1 - Genealogical interpretations

Summary

The earliest interpreters of ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου took υἱὸς (“son”) in a literal genealogical sense: for them it identified Jesus as the son of some particular parent. On the one hand, Gnostics interpreted the phrase as “the son of Anthropos (ἀνθρώπου)”, Anthropos being a Gnostic god. On the other hand, early orthodox writers interpreted the phrase as “the son of the human,” identifying “the human” as Mary or Adam. After the Reformation, a few interpreters identified “the human” as Joseph.

The son of Anthropos

In certain Gnostic sects, such as the Ophites and Valentinians, “Anthropos” (“Man”) was the name of an “aeon” or god. This designation apparently developed from speculation on Genesis 1.26: if “man” is made in the image of God, then God must in some sense be a primal “Man.” In various Gnostic writings, a second god emanated from this first Man. This second god is identified as Christ and designated “son of Man” (υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου), i.e. son of the god Anthropos. Some texts even refer to a third aeon called “son of son of Man”:

The first aeon, then, is that of Immortal Man. The second aeon is that of Son of Man, who is called “First Begetter”… The third is that of son of Son of Man, who is called “Savior.” (Eugnostos the Blessed III, 85.9–14; V, 13.12–13;

J. M. Robinson 1990: 236)

Thus the Gnostics took “son” in a genealogical sense, identifying “Man” as a god rather than a human being.

The son of the human

While the Gnostic interpretation emphasized Christ's divine sonship, the orthodox interpretation emphasized his descent from a human parent.