Yes, checking my sources, I'll need to reword my previous reply. What's clear in the NT is that while Jesus identifies with the Son of man (a title for a human in the Tanakh except twice in Daniel where it stands for God's agent, as here) but repeatedly using the phrase instead of "I" in particular contexts ─ which seemed to me to imply that he wasn't the Son of Man on this trip, and would only be so when he returned as God's viceroy. It's such a constant it seems to imply something, but I can't maintain the case for my previous statement. I notice the NT Greek is τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, which actually translates as "the son of
the man" which sounds odd.
The Enoch part is from Ehrman's
How Jesus Became God (2014) which says (p. 68) ─
In an interesting and compelling study, Alan Segal, a scholar of ancient Judaism, argues that early rabbis were particularly concerned about a notion, which was evidently widespread in parts of Judaism, that along with God in heaven there was a second power on the divine throne. Following these Jewish sources, Segal refers to these two—God and the other—as the "two powers in heaven."14 The Son of Man figure whom we have just examined would be one such divine figure, as he shares the status and power of God. But there evidently were others who were candidates for this celestial honor, and the rabbis who were concerned about regulating what Jews should think and believe found such views unnerving, so much so that they went on the attack against them. Their attacks were effective, more or less silencing those who ascribed to these views.
Segal's careful analysis shows that those who held to the "heretical" notion of two powers maintained that the second power was either some kind of angel or a mystical manifestation of a divine characteristic thought to be in some sense equal with God (discussed more below). They subscribed to this notion because of their interpretations of certain passages in the Bible, such as those that describe the Angel of the Lord as bearing the divine name himself, or Daniel 7 and its reference to "the one like a son of man"—a figure independent of God who is given eternal power and dominion. Yet other passages could lead to a "two-powers" doctrine, such as Genesis 1:26, in which God, in creating humans, says, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness." Why is God speaking in the plural: "us" and "our"? According to the two-powers heresy, it was because another divine figure was with him. This also could be the person that the "elders bf Israel" saw sitting on the divine throne in Exodus 24:9-10. This figure is called the God of Israel, but the people actually saw him. Elsewhere, even within the book of Exodus, it is explicitly stated that no one can see God and live (Exod. 33:20). Yet they did see God and they did live. They must, then, have seen the second power, not God.
The rabbis of the second, third, fourth, and following centuries CE condemned any such notion as a heresy. But, again, the fact that they condemned it shows that it was a view held by other Jews, and since the rabbis condemned it so thoroughly, it was probably held by a large number of Jews. Segal argues that this heresy can be traced back to the first Christian century and to Palestine itself. He maintains that one obvious target for such views were the Christians, who elevated Christ—as we will see—to the level of God. But it wasn't only Christians who held to the two-powers heresy. Non-Christian Jews did as well, on the basis of their interpretation of passages from the Hebrew Bible.
The claim is only found in Matthew (28:18) "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."
There's thus no reason to think it's true of the Jesuses of Paul, Mark, Luke or John. And it's the third last verse of Matthew, so although I don't know of any commentators who think so, it's not completely impossible that some enthusiastic early copyist slipped it in at the end ─ as appears to have happened at the end of Mark (adding 16:9-20).
