Religion

Jesus’ Relationship to the Heavenly Son of Man in Gerd Theißen and Annette Merz’s New Jesus Book

Posted by

0

Having learned much from Gerd Theißen and Annette Merz’s 1996 book Der historische Jesus: Ein Lehrbuch (ET = The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide, Fortress, 1998) during my student days, it evoked good memories for me to read their (relatively) new book Wer war Jesus? Der erinnerte Jesus in historischer Sicht. Ein Lehrbuch (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2023).

While there is much overlap with the 1996 book, there is also much that is new or newly conceptualized, including the extent to which the 2023 book is shaped by memory-hermeneutical questions and considerations. And this is presumably why the authors and/or publisher decided to give this book a new title rather than simply characterizing it as a new edition of the original book.

As Theißen and Merz put it in the opening sentences of the preface (p. 6): “Our textbook on the historical Jesus is the new version of a textbook that was published in 1996. It has, after a quarter-century, become a new book.” / “Unser Lehrbuch über den historischen Jesus ist die Neufassung eines Lehrbuches, das 1996 erschienen ist. Es ist nach einem Vierteljahrhundert ein neues Buch geworden.”

In this blogpost, I am going to provide a translation of a paragraph from the section titled “Jesus as Son of Man: The Explicit Christology” / “Jesus als Menschensohn: Die explizite Christologie” (pp. 407-416), alternating between my English translation and the German text. At the end of the post, I will then include a comparable excerpt from John Bowden’s English translation of the first edition, so that one can compare it with what is said in the 2023 book, while noting that some of what is said in this quotation is paralleled by material from the 2023 book that I have not quoted/translated below.

Excerpt from Wer War Jesus? (pp. 415-416):

There are then two possibilities for how Jesus understood his relationship to the super-earthly Son of Man.

Es gibt dann zwei Möglichkeiten, wie sich Jesus sein Verhältnis zum überirdischen Menschensohn.

He could have understood their relationship as a two-stage activity of the same figure.

Er könnte ihr Verhältnis als zweistufiges Wirken ein und derselben Gestalt vorgestellt haben.

In that case, he would have expected, as Enoch is appointed to (or installed into) the role of the Son of Man at the end of the Book of Parables in 1 Enoch 70-71, to be appointed (or installed) as Son of Man.

Dann hätte er so, wie Henoch am Ende der Bilderreden in äthHen 70-71 in die Rolle des Menschensohns eingesetzt wird, erwartet, zum Menschensohn eingesetzt zu werden.

Jesus would have had a futuristic self-consciousness (R. Otto).

Jesus hätte ein futurisches Selbstbewusstsein gehabt (R. Otto).

He would, however, have been much more than a forerunner of the future Son of Man and instead have been the divinely chosen candidate for this role.

Er wäre aber weit mehr als ein Vorläufer des zukünftigen Menschensohns gewesen, sondern der von Gott erwählte Kandidat für diese Rolle. (Note: It is difficult to capture the force of “sondern” here — usually “but rather” is best but “and instead” might work better in this sentence.)

But his statements sound as if a Son of Man already existed now in heaven – such as how Enoch in the Parables sees him already now in heaven (1 Enoch 36-69) before it is revealed to him at the end that he is this Son of Man (1 Enoch 70-71).

Aber seine Aussagen klingen so, als existierte schon jetzt im Himmel ein Menschensohn – so wie Henoch ihn in den Bilderreden schon jetzt im Himmel schaut (äthHen 36-69), bevor ihm am Ende offenbart wird, dass er dieser Menschensohn ist (äthHen 70-71).

Therefore, Jesus also understood himself as the representative of this heavenly Son of Man already now on earth.

Deshalb hat sich Jesus auch als Repräsentant dieses himmlischen Menschensohns schon jetzt auf Erden verstanden.

In doing so, he was able to carry a social-mythical parallelism between heaven and earth to its conclusion.

