Craig A. Evans on Matthew 28:18-19 in Matthew (NCBC), 483:
“Jesus states, ‘All authority on heaven and earth have been given to me” (v. 18). Reference to being given authority in heaven and on earth recalls the Son of Man in Dan 7:13-14, who in heaven was given ‘authority’ and authority later claimed ‘on earth’ (cf. Matt 9:6, ‘the Son of Man has authority on earth’; Matt 21:23, ‘By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?’; Matt 7:29, ‘he taught them as one having authority’). The heavenly authority of Jesus is such that he even commands angels (cf. Matt 16:27, ‘the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of the Father’; 24:31; 25:31, ‘the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him’).
“The ‘authority’ here in Matt 28:18 probably alludes to the authority granted to the ‘Son of Man’ in Dan 7:14: ‘And royal authority was given to him…his authority is an everlasting authority’ (NETS). The risen Jesus can speak of his authority ‘in heaven’ because that is where the authority was granted –in heaven and in the very presence of God. The claim to have authority ‘on earth’ recalls Jesus’ earlier demonstration that he indeed does possess this authority, which he announced on the occasion of healing the paralyzed man (cf. Matt 9:6, ‘the Son of Man has authority on earth’).”
Quite the imagery: the Son of Man figure receives authority from the Ancient of Days and authoritatively commissions his disciples to make disciples of all the nations. In Daniel 7 the Son of Man figure is given the Kingdoms. Jesus has been given the Kingdoms, so he instructs his disciples to inform the Kingdoms that there has been a change. This seems to be underpinned by Psalm 2 as well where God choses his King and the nations prepare their defense against him, yet in this Gospel the King expects his disciples to find loyalist among the nations who will declare their allegiance to the King.
the archives near Emmaus 
I think an important human aspect to this authority lies in the tradition of needing two or three witnesses (at a minimum) to verify or proclaim truth. Jesus spoke as the Author of authority, not as one quoting truth and not needing a second person as a witness. I think that’s what people were amazed by. They saw it in Him but couldn’t comprehend it was so. Remember during His trial, the prevailing custom was that the accused was neither a witness for nor against himself. Remember in the Talmud that it was always Rabbi A speaking in the name of Rabbi B, not of himself. Those whom Jesus went head to head against always seems to have the witness of scribes and/or lawyers. The only witness that Jesus called upon was God, Who was the Word, Who was Jesus Himself (“before Abraham was, I am [=YHWH]”).
I always think about the old George Burns movie Oh God, where God walks and talks with people. Probably the people of the Bible were of the same mindset as the people in the movie… and as indeed most likely we would be too! “No way You’re God just because You say so, no way what You say is the Truth just because You say so!” Well, Jesus was (is!) God and had (has!) the Authority to speak the Truth
Don’t quit. Stick with your train of thought. What if Christ was right? Some of it might have been a bit proleptic (“the son of man is lifted up” didn’t happen until a short time later) but what if psalms 2 and Daniel 7 (not to mention Isaiah 65 and 66) were in view in that generation?
It seems to lay the groundwork for a divine King, possibly. I think documents like 11Q13 which present a Melchizedek figure as reigning on behalf of God convey a similar idea.
I’m not clear why Matt, as you seem to suggest, draws heavily from Daniel imagery and concepts, whereas I don’t recall the other synoptics do, nor John (except in the shared general apocalyptic framework). Two issues come to mind for me:
1) Do you date Dan. as when it is set (captivity) or as by what I perceive is a very strong majority of scholars, to be around the Maccabean revolt and the later (ca 160s BCE) era of apolypticism? If the latter, does this change the sense of its status of revelation/authority? Schweitzer, in “The Kingdom of God and Primitive Christianity” is definite about the latter. (I recently finished and then reviewed, on my blog, this continuing classic, much less known and written about 45 yrs. AFTER his “Quest” book, and quite remarkable in style and content.) Incidentally, I haven’t studied Dan. dating much, but noted that a strong defender of the historicity of most of the OT as confirmed via archaeology, Wm. Dever, also feels definite about Dan. being from the Maccabean period…. Maybe he’s out of his specialization in saying that, I don’t know that much about him. But he sure comes down on the “revisionists” and “minimalists” (his 2000 book).
2) As to the “Grt. Comm.” passage, Mt. 28, have you checked its textual variants? Are there indicators there to support what Schweitzer says, that the “account [vs. 16-20]… belongs to a tradition that arose at a later date. It arose because it seemed by that time incredible that baptism should have arisen without instructions from Jesus. That this tradition does not come from the earliest period is plain from the fact that Jesus orders baptism in the name of Father, Son and Spirit, a formula which came into use only at the end of the first century. In primitive Christianity, it was in the name of Jesus.” (p. 139)? (And Schw. is judicious with designating things from various stages as in from criticism, with which he must have been quite familiar but I suspect not particularly in line with… he mainly leans on his confidence that Mk. was earliest.)
As to (1) I will presuppose the validity of view held by most OT scholars that Daniel was composed later, after the exile, possibly around the time of the Maccabean period. It is possible that the content has roots in the historical Daniel, a exilic prophet in Babylon, but splitting received tradition from shaped tradition is something I am not skilled to do. Do I think Daniel’s place as Scripture depends on the book being composed by the hand of Daniel? No, I don’t. Obviously it provided authoritative “script” for early Christians.
As to (2) there are no known textual variants that remove the triadic formula. I am aware of the proposal that it is a later addition, but I think this presupposes anti-Trinitarian bias (as exemplified by the Oneness Pentecostal sect of my youth) and critical scholars who cannot imagine the transition from Jewish monotheism to Christian theology proper as having anything to do with Jewish thought. I think folk like Hurtado and Bauckham have shown where (at least) binitarianism is grounded in the Jewish matrix, esp. as people wrestled with passages like Daniel 7.
