= a)nqrw/pou]) effectively as a demonstrative, i.e., “th(is) son of man”, makes excellent sense for the use of the expression throughout the Tradition. Since, in the Gospels, Jesus is primarily using the expression as a self-reference, it becomes a way of referring to himself as ‘this particular person’. The demonstratives in the Similitudes have a different point of reference: they point back to the figure resembling a human being, whom Enoch sees in heaven in the vision (46:1ff)—that particular “son of man”. Still, one may note the general similarity of usage, whereby the expression “son of man” is used to refer to a specific, particular human being.

There is a further interesting use of the demonstrative pronoun—both ou!to$ (“this”) and e)kei=no$ (“that”)—in the New Testament, as a distinctive way of referring to Jesus. We see it, for example, at a number of points in the early Gospel preaching recorded in the book of Acts: 2:23, 32, 36; 4:11; 6:14; 17:3—where the usage is “this (one)” or “this Yeshua”. It is also part of the Johannine style, with the demonstratives frequently used in reference to Jesus—note, in particular, the use of e)kei=no$ (“that [one]”) in 1 John: 2:6; 3:3, 5, 7, 16; 4:17. The demonstrative pronoun often functions as the Divine subject within the Johannine essential predication: Divine subject | verb of being | predicate noun/phrase. Such statements provide essential information about Jesus (the Son)— “that/this (one) is …”. In terms of such essential predication, one may note the identification-statement made in John 5:27 (cf. the earlier study): “he is [e)stin] (the) son of man”. One is reminded again of the closing portion of the Similitudes (cf. Part 2), where Enoch also is identified as the “son of man”: “You (are) that son of man, who was born for righteousness…” (71:14).

Concluding Note on the Influence of Dan 7:13-14

There is no doubt that the sayings in Mark 13:26 and 14:62 pars allude to Daniel 7:13f. It remains highly debatable, however, whether (or to what extent) the same tradition informs the wider Gospel usage of the expression “the son of man”. Given the allusion in Mark 13:26 par, where the reference (in the Gospel context) is clearly to the return of the exalted Jesus to earth at the time of the Judgment, it might seem natural to assume that the expression in sayings such as Mark 8:38; Matt 13:41; 16:27-28; 24:27, 30, 37, 39 [pars], 44; Luke 18:8 would also have Dan 7:13f in mind. However, in none of those sayings is there any wording or terminology that might indicate a conscious reference or allusion to Daniel 7:13-14—apart from the expression “son of man” itself. If the Daniel 7 tradition has influenced these eschatological sayings, it did so only in a most subtle or generalized way.

This raises the question again as to the authenticity of the eschatological sayings. For commentators who would maintain that they are not authentic sayings by Jesus, it is entirely plausible that early Christians fashioned the sayings, in light of the tradition in Mark 13:26 par, identifying Jesus—in his end-time return—with the heavenly “son of man” figure in Daniel 7 (cf. Revelation 1:7; 14:14). However, if the eschatological sayings (any or all of them) are considered authentic sayings by Jesus, then the influence of Daniel 7, in my view, become less likely. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus makes use of the expression “the son of man” primarily as a self-reference; there being no definite or obvious allusions to Daniel 7 in the eschatological sayings (apart from Mk 13:26 par), it is fair to assume that the same usage applies. Jesus is referring to his own end-time role (in relation to the Judgment, etc). Some commentators have theorized that Jesus originally used the expression, in the eschatological sayings, in reference to a heavenly figure separate from himself; if so, then an allusion to Daniel 7 becomes more plausible. But, as previously discussed, such a theory is highly speculative, with little hard evidence to support it. The eschatological sayings remain problematic, when considered as authentic sayings by Jesus; this is a matter which will be discussed again in the Conclusion to this series.

I am forced to reject the line of interpretation which explains the Gospel usage of the expression (by Jesus), as a whole, as influenced by Daniel 7:13f. Admittedly, when the “son of man” sayings are considered from the standpoint of orthodox Christology, such an interpretation becomes more favorable. If one examines the sayings under the assumption of a pre-existence Christology, then the Gospel sayings—even those such as Mark 2:10, 28 par; 10:45—could be explained in terms of the incarnation of a heavenly “son of man” figure (viz., the pre-existent Christ). Yet I find no evidence, whatsoever, that such a pre-existence Christology informs any of the Synoptic sayings. The situation is rather different for the Johannine sayings, where the expression unquestionably does refer to the incarnation of the (pre-existent) Son. Yet, as we have seen, the Johannine sayings show virtually no evidence of influence from the Dan 7:13f tradition—with the possible exception of the saying in 5:27 (cf. the earlier study on this verse).

