King and Messiah, Chapter 4, Part 2

The Similtudes of Enoch

In this text is found the “most important and extensive portrayal of a figure called “Son of Man,” . . . apart from Daniel 7.” Collins first deals with authorship and dating of this work. He attributes the Similtudes to a Jewish author writing between 40–70 ce. A Christian author, he argues, would have applied to the title to Jesus (which does not happen), and a Jewish author, if he were writing after 70 ce would certainly have avoided use of “Son of Man,” since it was commonly used by Christians (e.g., in the Gospels) in describing Jesus.

At any rate, what is most pertinent about the Similtudes’ characterization of the “Son of Man” is, first, its portrayal of him as preexistent in a way “typical in pre-Christian Judaism . . . of wisdom.” Moreover, the “Son of Man,” though not said to originate from David, “takes over the functions of the Davidic king vis-à-vis the nations.” In other words, he is enthroned and acts as “the eschatological judge.” Collins points out that despite the fact the “Son of Man” is not also called the “Son of God,” he is angelic and yet, on account of his enthronement, clearly holds authority beyond that given to most angels.

4 Ezra 13

A final text of importance is the apocalypse known as 4 Ezra. Collins highlights the language in the third vision within this work as key for his theme:

Then after seven days I had a dream in the night. I saw a wind rising from the sea that stirred up all its waves. As I kept looking, that wind brought up out of the depths of the sea something resembling a man and that man was flying with the clouds of heaven. . . .

Since the work only exists in translations, and not in the original Semitic, we do not have access to the original words. Collins, however, suggests that “the original may have read ‘Son of Man,” but contends that even if it didn’t, “it is clearly adapting and reworking Daniel’s vision.” Within this vision, the man rising out of the sea occupies the “role traditionally ascribed to the messianic king.” Though the elements, such as sea and clouds, function differently than they do in Daniel’s vision, nevertheless the author of 4 Ezra is appropriating them self-consciously and giving them a creative reinterpretations.

Conclusion

Reflecting on The Similtudes and 4 Ezra, Collins does find points of departure: “The one is a warrior, concerned with the restoration of Israel. The other is a judge, enthroned in heaven, who does not appear on earth at all.” However, it is still the case that both “identify him with the messiah, and describe his role in terms usually applied to the Davidic messiah, although they understand his role in different ways.”

Collins finds in these texts a tendency to see the messiah as preexistent, and as a heavenly figure. He points out, crucially, that there “was evidently no orthodoxy, and only limited consistency, in the ways in which the messiah might be imagined.” Countless texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls, in ruminating on the Davidic messiah, say nothing about his divine status, while texts such as those just discussed speculate “about heavenly deliverers” in a way typical of the period and literature. To Collins:

“In the context of first-century-ce Judaism, it is not surprising or anomalous that divine status should be attributed to someone who was believed by his followers to be the messiah. At the same time, it should be noted that neither the king in ancient Judah nor the messiah in most instances was the object of worship.”