Near the end of the twentieth century, F. H. Borsch summed up the status of Son of Man research: “It is clear that there is no consensus solution to the Son of Man problem on the immediate horizon” (Borsch 1992: 144). While no consensus exists, progress has been made in a number of areas, and a measure of agreement has been reached on some issues.

1. Very few proposed solutions have completely died out. Even the interpretation of the phrase as “the Son of Mary” has had its advocates in the twentieth century. Nevertheless, it is possible to distinguish between marginal proposals and those that lie at the center of the debate. Those interpretations which must now be considered marginal include genealogical interpretations (Chapter 1), the human Son of Man (Chapter 2), the corporate interpretation (Chapter 4), and derivation of the expression from Ezekiel or Primal Man speculation (Chapter 6).

2. Probably the majority of scholars have come to agree that no unified “Son of Man” title or concept existed in pre-Christian Judaism (Chapter 7). Our examination of the relevant apocalyptic and rabbinic material confirmed this view (Chapter 9). Consequently, the view that Jesus referred to some other expected messianic figure as the Son of Man must now be considered a marginal interpretation. The title “Son of Man” in all of its occurrences in the Gospels can best be understood as referring solely to Jesus.

3. The much-debated issue of the date of the Similitudes of Enoch thus turns out to be of only secondary significance for the Son of Man problem.