As to whether the words themselves came from the mouth of Jesus or this is interpretive retelling of Jesus’ words is (once again) based on whether we can parse received tradition from shaped tradition here. I feel quite agnostic about whether the words came from Jesus’ mouth or whether these words as the Evangelist’s interpretive retelling, but I think that is secondary since Christianity is based on interpreting Jesus rather than a pure, laboratory version of Jesus which we can dissect perfectly while preventing him from impacting anything other than the early first century.
As for Daniel, if it was written in the Maccabean era (I bow to scholars on this), that made its revelation sufficiently recent to have been within “blood memory”. To make a circular argument, its use within blood memory validated its validity!
Thanks, Brian. Your answer raises add’l q’s but I must stick to just one for now. Btw., you probably already translated my typo, but “from” criticism should have been “form” … main point being that Schweitzer may or may not have utilized what had developed within form crit. by 1951). (Dated ms.–by him, pub’d in 1966, only after his death in ’65 — found among his stuff and noted as “Definitive” vs. his other designation as “Provisional” — outlines for extending the study beyond Paul/Gospels). But this impressive book was clearly for a generally-interested audience more than for other scholars.
But as to the q.: how do you define and differentiate “received” and “shaped” tradition, other than perhaps “early” vs. “later”, which would not seem to enlighten much? I understand you are demurring as to “splitting” one from the other. I just don’t recall hearing “shaped” as a term over against “received”, but then I don’t read heavily in many of the sources you probably do. And when it comes to Daniel, even if one regards it as Scripture either way, dating does seem to make a real difference… I think in terms of it being used as a general support for Messianic claims and as it does seem to mark out, as you say, a movement within at least the apocalyptic strain of late Judaism toward the possibility of at least a supernatural Messiah, if not an actually divine one (which I don’t think is there even in Daniel and certainly not elsewhere in the OT or even in the Intertestamental period).
But also dating Dan. matters in terms of the supposed specificity of prophesy re. the sequential kingdoms and dating of them, and the “cutting off” or “abomination of desolation”, the concept of a brief but separate “tribulation” period, and other factors that certainly have fed the Dispensational scheme, but I think prophetic understanding more broadly as well. (Dispensationalism I was/am more versed in than Covenant or Lutheran or RC schemes… and know it is much more specific, and also increasingly discredited.) I raise it bec. I have little doubt that the broad strokes of Dispensationalism, if not the particulars, still have tremendous influence on the thinking of perhaps a majority of Christians in this country, and that it gets horribly mixed up with unthinking support for Israel, and things like a potentially self-fulfilling prophecy about end-times war in Israel (tho I do remain hopeful that more reasoned thinking/feeling will prevail in that regard). Last I was watching/hearing, these same folks, including pastors and at least some recognized scholarly “authorities”, were of adamant persuasion that Daniel WAS written by the exiled prophet, was predictive, etc. I presume so mainly bec. so much of their scheme depended on this, and bec. the most specific and detailed acc’ts that seem to lead to Jesus-as-divine-Messiah thinking are here. (Never mind that much of what is there IS traceable to Iranian and apocalyptic Intertestamental Jewish theology that they don’t align with or consider authoritative, except the parts that appear within the Canon.)
I do realize this does not “catch” where you are, at least for the most part, Brian. But I think many Evangelicals need to be reminded and/or confronted with some of the realities to help them get more consistent (and not “off the wall”). If you care to comment on how your Mennonite friends tend to look at these kinds of issues, or others with whom you imagine teaching/ministering later, please do so.
Let’s imagine that the Prophet Daniel predicted some things about the empires of his day while living in Babylon. Some of his admirers record those sayings. Maybe he writes those sayings. Later generations receive these sayings and traditions, not from Daniel, but from those passing along their understanding of Daniel. Then whoever writes the Book of Daniel may have based it on these memories of Daniel, traditions about him, sayings attributed to him, but the narrative being shaped is uniquely the author’s. Where does this “received” tradition about Daniel break with the author’s “shaping” of these traditions, placing them in a narrative? I don’t know.
As to Daniel being Scripture I think too many approach this from a fundamentalist or anti-fundamentalist position. If it was written by Daniel we can verify these words as prophesy and therefore call Daniel Scripture. If not, then we know this book is purely anachronistic and it tells us nothing. I think these two extremes are problematic. The Book of Daniel can remain informative and truthful in its theology and description of empire. It can provide important language for understanding God and God’s plans in the world. Whether the prophet Daniel wrote these things down, or they were written immediately after he died, or later, these words provided insight for Jesus and his earliest followers. We may reject them or we may be open to what they said. Their use of Daniel informs us of how they reached their conclusions, not whether their statements about reality are true or false.
Ah, yes! From a quick read (I’m totally out of time for the day), I think we are quite fully “on the same page”. I may get back to this with a longer reply later, but thanks, regardless. (And I hope many Dispensationalists and other “traditionalists” who do take that “extreme” position are reading and taking you seriously… important stuff.)
OK, hmm Brian. Let’s see, you theorize that we now have the Book of Daniel because ur-Daniel’s words in some sort of perhaps written and/or verbal body of transmission/interpretation made their way intentionally through history among a community, from which a Maccabean era author then writes our BoD. Seems logical. How was BoD received as a recent composition in late Second Temple days by other (than Jesus) religious figures? Was there any opposition to it? Or, could our BoD be the result of some sort of Hilkiah/Josiah-type discovery and redaction?
Those are good questions which I am unable to answer. I haven’t done intensive study on the Book of Daniel’s composition or reception history, I lean on scholars in fields who study these things to help inform my understanding of them, but even then I haven’t read widely enough on the topic to have an opinion.