In the first half of the twentieth century, scholars had reached a consensus that Jewish sources presented a unified conception of an apocalyptic “Son of Man.” One of Norman Perrin's contributions to the Son of Man debate was to challenge this view (Perrin 1974: 23–40). He argued that the Similitudes of Enoch, 4 Ezra 13, and the midrashic literature reflect independent exegeses of Daniel 7.13, not a common tradition concerning an eschatological Redeemer with well-defined attributes and functions. These sources interpreted the manlike figure in Daniel 7.13 as the Messiah, but developed the figure in various ways.

Perrin's thesis has gained widespread acceptance. As Raymond Brown indicates,

While the majority of scholars may take this view, others have argued for a greater unity in the apocalyptic “Son of Man” material than Perrin found there. As Brown further notes:

Before examining the works of scholars seeking to revive this view, we will examine afresh the apocalyptic texts that allude to Daniel 7.13. These include 1 Enoch 37–70, 1 Enoch 71, and 4 Ezra 13, all of which are now generally dated to the first century CE.