Er konnte dabei einen sozialmythischen Parallelismus zwischen Himmel und Erde zu Ende führen.

For the one like a son of man in Daniel 7 represents the people of God living upon earth, the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch only a part of the people, namely the “community of the righteous.”

Der Menschenähnliche in Dan 7 repräsentiert nämlich das auf Erden lebende Gottesvolk, der Menschensohn in den Bilderreden des Enoch nur noch einen Teil des Volkes nämlich die “Gemeinde der Gerechten.”

Jesus, however, is the only representative of the heavenly Son of Man on earth as in Mark 8.38-39 (H. Merklein).

Jesus aber ist der einzige Repräsentant des himmlischen Menschensohns auf Erden wie in Mk 8,38f (H. Merklein).

Jesus was probably both: on the one hand the candidate for the role of the future Son of Man, on the other hand already now the earthly representative of the present Son of Man in heaven.

Jesus war wahrscheinlich beides: einerseits der Kandidat für die Rolle des zukünftigen Menschenshns, andererseits schon jetzt der irdische Repräsentant des gegenwärtigen Menschensohns im Himmel.

What is decisive is that he shows his strong consciousness of exalted status (or: majesty) through the fact that he ascribed to himself the same role as “the Son of Man.”

Entscheidend ist: Er zeigt sein großes Hoheitsbewusstsein dadurch, dass er sich die gleiche Rolle als “der Sohn des Menschen” zuschrieb.

Excerpt from G. Theißen and A. Merz, The Historical Jesus, trans. J. Bowden (Fortress, 1998), 552:

“In our view the interpretation mentioned last is therefore the most probable one: Jesus spoke of both the present and the future Son of Man. He combined the expression ‘son of man’ from everyday language with the visionary-language tradition of a heavenly being ‘like a son of man’. This combination revalued the everyday expression, and the visionary-language comparison with a son of man was replaced by the direct designation ‘Son of Man’. No angel, no heavenly being, no one who was only like a man, but a concrete man will take over his role in the kingdom of God which is breaking in: Jesus himself. He is at the same time the present and the future ‘man’. This ‘double’ concept of Son of Man is analogous to the ‘double’ kingdom of God eschatology. However, the combination of present and future eschatology in the kingdom of God is more easily understandable than in the case of a person who is speaking about his own future as though about another person. The two proposed solutions discussed by scholars – the assumption of a two-stage activity of the same person and that of a representative relationship between heavenly and earthly person – do not a priori contradict each other: mythical thought understands the future as the present which already exists in heaven. To say that Jesus represents in the present the future Son of man amounts to the same thing. Except that in relating himself to an already existing heavenly figure Jesus could not be referring to himsef, whereas in relating himself to a future figure he could. At all events, it is certain that Jesus thought in terms of a symbolic representative relationship. When he chose the ‘Twelve’, they represented the twelve tribes of Irsael. This presupposes that Jesus himself represents Israel as a whole. He, a human being, was destined to lead Israel into the kingdom of God.”

For my other blogposts on Gerd Theißen, see here.

For a complete list of my blog posts, please see here.

Facebook Page: To receive notifications of future blog posts, please subscribe to this blog and/or like my facebook page here.

Oda Wischmeyer’s New Biography of Paul

Posted by

0

Yesterday, I was happy to learn that Oda Wischmeyer has published a new biography of Paul titled Gott Neu Vermessen. Eine Paulusbiographie (Ditzingen: Reclam, 2026).

Since I have not yet obtained a copy, this blog post will instead translate several excerpts from a recent interview with Prof. em. Wischmeyer about her new book: https://www.evangelisch.de/inhalte/255518/15-05-2026/apostel-paulus-stellt-casar-den-schatten

Excerpt 1: German with English Translation

Gab es beim Schreiben der Biografie neue Erkenntnisse für Sie?

Did you gain new insights while writing the biography?