“Who Is This Son of Man…?”: Daniel 7:13-14 (Part 2)

In the first part of this study, examining the influence of Daniel 7:13f on the use of the expression “the son of man” in the Gospels, the literary context, background, and interpretation of that passage were surveyed briefly. It remains to consider the evidence regarding the extent of the possible influence. As we have discussed, there are certainly allusions to Dan 7:13f in the Synoptic “son of man” sayings in Mark 13:26 and 14:62 pars, but how does the usage in Dan 7:13 relate to the collection of “son of man” references as a whole?

There are a good number of scholars who view Dan 7:13f as the principal source of influence for the eschatological sayings, if not the entire Gospel usage. However, as support for this view, much depends on whether—or to what extent—Jews and early Christians, in the early-mid first century A.D., would have understood the expression “the son of man” (in Greek or in Aramaic) as a reference to the figure described in Dan 7:13-14. Based on the line of interpretation established by the analysis in Part 1, this means that the expression would refer to a heavenly being who would rule over the kingdom of God (and the “holy ones”) in the New Age. The eschatological setting and focus is clear enough in the context of Daniel, and it certainly seems to have prevailed for the interpretation and application of the passage in the Qumran Community as well (for the influence of Daniel 7 on the Qumran text 4Q246, see Part 1, and my earlier study on this passage). For the Qumran Community, as for early Christians, the eschatological outlook cannot be separated from their Messianic expectations. If “the son of man” is taken to refer to an eschatological figure, who will deliver God’s people (the “holy ones”) at the end-time and rule over the Kingdom of the New Age, then this corresponds quite closely to several of the Messianic figure-types attested among Israelites and Jews during the first centuries B.C./A.D.—including the royal/Davidic figure-type.

If Jesus, and/or the early Christians who made use of the expression “the son of man”, understood it fundamentally as a Messianic reference (or title), based on a Messianic interpretation of Daniel 7:13-14, then one must assume that many readers/hearers of the time would have been expected to understand it in much the same way. What evidence is there for such an understanding of the expression in the first century? It is actually very slight. In spite of the eschatological (and Messianic) significance of the book of Daniel for the Qumran Community, there is no indication that “(the) son of man” was ever used as a Messianic reference. As for other Jewish texts, written during the first centuries B.C./A.D., there are only two—the Similitudes of Enoch and 2/4 Esdras—which make use of the expression in such a way. For scholars who would argue that “the son of man” in the Gospels is likewise rooted in a Messianic/eschatological interpretation of Dan 7:13f, these two writings are essential.

The Similitudes of Enoch

The Similitudes (or Parables) of Enoch refer to chapters 37-71 of the book of 1 Enoch (Ethiopic Enoch). These chapters are not among the portions of 1 Enoch found in the Qumran caves, and scholars are in general agreement that they represent a distinct (and separate) work that was later included in the book of 1 Enoch. The date of the Similitudes, however, continues to be disputed. This is significant with regard to the use of the expression “the son of man”. If the Similitudes are to be utilized as evidence for a Messianic use of the expression “the son of man” at the time of Jesus (and/or among early Christians), then it is more meaningful if the Similitudes are dated to the early- or mid-first century (at the latest).

Most scholars today would date the Similitudes to the first-century A.D., though there is less agreement when attempts are made to narrow this window to a more a precise date. Nickelsburg, in his critical commentary (1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 37-82, Hermeneia [Fortress Press: 2011]), dates it to the late first-century (as does Bauckham, in his “Son of Man”, Volume 1: Early Jewish Literature [Eerdmans: 2023]); however, other commentators prefer an early first-century date. There has recently been a shift toward favoring an early date; this can be seen from the 2005 Enoch Seminar (in which the Similitudes were the focus, with essays published in Boccaccini, Enoch and Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables [Eerdmans: 2007]), and also, for example, in the Charlesworth-Bock collection of essays Parables of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift (T&T Clark Jewish and Christian Texts Series, Bloomsbury: 2013).

Part of the difficulty with judging the relation of the expression “the son of man” to the Similitudes is the language (Ethiopic, Ge‘ez) of the work as it has come down to us. It is generally agreed that the Ethiopic is a translation of, most likely, an Aramaic original, possibly through an intermediary translation in Greek. As it happens, there are three Ethiopic expressions that generally correspond to Aramaic [a]vn[a] rb (or Hebrew <da[h] /b), and which probably represent translational variants of that underlying expression (cf. Bauckham, pp. 32-3):

    • walda sab’ (46:2, 3, 4; 48:2)
    • walda be’esi (62:5; 69:29 [bis]; 71:14)
    • walda ’egwala ’emaḥeyāw (62:7, 9, 14; 63:11; 69:26, 27; 70:1; 71:17).

