Jesus is not the Son of Man

[DCHindley]

Children, children!

Behave ...

[Michael BG]

Marcion has flesh, Q is a phantom body. If scholarship does jump off of Marcion back to Q it just shows them to be dishonest weasels. "Let's deal with a document we invented yesterday rather than one the church fathers all complained about. That will make the fundies happy and us rich and famous." So yeah, Marcion may be a fad because truth is a fad since it doesn't make one rich and famous.

We can compare Matthew and Luke and make a case for what we think was in Q. We have greater difficulty in determining what was in the gospel of Marcion, because those who attack it don’t quote it clearly.

Lets put it this way. Tertullian (AM4.10) makes a big deal about Jesus being called "the son of man" in Luke because it proves (according to Tertullian) two things: (1) a positive link to the OT since supposedly the title comes from Daniel, and (2) that Jesus was born of at least one human parent (i.e. the virgin) or he'd be lying to call himself "the son of man. ...

Tertullian writes “On what principle you, Marcion, can admit Him Son of man, I cannot possibly see" (AM 4.10.8). This must mean that in the Marcion gospel text Jesus is still called Son of Man because the title is not used in the letters of Paul. This is the problem with trying to work out what was in the gospel of Marcion.

We need Marcion not a writtrn gospel of Marcion. Tertullian is of course not really telling us what was in a written gospel of Marcion. Tertullian is actually telling us what the Catholic church added to its own written gospels to combat Marcion's theology, but he pretends this stuff is also in a written gospel of Marcion. Yet just as it makes no sense for Marcion to have written a gospel calling Jesus "the son of man" (as Tertullian points out) it makes just as little sense for Jews to turn "one LIKE A son of man" (not just like and not just a but both like and a) into "THE son of man," so it obvious that "THE son of man" is a creation of anti-marcionite polemic.

Or it was in the Marcion text because it was in the pre-Marcion text because it was a saying used by Jesus. If we see the term Son of Man as being an angelic or a heavenly being as in Dan 7:13 then we can see that when Tertullian and other later Christian writers use the term as evidence for the humanity of Jesus they are not using it in the way Jesus would have.

Now I will grant that Jesus might have said in an early gospel, even Marcion's if he indeed had a written gospel, "the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath, therefore the son of man is Lord of the Sabbath" where "the son of man" = "any human being" ... because "the son of man" is a natural Hebrew idiom for "any human being." But the mystical misuse of "the son of man" as a reference to Daniel's "one like a son of man" which gets proliferated to other passages is obviously post-Marcion, for even if the church did use "the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath, therefore the son of man is Lord of the Sabbath" as a starting point to proliferate this as a title to other passages, they did so to counter Marcion by implying a link to Daniel and that the phrase implies Jesus was born, and they limited what was a universal phrase meaning "any human" to Jesus in an absurd way to do this.

The use of the title Son of Man is clearly not “post-Marcion” because the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71) which is normally dated to first century CE Judaism has the term used much like it is used in the synoptic gospels.

[Peter Kirby]

If you seriously wanted a discussion with me then you could begin by cutting the insult and other various personal attack bollocks and sustaining that drought for more than just two comments in a row. I suspect you're too set in your aged ways to change by now, though.

I'll take that as a lack of interest in contributing to the topic of oral traditions at this juncture.

LOL! I love you, spin. Who else (apart from Tim O'Neill) twists an insistence upon civility in exchanges as a "lack of interest" or whatever in a topic! But it takes all types to make a world.

Only you and Tim, in my experience, have bowed out of discussions because I have insisted on that intolerable condition of civility!

"If I can't be sarcastic and insulting then I will accuse you of being "not interested in topic X" or "too scared to take me on in debate"; if you expose my straw men and non-sequiturs in debate I'll accuse you of having a persecution complex".... and you wonder why I don't take your childishness seriously!!!!!

Respectfully, but... did you actually want a conversation on the topic of oral traditions (or any other substantive topic) with spin?

I got the distinct impression that you just wanted to give him a piece of your mind regarding his misbehavior and why he's unfit for a conversation, at least with you... this suspicion grew stronger when my previous invitation to focus on any issues of substance was not accepted...