Wischmeyer: “Neu” ist in den Geisteswissenschaften immer relativ. Aber ich wollte über die bisherigen “Paulus-Perspektiven” hinausgehen. Lange wurde Paulus stark lutherisch gelesen, später betonte man mehr seinen jüdischen Hintergrund. Beides war und ist wichtig. Ich versuche nun, Paulus als den zentralen jüdischen Intellektuellen des ersten Jahrhunderts zu verstehen. Er dachte darüber nach, was es bedeutet, dass sich der Gott Israels in Jesus Christus endgültig offenbart hat. Paulus führte Christus als theologische Größe in das jüdische Denken ein. Historisch erstaunlich ist, wie erfolgreich er damit in der nichtjüdischen Welt war.

Wischmeyer: “New” is always relative in the humanities. But I wanted to go beyond the previous “Paul perspectives.” For a long time, Paul was read in a strongly Lutheran way. Later, one emphasized more his Jewish background. Both were and are important. I am now trying to understand Paul as the central Jewish intellectual of the first century. He reflected on what it means that the God of Israel has definitively revealed himself in Jesus Christ. Paul introduced Christ as a theological entity into Jewish thought. What is historically astonishing is how successful he was with this in the non-Jewish world.

Excerpt 2: German with English Translation

Welche Gedanken von Paulus sind auch heute noch besonders aktuell?

What ideas of Paul are still especially relevant also today?

Wischmeyer: Zentral ist für mich Römer 12: das Denken zu erneuern und immer neu nach dem Guten zu suchen. Paulus fordert dazu auf, sich weiterzuentwickeln und nicht stehen zu bleiben. Ebenso wichtig ist seine Vorstellung von Liebe, der Agape. Liebe bedeutet bei Paulus nicht nur Nähe zur Familie oder Freundlichkeit, sondern eine radikale Hinwendung zum anderen Menschen – praktisch, emotional und existenziell. Gerade in einer Gesellschaft, die oft stark um das eigene Ich kreist, halte ich das für hochaktuell.

Wischmeyer: Romans 12 is central for me: To renew one’s thinking and to seek the good ever anew. Paul exhorts one to develop further and not to remain standing in one place. Equally important is his conception of love, of agape. Love in Paul means not simply closeness to family or friendliness but a radical turning to other human beings – practically, emotionally, and existentially. Precisely in a society that often revolves around one’s own self, I regard this as highly relevant.

Translation note: It is difficult to translate “das Denken zu erneuern” and “Paulus fordert dazu auf,” i.e., since it does not read well to write “to renew the thinking” and “Paul exhorts to,” which means that it is probably desirable to add “one’s … one,” or “our … us.” I have added one’s … one, while recognizing that this is not an ideal solution. Similarly, I have used “around one’s own self” rather than writing “around the own I” later in the excerpt. Beyond this, it might be preferable to translate “und nicht stehen zu bleiben” with “and not stop” or “and not to stand still,” but I have chosen to use the expansive rendering “and not to remain standing in one place,” as an attempt to give the phrase a bit more weight.

For further insights into Wischmeyer’s analysis of love in the New Testament, see her book Love as Agape (Baylor, 2021).

For Wischmeyer’s 2024 EKK commentary on James, see here.

For further blog posts on Wischmeyer, see here.

Sven Ensminger on N.T. Wright, Karl Barth, and the Aufhebung of Religion

Posted by

0

In my review of German-language-sphere scholars’ essays in God and the Faithfulness of Paul, I regrettably overlooked Sven Ensminger’s essay “Barth, Wright, and Theology,” having wrongly inferred from his international education and English publications that he was not a German-language-sphere scholar. While a bit embarrassing for me, this error has the upside that he is now receiving a post of his own!

