^{page 243 note 1} Cf. Higgins, A. J. B.: ‘Is the Son of Man Problem Insoluble?’, in Neotestamentica et Semitica, studies in honour of Matthew Black (1969).Google Scholar

^{page 243 note 2} Cf. my thesis ‘Christ the Conqueror. Ideas of Conflict and Victory in the New Testament’ (1954), pp. 9 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 243 note 3} Han som kommer (1951) [E.t. He that cometh (1956)].Google Scholar

^{page 244 note 1} The publication of 11 Q Melch. has not altered the picture. There may be similarities and perhaps even connections between the ideas attributed to Melchisedek in this fragment and to the son of man in the Similitudes of I En., but that does not imply the existence of a Son of man conception at the time when the Melch. opus was written.

^{page 244 note 2} Cf. in particular Vielhauer, P.: ‘Gottesreich und Menschensohn in der Verkündigung Jesu’, in Festschrift für Günther Dehn (1957)Google Scholar, and ‘Jesus und Menschensohn’, Z.Th.K. LX (1963).Google Scholar Others who hold this opinion are: H. Braun, H. Conzelmann, E. Käsemann.

^{page 244 note 3} ‘Des Menschen Sohn’, in Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, VI (1899).Google Scholar

^{page 245 note 1} Apart from the last section this article is mainly a summary of my guest lectures at the Swedish Theological Institute in Jerusalem in March 1968, published in full in Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute (A.S.T.I.), VI (1968)Google Scholar, under the heading: Der apokalyptische Menschensohn ein theologisches Phantom.

^{page 246 note 1} ‘Towards a Date for the Similitudes of Enoch’, N.T.S. XIV (1967/68), 551–65.Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 1} I have paid more attention to this problem in my article in A.S.T.I.

^{page 248 note 1} Mowinckel rejects this interpretation, op. cit.chapter x, 20 (E.T., p. 437 ff.).

^{page 249 note 1} Bultmann, R.: Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (² 1931), p. 128Google Scholar, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (²1954), pp. 29 ff., Tödt, H. E.: Der Menschensohn in der synoptischen Überlieferung (² 1963)Google Scholar, Ferd., Hahn: Christologische Hoheitstitel (² 1964).Google Scholar Earlier adherents of this opinion are named in Holtzmann, H. J.: Neutestamentliche Theologie 1 (² 1911), 315 n. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 249 note 2} Bultmann and his followers are in a far better position. When the disciples came to the conclusion that Jesus had meant hinself when he spoke of the Son of man, they got the impression that it had been his habit to speak about himself in this periphrastic manner.

^{page 249 note 3} ‘The Origin of the Son of Man Christology’, J.B.L. LXXXIV (1956), 236.Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 1} Das Evangelium des Johannes (1941), p. 265.Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 2} Barrett, C. K.: The Gospel according to St John (1955), pp. 282 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 252 note 1} It is perhaps possible to take the question of the man to imply: ‘Where is he? With whom am I to identify the Son of man?’ In that case the Son of man would be a messianic designation and John would be guilty of an anachronism. (A certain anachronism must be admitted in any case. The question of Jesus is impossible in his mouth.)

^{page 252 note 2} The significance of this verse in the context is obscure. Can it merely be that Jesus knew that man is never to be trusted? His knowledge of what is in man is always attributed to divine omniscience (cf. xvi. 30). I wonder if that is truly relevant here. It is noteworthy that we have the singular: πΕρλ ΤοŨ ´νθρώπου, Èν Τῷ ´νθρώπῳ. It does not seem too far-fetched to find a reference to the incarnation. Jesus knew what was in man because he was himself a man. Cf. I Cor. ii. II.

^{page 252 note 3} Against Schulz, S.: Untersuchungen zur Menschensohnchristologie im Johannesevangelium (1957), p. 111.Google Scholar The grammatical observation that definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article (Colwell's rule, cf. Moule, C. F. D.: An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, 1959, pp. 115 f.)Google Scholar is hardly relevant; why leave out the second article? Is that also an implication of Colwell's rule? That the second article may be retained in similar cases is evident from John i. 49, xix. 21.

^{page 253 note 1} There is not much to be found before Irenaeus. The polemical attitude of Barn. xii. 10 is noteworthy. Jesus ought not to be called Son of man or Son of David because that might cause the false impression that he was merely a human being.

^{page 254 note 1} Linton, O.: ‘Le parallelismus membrorum dans le Nouveau Testament’, in Mélanges Bibliques en hommage au R.P. Béda Rigaux (1970),Google Scholar demonstrates that parallelismus membrorum is often misinterpreted, also in the N.T. Augustine for one argued that ἄνθρωπος and Υλός νθώπου must have different meaning in this text. But by the author of Heb. they are treated as synonyms (pp. 494 ff.).

^{page 256 note 1} Joach., Jeremias: ‘Die älteste Schicht der Menschensohn-Logien’, Z.N.W. LXVI (1967),Google Scholar has demonstrated that there are parallels to most of the Son of man sayings. But his arguments for the primacy of the traditions without the Son of man are not convincing.

^{page 256 note 2} Cf. Formesyn, R. E. C.: ‘Was there a pronominal connection for the “Bar Nasha” Selfdesignation?,’ N.T. VIII (1966).Google Scholar

^{page 257 note 1} It cannot possibly mean: ‘With whom do people identify the Son of man?’ That is grammatically correct but excluded by the context.

^{page 257 note 2} Op. cit. p. 139.

^{page 258 note 1} Bultmann, E.g., Theologie der N.T. p. 31;Google ScholarHänchen, E., Der Weg Jesu (1966), p. 299.Google Scholar

^{page 258 note 2} The. Wb. VIII, 433 n. 236.Google Scholar

^{page 259 note 1} ‘The Title “Son of man”’, Teol. Tijdschrift XLV (1911).Google Scholar

^{page 259 note 2} Tödt, , op. cit. p. 123,Google ScholarColpe, , Th. Wb. VIII, 455.Google Scholar

^{page 261 note 1} Op. cit. p. 53.

^{page 262 note 1} Op. cit. p. 36.

^{page 262 note 2} ‘Sätze heiligen Rechtes im Neuen Testament’, N.T.S. I (1954/55), 248–60.Google Scholar Cf. the critical remarks by Berger, K. in ‘Zu den sogenannten Sätzen heiligen Rechts,’ N.T.S. XVII (1970), 10–40.Google Scholar

^{page 262 note 3} Bultmann, , Theologie der N.T. p. 163,Google ScholarHahn, , op. cit. p. 33,Google ScholarTödt, , op. cit. p. 51.Google Scholar

^{page 263 note 1} ‘Der Menschensohn’, Z.N.W. LVIII (1959)Google Scholar, ‘The Son of Man again’, N.T.S. IX(1963), 256–61.Google Scholar

^{page 263 note 2} Th. Wb. VIII, 446.Google Scholar

^{page 264 note 1} As for the exegetical analysis of this important pericope I must refer to my article in A.S.T.I. pp. 91 ff.

^{page 265 note 1} Cf. Boman, Th., Die Jesusüberlieferung im Lichte der neueren Volkskunde (1967), p. 162.Google Scholar

^{page 266 note 1} The Son of Man in Mark (1967).

^{page 267 note 1} P. 102