Interestingly, in all but four of the sixteen occurrences, a demonstrative pronoun is used (viz., “that son of man”)—zekku (46:2; 48:2; 62:5, 9, 14; 63:11) or we’etu (69:26, 29 [bis]; 70:1; 71:17)—or, in one case, “this son of man” (zentu, 46:4); Bauckham, p. 33. The significance of this usage will be discussed (in Part 3); however, it strongly suggests that “son of man” is not being used as a title in the Similitudes—in contrast with the apparent titles “Righteous (One)” and “Elect/Chosen (One)”, cf. below.

The expression “son of man”, in the three Ethiopic variant forms noted above, occurs in two main portions of the Similitudes:

    • In chapters 46-48 (46:2-4; 48:2), part of the Second Parable (chaps. 45-57)
    • In chapters 62-63 and 69 (62:5, 7, 9, 14; 63:11; 69:26-27, 29), part of the Third Parable (chaps. 58-69)

There are also important occurrences in the closing section (epilogue), chaps. 70-71 (70:1; 71:14, 17). As the work progresses, it becomes clear that the “son of man” is to be identified with the heavenly figure otherwise called “(the) Elect/Chosen (One)” and “(the) Righteous (One)”. Those titles— “Righteous” (ṣādeq) and “Elect/Chosen” (—eruy)—connect the heavenly figure with the human people of God: the “righteous (one)s” and “elect/chosen (one)s”. This can be seen clearly in 38:1-2 (for the term “righteous”) and in 39:6ff (“elect/chosen”). The heavenly figure is the ruler and protector of the humans, in the eschatological context of the Judgment. The righteous/chosen ones are also referred to as “holy (one)s”, as in Daniel 7:18, 21-22, 25, 27. There is thus a clear parallel, and close relationship, between the heavenly figure and the community of the righteous/holy ones (on earth); cf. the parallel between the “one like a son of man” in Dan 7:13-14 and the “holy ones” in vv. 22-27.

While allusions to Daniel 7 can be found throughout the Similitudes (cf. the Table in Casey, p. 107 for a list of 32 possible allusions), the specific use of Dan 7:13f is established in 46:1:

“There I saw one who had a head of days,
and his head was like white wool.
And with him was another, whose face was like the appearance of a man;
and his face was full of graciousness like one of the holy angels.”
(Nickelsburg/Hermeneia)

In v. 2, Enoch asks about who this person resembling a human being is, since the presence of a human in heaven is rather unexpected and unusual. Angels are typically described this way, and yet the emphasis throughout the Similitudes is on the human nature of this figure—he is not simply “like a son of man”(Dan 7:13), he is a “son of man”. The significance of this becomes clear in the conclusion (chaps. 70-71), cf. below. Here, Enoch asks “about that [zekku] son of man—who he was and whence he was (and) why he went with the Head of Days”. The answer comes in verse 3:

“This is the son of man who has righteousness,
and righteousness dwells with him,
and all the treasuries of what is hidden he will reveal;
For the Lord of Spirits has chosen him,
and his lot has prevailed through truth
in the presence of the Lord of Spirits forever.”
(Nickelsburg/Hermeneia)

Again, we see emphasized the fundamental characteristics of “righteousness” and of being “chosen” by God. Almost certainly, this terminology derives from the Deutero-Isaian usage, most notably in 42:1 (“Chosen [One]”) and 53:11 (“Righteous [One]”), by way of a well-established Messianic interpretation and application. Daniel 7:13-14 is applied in much the same way. Indeed, the role of this “son of man” in the end-time Judgment is clear from verse 4ff—it is a role that is emphasized even more strongly in chapters 62-63ff (note how 62:2ff alludes to Isaiah 11:2-4ff), being further summarized at the close of the Parables in 69:26-29.

While the punishment of the wicked (i.e., the nations) is given prominence, the role of the “son of man” as ruler/judge also entails the care and protection he provides for the righteous. We find this latter aspect expressed most clearly in chapter 48. This “son of man” (v. 2), the Righteous and Chosen One (see vv. 3-7ff), will protect and deliver the righteous in the time of the Judgment. Here, the “son of man” is also called “(the) Anointed (One)” (v. 10, cf. also 52:4), utilizing the familiar Messianic title—to designate the eschatological judge and ruler, though the Davidic aspect of this figure-type (cp. Psalms of Solomon 17) is downplayed, and scarcely even mentioned by the author.

