Abstract
This volume is a revision of Walck’s 1999 Notre Dame dissertation written under the supervision of James VanderKam. In short, the aim of the book is to explore the portrayals of the “Son of Man” inParables and Matthew, and to establish the degree to which the former influenced the latter.
After a concise review of current perspectives and thestatus quaestionis in Chapter 1, Walck takes up the task of isolating the date, sources, and social setting ofParables in Chapter 2. He discusses four themes evident inParables (“Kings and Mighty Ones,” “Bloodshed,” “The Parthians and Medes,” and “Healing Hot Springs”) and concludes that the antagonists featured are most likely the Romans, their client kings, and Herod in particular (18, 23). By coordinating all of these factors, Walck narrows the date of composition to “the late first century
Chapter 3 is a detailed commentary on passages inParables referring to the/that “Son of Man.” The primary interest was to outline the pastiche of biblical passages that informed the presentation of the character. In addition to recurring images and idioms from Daniel, of particular note is the use of various Isaianic traditions, which were selectively incorporated and reformulated by the author ofParables. Walck also argues thatParables 70–71 does in fact identify Enoch as the figure developed throughout the work and that the “epilogue appears to be coherent and consistent with the rest ofPar. En.” (137). The chapter concludes with concise summaries and corresponding tables comparing the literary themes observed throughout the more detailed exegesis (156–164). These important pages allow one to grasp the presentation of the “Son of Man” inParables at a glance.
In keeping with the method of the previous chapter, Walck comments on Matthean passages containing explicit references to the “Son of Man.” Here, however, the commentary is limited to nine sayings that are unique to Matthew and fall within Bultmann’s category of “future sayings” (165). The reasoning provided is that the study is interested in Matthew’s unique use of the tradition and that, sinceParables adopts a strictly future view of the “Son of Man,” the future sayings in Matthew are the most pertinent. Of these Walck devotes the most time to the judgment discourse in Matthew 24:30–31. Walck makes several noteworthy observations on the presentation and role of the “Son of Man” in this passage, particularly where the author appears to have departed from traditional imagery in the Hebrew scriptures or redacted his source material in such a way that it betrays awareness of traditions like those found inParables. Ultimately, he concludes that the judgment scenes involving the “Son of Man” inParables and Matthew exhibit “striking and extensive” similarities, indicating that “[b]oth authors express a very similar conception of the eschatological, judicial Son of Man” (219). Once again, Walck’s concluding summaries and tables in this section are of great value.
The concluding chapter of the book places the exegetical chapters inParables and Matthew in direct conversation with one another in order to isolate patterns of similarity in the presentation of the “Son of Man.” While most of the features noted are quite explicit (for example, the judicial role of the figure), others are less certain in that Walck suggests they are presupposed in one work or the other (for example, the concept of chosenness in Matthew). Furthermore, it is equally possible that some of the correlations are not due to Matthew’s literary or tradition-historical dependence onParables, but that both drew upon a common fund of biblical traditions (for example, the notion of a “light for the Gentiles” taken over from Isaiah 49:6). Walck suggests that there are “two levels of similarity between the two works” (243): the first being explicit themes/language, largely confined to the portrayal of the “Son of Man” in an apocalyptic judicial setting, the second comprised of looser correlations that are evident in wider patterns of relationships betweenParables and Matthew. In the end, Walck himself appears torn between optimism and overstatement concerning the degree to which Matthew’s portrayal of the “Son of Man” relied upon or was informed byParables. In the concluding pages there is some tension between statements such as, “it is likely that he [the author of Matthew] knew and usedPar. En. in particular, along with his other sources for the story of Jesus” and “[t]he similarities and distinctions presented above may not prove conclusively that Matthew was literarily dependent uponPar. En., but in a dynamic, creative manner Matthew has incorporated Enoch-like characteristics into his presentation of the Son of Man” (250–251).
In sum, Walck’s detailed analyses move the conversation forward and demonstrate that it is not merely possible but probable that the author of Matthew was aware of the roughly contemporary contours of the “Son of Man” tradition as expressed inParables.