In terms of content, Ensminger’s chapter provides a concise sketch of Barth’s treatment of revelation, religion, and Christology with some points of comparison with N.T. Wright. It seeks to contribute to the question of the relationship between biblical studies and theology (658), and gives particular attention to the following question: “to what extent can God be bracketed out of theological reflection about a key figure of the Christian church such as Paul in order to consider him as a historical figure with his socio-political background?” (p.656). At certain points Ensminger suggests that Wright has not understood Barth correctly, and, more importantly, he thinks that Barth offers insights that need to be taken into account if one wants to build a theological argument. With respect to his treatment of Barth and Wright on religion, the following quotation struck me as especially central to Ensminger’s line argument: “The problem for Wright therefore seems to be one that reduces religion to its historical and social dimension. Barth’s point, however, is that religion has to be understood within the framework of theology.”

There are two aspects of Ensminger’s essay that I regard as particularly noteworthy from the perspective of a translator. The first is his discussion of the translation of the German term Aufhebung.  Whereas the first edition of Barth’s Church Dogmatics had given 1/2 § 17 the title “The Revelation of God as the Abolition of Religion”, Garrett Green regards this as “an egregious error” and “the most important reason” (GFP 653 n. 27) for undertaking his new translation of this key section entitled The Revelation of God and the Sublimation of Religion. Ensminger heartily agrees with Garrett’s criticism of the translation “abolition.” Interestingly, however, Ensminger chooses to leave Aufhebung untranslated in his chapter (unless I missed a case in which he translated it), while rendering aufheben and aufhob with “displace” and “displaced” (p. 654).

As a scholar and translator, this discussion is important to me for two reasons. First, as someone who has profited from reading Karl Barth and those who have been influenced by him (especially Wilfried Joest, Eberhard Jüngel, and Colin Gunton), I am interested in the specific question of how this term should be translated in the work of Karl Barth. Secondly, as a translator of German New Testament scholarship, I am even more interested in how this term should be translated in the authors I translate. This, however, is not straightforward, for even if Ensminger is right about Barth’s usage, I cannot necessarily assume that my authors are using it in the same way Barth (or Hegel etc). For example, how should I translate it when Michael Wolter entitles his heading for Luke 6.27-38: The Aufhebung of the Principle of Ethical Reciprocity? Should I translate it with “Sublimation”? Perhaps. Or should I use “Displacement”? Perhaps. Or would “annulment” or “sublation” be better? Perhaps. For better or for worse, I used “nullification,” and for better or worse it is too late to change this! Still, as a way of shedding further light on my own experience of translation and its challenges, let me conclude this post by briefly shedding some light on my thought process in reaching this decision. In my translation of Aufhebung in Wolter, I knew a) that “abolition” was potentially a problematic translation and b) that various authors used this term in specific and loaded ways, but c) I was somewhat uncertain about how exactly Wolter was using the term, and d) I did not feel like I had a complete overview of what the best options might be to choose from. It is true that I considered “sublation”, but I found this term to be a bit too opaque (which often evokes the displeasure of readers), and I was also worried that it might convey a more technical meaning and more loaded associations than Wolter intended and that the associations with Hegel might be undesired. Still, perhaps these considerations should have been outweighed by others? Or perhaps this should have been one of the issues that I discussed at greater length with Michael Wolter (I cannot remember whether or not this was one of the specific issues that I asked Wolter about, but if it was, it did not lead to a change to my translation). I do remember that my co-translator Christoph Heilig alerted me to important dimensions of the term’s meaning, but even in light of his clarifying comments, I retained “Nullification”, regarding it as a term that conveyed that something continued to exist but no longer had the same status or power as it previously held.

I will have to give further thought about whether to translate this term with “sublimation,” “sublation,” “annulment,” “nullification,” or “displacement” in future translations, and I am certainly open to suggestions on how best to proceed! 

For a helpful discussion of Hegel’s usage, which is relevant for thinking about the issues raised in this post, see here.

For a complete list of my blog posts, please see here.

Facebook Page: To receive notifications of future blog posts, please subscribe to this blog and/or like my facebook page here.

German Mondays: Thank you for making it to the end of this blog post! I hope to be able to write at least one Monday blog post each month. Best, Wayne