I mean, if you want me to help you facilitate a conversation with spin without him being sarcastic and insulting, I'm sure I can help you with that. We could set up a new thread where spin could agree to being moderated. But would that be to your liking in the first place?

Or would you rather just continue to make small talk regarding the failings of the posters here?

I'd like to facilitate discussion on the topics at hand (rather than having conversations that focus on the personalities involved) as much as is possible. To the extent that spin's behavior is getting in the way of you being able to contribute, if that is the problem, please let me know so that we can make arrangements that work for both of you.

(Alternatively, if you find spin is too disruptive to deal with, you don't have to deal with him at all. For example, there is an option to ignore him.)

[spin]

The use of the title Son of Man is clearly not “post-Marcion” because the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71) which is normally dated to first century CE Judaism has the term used much like it is used in the synoptic gospels.

While I'm not convinced on the argument you are responding to, it is difficult to use the Similitudes for dating purposes. Christian scholars have an agenda to place them early because of the reference to SoM, but there is no manuscript basis for dating them so early. The appear in the Ethiopic version. On what tangible grounds could one date them earlier? Milik the editor of the DSS Enoch fragments places them quite late and though there was a numerous reaction, the evidence against was underwhelming. Whatever the case, 1 Enoch doesn't seem like a safe benchmark to date anything by.

[Michael BG]

For general information, my previous discussions on oral tradition are at http://vridar.org/tag/oral-tradition/ -- they are far from complete. More to come.

This was an interesting read and I do accept there was a kerygma which didn’t have any sayings of Jesus in it. I don’t think Christian missionaries even today would start with the life of Jesus or his sayings. I think they would start with their version of the important bits including lots of the early kerygma. I think it would only be once a person had heard the “message” that they would then be told about the details of Jesus’ death and his sayings.

I have not compared the development of Christianity with the development of Islam. In Islam we have in theory in the Quran what God revealed to Muhammad and in the Hadith we have reports regarding the actions and other sayings of the Prophet Muhammad. I don’t know how much someone thinking about converting to Islam would want to know about the prophet Muhammad, but I expect they would be told some things about his life (such as his first marriage, his life in Mecca, his fleeing to Medina and his victories and return to Mecca). I would expect some of these stories to be historical and I would expect some of the sayings of the Prophet to be historical, because I have an expectation that converts would want to know about the man. If I think it is true about Muhammad then it seems reasonable for the same to apply to Jesus.

Back to the OP --- if we are looking at the historicity of the SoM saying then I'd like suggest a post I personally think is brilliant (but I'm biased, I admit it), a post by Tim Widowfield at http://vridar.org/2017/03/18/is-jesus-i ... ve-device/

If the point of this post has merit, what does it do to the argument for the historicity of a SoM saying?

Tim Widowfield concludes
“It’s just as likely, if not more likely, that Mark invented the traveling Jesus while inventing the narrative gospel form and while re-imagining Christ as an Old-Testament prophet type.”

I accept that the geographical information in Mark are likely to be creations of Mark along with the order of events and linkages between “events”. However this does not mean that the sayings are not historical and we can discover nothing about what Jesus’ message was from Mark.

Q also presents Jesus as an itinerate preacher Mt 6:25-34 = Lk 12:22-31 (don’t worry about a thing e.g. food, clothing, settler), Mt 8:5 = Lk 7:1 “he entered Capernaum” (healing of the centurion’s slave), Mt 8:20 = Lk 58 “the Son of Man has nowhere to lays his head”, Mt 8:21 = Lk 9:60 “leave the dead to bury their own dead” Mt 11:21 = Lk 10:13 “Woe to you, Chora'zin! woe to you, Beth-sa'ida!”

The Widowfield article does not address the Son of Man sayings.

[Skeptical1]

Considering the way this thread is going, I have a great suggestion.....invite the Watchtower to give you the correct answer! They are ALWAYS right, you know!

[Michael BG]

Some of this argument was the target of Lester Grabbe's chapter; conclusions @ viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2976&start=20#p66755

It's interesting that that excerpt you have quoted doesn't refer to the definitive article 'the Son of Man' which is what others have focused on.