In the Epilogue (chaps. 70-71), the exaltation of Enoch to heaven is narrated, being described briefly (at first) in 70:1-2, how he was “lifted up”, while he was still living, “into the presence of that [we’etu] son of man and into the presence of the Lord of Spirits”. Later on, at the very close of the work (71:13-17), it is revealed to Enoch that he, himself, is “that son of man” (v. 14, cf. also v. 17) and the Righteous/Chosen (One):

“You (are) that Son of Man who was born for righteousness,
and righteousness dwells on you,
and the righteousness of the Head of Days will not forsake you.”
(Nickelsburg/Hermeneia)

In Part 3 of this study, we shall explore further the interesting parallels between the Similitudes and the Gospel Tradition, regarding this use of the expression “son of man”, and also consider the extent to which the Similitudes (and/or the eschatological thought expressed in them) may have influenced the Gospel usage.

2/4 Esdras

The deutero-canonical work known as 2 (or 4) Esdras can be dated rather securely to the end of the first-century A.D. The core treatise (chaps. 3-14) is a Jewish work, often referred to as “4 Ezra”, probably originally composed in Hebrew (or Aramaic), but which has come down to us today in Latin (and other versions) presumably by way of an intermediary Greek translation. It is the eschatological visions in chapters 11-12 and 13 which are related to Daniel 7. The “Eagle” vision in chaps. 11-12 is explicitly, and consciously, presented as a further interpretation on the four-kingdoms vision in Daniel 7, expounded here in 12:10-39. It is quite clearly a Messianic interpretation (and application) of the vision (12:32ff).

Much the same applies to the vision in chapter 13, of a man who comes up from the sea, just as the beasts came up out of the sea in the Daniel 7 vision (vv. 2-8). In this regard, the Esdras vision represents a reworking of the earlier Daniel vision:

“And I looked, and behold, this wind made something like the figure of a man come up out of the sea. And I looked, and behold, that man flew with the clouds of heaven…” (13:3, Metzger/OTP)

Clearly, this alludes to Dan 7:13, and yet the author/seer has adapted it so that the “one like a son of man” comes up out of the sea, just like the beasts do; having risen from the sea, then he ascends on the clouds of heaven. In the remainder of the vision, the Daniel 7 scenario is supplemented by traditional eschatological references from Daniel 2 and Isa 11:2-4ff (see above), emphasizing this figure’s role in the end-time Judgment.

The interpretation of the vision comes in vv. 21-56; and, again, we see that the Scriptural traditions involved (including Dan 7:13-14) are given a Messianic interpretation (vv. 25ff), while the detail of the man’s coming up out of the sea is explained (rather unconvincingly) in vv. 51ff. There appears to be a certain disconnect between the vision and its interpretation, suggesting that they come from two distinct sources. In any event, the Messiah’s role in the Judgment is prominent—entailing a judgment upon all of the nations assembled together (vv. 37ff). The reference to the Messiah as God’s “son” (“my son”, vv. 33, 37, 52) is probably derived from a traditional Messianic interpretation of Psalm 2:7; indeed, there would seem to be allusions to Psalm 2 (par Isa 11:2-4) throughout the passage.

The use of Daniel 7:13-14 in 2/4 Esdras is quite similar, in a number of respects, to its use in the Similitudes of Enoch (see the discussion above). In each work, the Scripture has been given an eschatological and Messianic interpretation (and application), focusing on the end-time Judgment of the nations. The one “like a son of man” is explained as a Messianic figure, chosen by God, who is revealed at the end-time. His principal role is as the overseer of the Judgment—bringing punishment on the wicked (nations), but also protecting and delivering the righteous (people of God).

The distinctive element in the Similitudes is the identification of Enoch—an exalted human being (“son of man”)—with the heavenly/Messianic figure. Interestingly, while the motif of the “son of man” coming up from the sea (to heaven) in 2/4 Esdras 13 could be explained in a similar way—viz., as the exaltation of a human being—the interpretation in vv. 51ff does not follow this line at all, opting instead for a rather banal (and unconvincing) interpretation of the “sea” (v. 52). One suspects that the author/seer of the original vision (vv. 1-13) may have had something different in mind. In any case, the motif of a human being (“son of man”) exalted to heaven, so as to become “the/that son of man”, is obviously relevant to the Gospel Tradition, and to the early Christian understanding of the implications and consequences of Jesus’ exaltation. This will be discussed further in Part 3.

References above marked “Casey” are to Maurice Casey, Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7 (SPCK: 1979).
Those marked “Bauckham” are to Richard Bauckham, “Son of Man”, Volume 1: Early Jewish Literature (Eerdmans: 2023).
Those marked “Nickelsburg” are to George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of Enoch Chapters 37-82, Hermeneia Commentary Series (Fortress Press: 2012). “Nickelsburg/Hermeneia” marks the translation of the Similitudes in the Commentary.
“Metzger/OTP” refers to the translation of 2/4 Esdras (4 Ezra) by Bruce M. Metzger in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha [OTP], Volume 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, ed. by James H. Charlesworth, Anchor Bible Reference Library [ABRL] (Doubleday: 1983), pp. 517-60.