Luke 12:8-9 contains it:
Matthew 10:32-33 contains a parallel which Matthew has likely changed.[8] "And I tell you, every one who acknowledges me before men, the Son of man also will acknowledge before the angels of God;
[9] but he who denies me before men will be denied before the angels of God.
I read in The Apocalyptic Imagination by John J Collins foot note 30 page 262 “Luke 12:8-9 (…) … but Vielhauer showed that this has its setting in the early church. See Yarbro Collins, ‘The Origin of the Designation’ 152.”[32] So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven;
[33] but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.
In ‘The Origin of the Designation of Jesus as Son of Man’ by Adela Yarbro Collins in The Harvard Theological Review 1987, Collins writes regarding Lk 12:8-9, “Vielhauer demonstrated that this saying probably does not go back to Jesus. He pointed out that the saying reflects a legal situation in which followers of Jesus were required to make a statement about their allegiance to Jesus. Such a social setting is far more plausible after the crucifixion than before it.”
I have not read the Vielhauer article. If anyone can find it in English on the internet please post the link to it or post in English his case.
Here I present the case for why this saying in Lk 12:8-9 does go back to Jesus based on the article ‘The Angelic Son of Man in Luke 12:8’ in Novum Testamentum XXIV (1982) by David Catchpole (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1560828?se ... b_contents)
First Catchpole discusses what the Q test was.
Lk 12:8
Λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν, πᾶς ὃς ἂν ὁμολογήσῃ ἐν ἐμοὶ ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων,
καὶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁμολογήσει ἐν αὐτῷ ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀγγέλων τοῦ θεοῦ:
My literal translation:
I-say but to-you, that every-one who ever acknowledges in me front-of the men
also the Son of Man acknowledges in him front-of the angels of God
Lk 12:9
ὁ δὲ ἀρνησάμενός με ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀνθρώπων
ἀπαρνηθήσεται ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀγγέλων τοῦ θεοῦ.
My literal translation:
He yet disowning me in-sight-of the humans
shall-be-renounced in-sight-of the angels of God
Mt 10:32
Πᾶς οὖν ὅστις ὁμολογήσει ἐν ἐμοὶ ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων,
ὁμολογήσω κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν [τοῖς] οὐρανοῖς:
My literal translation:
Every-one then who acknowledges in me front-of the men
acknowledges I-also in him front-of the Father of-me the in the heavens
Mt 10:33
ὅστις δ' ἂν ἀρνήσηταί με ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων,
ἀρνήσομαι κἀγὼ αὐτὸν ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν [τοῖς] οὐρανοῖς.
My literal translation:
Who yet ever disowns me front-of the men disowning
I-also him in-front the Father of-me the in the heavens
In the following quotes from the Catchpole article the translations in brackets are mine.
Catchpole thinks that Λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν (But I say to you) “was more probably added by LkR”.
He thinks that Luke’s ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (the Son of Man) is more likely the Q version than Matthew’s ἐγώ (I). Not that I could find ἐγώ. There is καγω (I also) which might be what Catchpole means. Catchpole argues (if I have understood him correctly) that “the presence of ‘Son of man’ in the probably independent variant Mk 8:38 supports its originality here”, there is a catchword link in Q between 12:8 to 12:10, there is a Semitic play on the words men and son of man, and “an I/Son of Man distinction points to primitiveness”.
He thinks Luke’s τῶν ἀγγέλων (the angels) is more likely than Matthew’s τοῦ πατρός μου (the Father of me) because Matthew often adds “my Father in heaven”. It seems to me that this might apply to ἐν [τοῖς] οὐρανοῖς (in the heavens) as well. I think he might think it unlikely that Luke would have replaced Father with angels.
Catchpole states “the Q wording probably ran:
πᾶς ὃς ἂν ὁμολογήσῃ ἐν ἐμοὶ ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων,
καὶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁμολογήσει ἐν αὐτῷ ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀγγέλων τοῦ θεοῦ.
ὁ δὲ ἀρνησάμενός με ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀνθρώπων
ἀπαρνηθήσεται ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀγγέλων τοῦ θεοῦ.
My translation:
That every-one who ever acknowledges in me front-of the men
also the Son of Man acknowledges in him front-of the angels of God
He yet disowning me in-sight-of the humans
shall-be-renounced in-sight-of the angels of God
My preferred English translation is:
Catchpole asserts that it should be treated as an isolated saying and any context in the gospels is secondary.Everyone who acknowledges me before men, the Son of man also will acknowledge before the angels of God;
but whoever denies me before men will be denied before the angels of God.