I think the article itself does. I think it counters Maurice Casey’s usage of an extended Aramaic phrase rather than separating them into two.

The use of the title Son of Man is clearly not “post-Marcion” because the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71) which is normally dated to first century CE Judaism has the term used much like it is used in the synoptic gospels.

While I'm not convinced on the argument you are responding to, it is difficult to use the Similitudes for dating purposes. Christian scholars have an agenda to place them early because of the reference to SoM, but there is no manuscript basis for dating them so early. The appear in the Ethiopic version. On what tangible grounds could one date them earlier? Milik the editor of the DSS Enoch fragments places them quite late and though there was a numerous reaction, the evidence against was underwhelming. Whatever the case, 1 Enoch doesn't seem like a safe benchmark to date anything by.

I was going to post a reply regarding the Grabbe article that questioned the date of the Similitudes of Enoch. However Grabbe gave me the impression that there was now general agreement to a first century dating. John J Collins in The Apocalyptic Imagination (p 177-78) addresses J. T. Milik. Both Collins and Grabbe use 56:5-7 and particularly 67:5-13 to date it post 4 BCE and the lack of any mention of the Temple's destruction or Jewish Revolt to date it to before 66 CE.

[Michael BG]

Returning to Lk 12:8-9. For you the Matthean version is the older and it has Jesus in heaven and thus is a post-Easter saying. For me the Q version is older and it does not have Jesus in heaven and so is not a post-Easter saying and I conclude with Catchpole that it is likely to be historical. There is nothing I can say to convince you of my position on this verse, because to do so I need to change your mind regarding there being a Q.

I am not sure how much of our canonical Luke should be attributed to a post-Matthean redaction. I am guilty of being influenced by Joseph Tyson who reopened the argument for an "ur-Luke" in his Marcion and Luke-Acts.

In one of my points I said I keep the back door of Q open. I am quite prepared to entertain arguments that rely upon Q. But I think some arguments are based more upon assumptions surrounding Q than Q itself. Even if a saying were attributed to Jesus in a Q saying I don't see why it would follow that it is therefore likely historical.

What I am wary about is beginning with an assumption that the gospel narrative is either minimally or maximally historical. We have justifications for attributing various degrees of historicity to the writings of other ancient events and persons that are lacking in the case of the gospels.

If we return to Luke 12:8-9 davidbrainerd put forward the idea that Matthew 10:32-33 was the older version and so engaged with the saying. He wrote:

I think the simpler explanation is in earlier versions of these texts, where we now read about a "son of man" the text just said "I". … If originally Jesus was not considered to be God, then when he was deified the reading was changed from "I" to "son of man" to indicate a divine man per the vision of Daniel

However you wrote:

Another perspective is to read references of Jesus to the Son of Man through the lens of their author's christology. If Luke's gospel makes a special theme of the distinctiveness between the lowly Jesus who comes to suffer and die as a human martyr and the exalted Jesus who is rewarded for his suffering witness with glory and exaltation, do we not have a ready explanation for the question raised and one that does not need to construct pre-gospel events, sources and scenarios?

My answer is of course no, and I pointed out that Mark had a suffering Son of Man figure who is raised after death. Mk 13:24 talks of the Son of Man coming with glory. It sounds more like the gospel of John. Luke has 21:27 which is based on Mk 13:24. So the only really relevant saying is 24:26 within the road to Emmaus resurrection appearance. One saying does not really make a theme. Neither Lk 12:8-9 nor Mt 10:32-33 has the word glory. While you might argue that Matthew because he has Jesus in heaven therefore has Jesus in his resurrection glory, I don’t see how you could argue this regarding Lk 12:8-9 where Jesus and the Son of Man can be seen as different beings, one amongst men and one amongst angels.

[spin]

The use of the title Son of Man is clearly not “post-Marcion” because the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71) which is normally dated to first century CE Judaism has the term used much like it is used in the synoptic gospels.

While I'm not convinced on the argument you are responding to, it is difficult to use the Similitudes for dating purposes. Christian scholars have an agenda to place them early because of the reference to SoM, but there is no manuscript basis for dating them so early. The appear in the Ethiopic version. On what tangible grounds could one date them earlier? Milik the editor of the DSS Enoch fragments places them quite late and though there was a numerous reaction, the evidence against was underwhelming. Whatever the case, 1 Enoch doesn't seem like a safe benchmark to date anything by.

I was going to post a reply regarding the Grabbe article that questioned the date of the Similitudes of Enoch. However Grabbe gave me the impression that there was now general agreement to a first century dating. John J Collins in The Apocalyptic Imagination (p 177-78) addresses J. T. Milik. Both Collins and Grabbe use 56:5-7 and particularly 67:5-13 to date it post 4 BCE and the lack of any mention of the Temple's destruction or Jewish Revolt to date it to before 66 CE.

I don't think one should expect a text written—according to Milik—in 270 to mention either the fall of the temple or the Jewish war—especially if it is a christian production. I haven't seen what Grabbe or Collins say, but I have seen a lot of dating analyses of the Similitudes in scholarly literature. None seem to deal with his contextualization which include for example an explanation for 1En 56:5's reference to Medes, a term used for the Palmyrenes who were active in the later 3rd century. But Milik's date hasn't been received well and the reference to Parthians and Medes is reduced to a stereotypical references to Parthians (with Medes thrown in for no substantive addition). No-one seems impressed with his trajectory from the fifth book of Sibylline Oracles which he thinks is the source of allusion to the invasion of Judea by the Parthian Pacorus (in 40 BCE) as well as apocalyptic material in 1En 56. Against Milik one datum frequently referenced regards hot springs and kings visiting them for their health but being vexed in their spirit (67:8), taken as a reference to King Herod visiting Callirhoe in his old age. In its context it seems hopeful to me. I'd be interested to know what Grabbe has to add on the dating—if he goes beyond the data already evinced over the last 40 years—, as I think he is a trustworthy commentator.

Perhaps I should concentrate more, but I note discussion in the thread about SoM as reaction to Marcion, which makes me wonder how that goes given the presence of SoM in Mark.

The whole SoM thing is hard to grasp given its humble origin in Dan 7:13. The chapter describes several beings, each representing realms, each like known beings. One is like a lion, another like a bear, then a panther, one like a creature that seems to be an elephant and the last is "one like a son of man". Naturally this one represents God's people. But we know that "son of man" is a simple poetic means of describing a person, which Daniel 8:17 shows, when the phrase is used for the character of Daniel. The RSV gives "mortal", putting "son of man" into a footnote. So Dan 7:13 deals with a being of human appearance, which is how angels are often represented (eg Mk 16:5), though "son of man" bears no special significance. We are missing the steps that transform this descriptive phrase into a messianic title. One can guess the steps. 1) Daniel is uncoupled from its historical context. 2) 7:13 is isolated from its context of national entities. 3) The angelic figure, "one like a son of man" coming on the clouds, is transformed into a messianic figure. 4) The being like a son of man part is lost, while "son of man" is elevated as a reference to the messianic figure. But those steps we just don't have.

[iskander]

In Q there was a saying where Jesus talks of the Son of Man as a separate being in heaven from himself.

Luke 12:8-9 contains it:

[8] "And I tell you, every one who acknowledges me before men, the Son of man also will acknowledge before the angels of God;
[9] but he who denies me before men will be denied before the angels of God.

Matthew 10:32-33 contains a parallel which Matthew has likely changed.

[32] So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven;
[33] but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.

I read in The Apocalyptic Imagination by John J Collins foot note 30 page 262 “Luke 12:8-9 (…) … but Vielhauer showed that this has its setting in the early church. See Yarbro Collins, ‘The Origin of the Designation’ 152.”

In ‘The Origin of the Designation of Jesus as Son of Man’ by Adela Yarbro Collins in The Harvard Theological Review 1987, Collins writes regarding Lk 12:8-9, “Vielhauer demonstrated that this saying probably does not go back to Jesus. He pointed out that the saying reflects a legal situation in which followers of Jesus were required to make a statement about their allegiance to Jesus. Such a social setting is far more plausible after the crucifixion than before it.”