Catchpole looks at the word ὁμολογήσει. He states that its usage is similar to that in the Septuagint Job 40:9 “then I will acknowledge (ὁμολογήσω) to you that your right hand can give you victory”; Wisd 18:13 “Though they had disbelieved everything because of their magical arts, yet, when their firstborn were destroyed, they acknowledged your people to be God’s son”. He concludes that “These texts demonstrate that the essence of ὁμολογια is open verbal acknowledgement of fundamental religious truth in the wake of the experience of God’s activity …”
Catchpole turns to ἔμπροσθεν next recognising it is used sometimes as meaning “standing before the judge… but more frequently there is no such connotation: Joshua 1:5; 2 Kings 19:18; 3 Kings 8:5; 1 Chr. 15:24; 2 Chr. 5:6; 15:8; 1 Esd. 1:5, 11; 8:87, 91; Neh. 8:1; Dan. 1:5; 7:10; 3 Macc. 5:50. In the gospel tradition non-legal use of this term is widely attested: … Mt 5:16 6:1 … 5:24; 11:26 (= Lk10:21) 17:2 (= Mk 9:2); 18:14; 26:70; Mk 2:12; Lk 5:19; 14:2; Jn. 12:37.”
Catchpole concludes that while “Vielhauer’s view has been highly influential … it cannot be sustained”.
I particularly dislike the translation of ὁμολογήσει. as “confess” which remind me of “confess that Jesus is Lord”. I prefer the translation to be “acknowledge” where there are no Christological connotations and the acknowledgement could be as a messenger from God or a prophet.
Catchpole does “a small detour into Mt 18:10”
Catchpole states that the authenticity of this verse is not relevant, that it is the idea of a “heavenly angelic sponsor or guarantor or counterpart (cf. Tobit 12:15; Enoch 104:1 Lk 1:19) represents an individualising of the old idea of an angelic ruler for each nation (cf. Dan 10:12; 12:1 Sir. 17:17). The point here is that the angel in God’s presence is presumed to act either favourably or unfavourably in relation to the person addressed by the saying, depending on whether that person treats the μικρος (little ones) favourably or unfavourably. For the angel is the guarantor of the μικρος. In the light of such a scheme Lk 12:8 makes perfect sense. It suggests that the Son of man will act either favourably or unfavourably in respect of the person addressed who either confesses or denies Jesus, precisely because the Son of man is the heavenly guarantor of the earthly Jesus” (p 260)."See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that in heaven their angels always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven.”
Catchpole states that with the above interpretation the saying is about salvation and Christology is not a concern. He claims it “dovetails exactly with the probably authentic parable ‘Hearer and Doers of the Word’ (Mt 7:24-27 = Lk 6:47-49)”.This is where those who hear and does what Jesus says will be saved.
Catchpole also states that Lk 12:8 “dovetails with such eschatological sayings as Mt 24:27, 37, 39 = Lk 17:24, 26, 30 which show no sign of equating the Son of man with Jesus or of being disqualified from authentic tradition by presupposing the delay of the Parousia.”
Then Catchpole states that Lk 12:8 “dovetails precisely with Mt 25:31-46” where the “scheme demands that the Son of man shall not previously have been seen on earth”. This is because those being judged ask when they saw the Son of man and the answer is they didn’t they will be judged on how they responded to “the least of these my brethren” (vs 40, 45).
Catchpole suggests that because the Q material makes strenuous efforts to equal Jesus with the eschatological coming one (an example being Mt 12:2 = Lk 7:19) there must have been an earlier tradition where there is no such equation. And that Lk 12:8 is such an earlier tradition.
Catchpole concludes that “Lk 12:8 issues a promise and a warning which combine as a demand. That is, a firm commitment to the words of Jesus and open acknowledgement of the significance of his mission within the design of God will be matched by corresponding acknowledgement in heaven on the part of the Son of man – the angelic counterpart of Jesus …”
This idea seems to conform to the teaching of Jesus where he declares that people must respond to what he preaches; it is implied in these sayings that people will be judged according to their response. This seems to present Jesus as a prophet in the Old Testament tradition and not as a pre-existent heavenly being as presented by later Christianity.
It also seems to conform to the idea that “this generation” will be judged in Lk 11:29 (= Mt12:39), 11:31 (= Mt 12:42), 11:32 (= Mt 12:41).