I have not read the Vielhauer article. If anyone can find it in English on the internet please post the link to it or post in English his case.

Here I present the case for why this saying in Lk 12:8-9 does go back to Jesus based on the article ‘The Angelic Son of Man in Luke 12:8’ in Novum Testamentum XXIV (1982) by David Catchpole (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1560828?se ... b_contents)

First Catchpole discusses what the Q test was.

Lk 12:8

Λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν, πᾶς ὃς ἂν ὁμολογήσῃ ἐν ἐμοὶ ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων,
καὶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁμολογήσει ἐν αὐτῷ ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀγγέλων τοῦ θεοῦ:

My literal translation:
I-say but to-you, that every-one who ever acknowledges in me front-of the men
also the Son of Man acknowledges in him front-of the angels of God

Lk 12:9

ὁ δὲ ἀρνησάμενός με ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀνθρώπων
ἀπαρνηθήσεται ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀγγέλων τοῦ θεοῦ.

My literal translation:
He yet disowning me in-sight-of the humans
shall-be-renounced in-sight-of the angels of God

Mt 10:32

Πᾶς οὖν ὅστις ὁμολογήσει ἐν ἐμοὶ ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων,
ὁμολογήσω κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν [τοῖς] οὐρανοῖς:

My literal translation:
Every-one then who acknowledges in me front-of the men
acknowledges I-also in him front-of the Father of-me the in the heavens

Mt 10:33

ὅστις δ' ἂν ἀρνήσηταί με ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων,
ἀρνήσομαι κἀγὼ αὐτὸν ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν [τοῖς] οὐρανοῖς.

My literal translation:
Who yet ever disowns me front-of the men disowning
I-also him in-front the Father of-me the in the heavens

In the following quotes from the Catchpole article the translations in brackets are mine.

Catchpole thinks that Λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν (But I say to you) “was more probably added by LkR”.

He thinks that Luke’s ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (the Son of Man) is more likely the Q version than Matthew’s ἐγώ (I). Not that I could find ἐγώ. There is καγω (I also) which might be what Catchpole means. Catchpole argues (if I have understood him correctly) that “the presence of ‘Son of man’ in the probably independent variant Mk 8:38 supports its originality here”, there is a catchword link in Q between 12:8 to 12:10, there is a Semitic play on the words men and son of man, and “an I/Son of Man distinction points to primitiveness”.

He thinks Luke’s τῶν ἀγγέλων (the angels) is more likely than Matthew’s τοῦ πατρός μου (the Father of me) because Matthew often adds “my Father in heaven”. It seems to me that this might apply to ἐν [τοῖς] οὐρανοῖς (in the heavens) as well. I think he might think it unlikely that Luke would have replaced Father with angels.

Catchpole states “the Q wording probably ran:

πᾶς ὃς ἂν ὁμολογήσῃ ἐν ἐμοὶ ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων,
καὶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁμολογήσει ἐν αὐτῷ ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀγγέλων τοῦ θεοῦ.

ὁ δὲ ἀρνησάμενός με ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀνθρώπων
ἀπαρνηθήσεται ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀγγέλων τοῦ θεοῦ.

My translation:
That every-one who ever acknowledges in me front-of the men
also the Son of Man acknowledges in him front-of the angels of God

He yet disowning me in-sight-of the humans
shall-be-renounced in-sight-of the angels of God

My preferred English translation is:

Everyone who acknowledges me before men, the Son of man also will acknowledge before the angels of God;
but whoever denies me before men will be denied before the angels of God.

Catchpole asserts that it should be treated as an isolated saying and any context in the gospels is secondary.

Catchpole looks at the word ὁμολογήσει. He states that its usage is similar to that in the Septuagint Job 40:9 “then I will acknowledge (ὁμολογήσω) to you that your right hand can give you victory”; Wisd 18:13 “Though they had disbelieved everything because of their magical arts, yet, when their firstborn were destroyed, they acknowledged your people to be God’s son”. He concludes that “These texts demonstrate that the essence of ὁμολογια is open verbal acknowledgement of fundamental religious truth in the wake of the experience of God’s activity …”

Catchpole turns to ἔμπροσθεν next recognising it is used sometimes as meaning “standing before the judge… but more frequently there is no such connotation: Joshua 1:5; 2 Kings 19:18; 3 Kings 8:5; 1 Chr. 15:24; 2 Chr. 5:6; 15:8; 1 Esd. 1:5, 11; 8:87, 91; Neh. 8:1; Dan. 1:5; 7:10; 3 Macc. 5:50. In the gospel tradition non-legal use of this term is widely attested: … Mt 5:16 6:1 … 5:24; 11:26 (= Lk10:21) 17:2 (= Mk 9:2); 18:14; 26:70; Mk 2:12; Lk 5:19; 14:2; Jn. 12:37.”

Catchpole concludes that while “Vielhauer’s view has been highly influential … it cannot be sustained”.

I particularly dislike the translation of ὁμολογήσει. as “confess” which remind me of “confess that Jesus is Lord”. I prefer the translation to be “acknowledge” where there are no Christological connotations and the acknowledgement could be as a messenger from God or a prophet.

Catchpole does “a small detour into Mt 18:10”

"See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that in heaven their angels always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven.”

Catchpole states that the authenticity of this verse is not relevant, that it is the idea of a “heavenly angelic sponsor or guarantor or counterpart (cf. Tobit 12:15; Enoch 104:1 Lk 1:19) represents an individualising of the old idea of an angelic ruler for each nation (cf. Dan 10:12; 12:1 Sir. 17:17). The point here is that the angel in God’s presence is presumed to act either favourably or unfavourably in relation to the person addressed by the saying, depending on whether that person treats the μικρος (little ones) favourably or unfavourably. For the angel is the guarantor of the μικρος. In the light of such a scheme Lk 12:8 makes perfect sense. It suggests that the Son of man will act either favourably or unfavourably in respect of the person addressed who either confesses or denies Jesus, precisely because the Son of man is the heavenly guarantor of the earthly Jesus” (p 260).

Catchpole states that with the above interpretation the saying is about salvation and Christology is not a concern. He claims it “dovetails exactly with the probably authentic parable ‘Hearer and Doers of the Word’ (Mt 7:24-27 = Lk 6:47-49)”.This is where those who hear and does what Jesus says will be saved.

Catchpole also states that Lk 12:8 “dovetails with such eschatological sayings as Mt 24:27, 37, 39 = Lk 17:24, 26, 30 which show no sign of equating the Son of man with Jesus or of being disqualified from authentic tradition by presupposing the delay of the Parousia.”

Then Catchpole states that Lk 12:8 “dovetails precisely with Mt 25:31-46” where the “scheme demands that the Son of man shall not previously have been seen on earth”. This is because those being judged ask when they saw the Son of man and the answer is they didn’t they will be judged on how they responded to “the least of these my brethren” (vs 40, 45).

Catchpole suggests that because the Q material makes strenuous efforts to equal Jesus with the eschatological coming one (an example being Mt 12:2 = Lk 7:19) there must have been an earlier tradition where there is no such equation. And that Lk 12:8 is such an earlier tradition.

Catchpole concludes that “Lk 12:8 issues a promise and a warning which combine as a demand. That is, a firm commitment to the words of Jesus and open acknowledgement of the significance of his mission within the design of God will be matched by corresponding acknowledgement in heaven on the part of the Son of man – the angelic counterpart of Jesus …”

This idea seems to conform to the teaching of Jesus where he declares that people must respond to what he preaches; it is implied in these sayings that people will be judged according to their response. This seems to present Jesus as a prophet in the Old Testament tradition and not as a pre-existent heavenly being as presented by later Christianity.

It also seems to conform to the idea that “this generation” will be judged in Lk 11:29 (= Mt12:39), 11:31 (= Mt 12:42), 11:32 (= Mt 12:41).

In John 12:34 Jesus is asked this question : who is this son of man?
34The crowd answered him, ‘We have heard from the law that the Messiah* remains forever. How can you say that the Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man?

Have you considered John 12:34 ?