^{page 327 note 1} See the table in Higgins, A. J. B., Jesus and the Son of Man (1964), p. 185Google Scholar (cf. p. 26 for earlier discussions); also Hodgson, P. C., ‘The Son of Man and the Problem of Historical Knowledge’, J.R. XLI (1961), 91–108.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 2} Manson, T. W., The Teaching of Jesus (1935 ²), pp. 211–34Google Scholar; The Servant-Messiah (1953), pp. 72–4Google Scholar; Taylor, V., Jesus and His Sacrifice (1937), pp. 21–32Google Scholar; ‘The Son of Man Sayings relating to the Parousia’, Exp. T. LVIII (1946–1947), 12–15Google Scholar; The Gospel according to St Mark (1952), pp. 119 f.Google Scholar; The Names of Jesus (1953), pp. 25–35Google Scholar; Hunter, A. M., The Work and Words of Jesus (1950), pp. 84–7Google Scholar; Turner, H. E. W., Jesus Master and Lord (1953), pp. 196–205Google Scholar; Cranfield, C. E. B., St Mark (1963 ²), pp. 272–7Google Scholar; similarly also Cullmann, O., The Christology of the New Testament (1959), ch. 6.Google Scholar It need hardly be said that there are considerable differences in detail in the writings of these scholars.

^{page 327 note 3} Bultmann, R., Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (1958 ⁴)Google Scholar (Eng. tr. The History of the Synoptic Tradition, 1963); Tödt, H. E., Der Menschensohn in der synoptischen Tradition (1959)Google Scholar (Eng. tr. The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition, 1965); cf. Higgins, A. J. B., op. cit.Google Scholar; Fuller, R. H., The Foundations of New Testament Christology (1965), pp. 119–25, 143–55.Google Scholar

^{page 328 note 1} Hahn, F., Christologische Hoheitstitel (1964 ²), pp. 13–17Google Scholar, summarizes earlier discussion.

^{page 328 note 2} Manson, T. W., The Teaching of Jesus, pp. 217 f.Google Scholar; Campbell, J. Y., ‘The Origin and Meaning of the Term Son of Man’, J.T.S. XLVIII (1947), 145–55Google Scholar; Schweizer, E., ‘Der Menschensohn’, Z.N.W. L (1959), 185–209 (p. 198)Google Scholar; Vielhauer, P., ‘Jesus und der Menschensohn’, Z.T.K. LIX (1962), 133–77 (pp. 157–9)Google Scholar, who quotes Black, M., An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (1946 ²), pp. 246 f.Google Scholar

^{page 328 note 3} Black, M., op. cit. p. 250 n.Google Scholar In a paper delivered at the Third International Congress of New Testament Studies (Oxford, 1965) G. Vermes adduced a number of examples of the same usage in Aramaic and showed that they were used in situations of humiliation, danger and embarrassment. He also maintained, however, that the phrase was not used in Aramaic as a title and would indeed be totally unsuitable for this purpose. But the facts that a titular use is attested for the phrase in I Enoch and IV Esdras and that the Palestinian church understood it as a title surely indicate that Jesus could have used this unsuitable phrase and moulded it to suit his own purpose.

^{page 328 note 4} E. Schweizer, ibid.; Cranfield, C. E. B., op. cit. pp. 273, 275 f.Google Scholar

^{page 328 note 5} Bousset, W., Kyrios Christos (1921 ²), p. 9Google Scholar, as cited by Tödt, H. E., op. cit. (Eng. tr.), p. 127.Google Scholar

^{page 328 note 6} Bultmann, R., op. cit. (Eng. tr.), p. 137.Google Scholar

^{page 328 note 7} Knox, J., The Death of Christ (1959), pp. 52–77Google Scholar; cf. Higgins, A. J. B., op. cit. pp. 19, 199Google Scholar; Vielhauer, P., op. cit. p. 160.Google Scholar

^{page 329 note 1} Jeremias, J., The Central Message of the New Testament (1965), ch. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 329 note 2} Bultmann, R., Theology of the New Testament (1952), 1, 30Google Scholar; The History of the Synoptic Tradition, p. 152.Google Scholar

^{page 329 note 3} Vielhauer, P., op. cit.Google Scholar; earlier, ‘Gottesreich und Menschensohn in der Verkündigung Jesu’ in Schneemelcher, W. (ed.), Festschrift für Gunther Dehn (1957), pp. 51–79 (p. 56).Google Scholar Both essays are reprinted in Vielhauer, P., Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament (1965), pp. 55–91, 92–140.Google Scholar

^{page 329 note 4} Tödt, H. E., op. cit. pp. 141–221.Google Scholar

^{page 329 note 5} Stauffer, E., New Testament Theology (1955), p. 110Google Scholar; Jeremias, J. (and W. Zimmerli), The Servant of God (1957), pp. 98–104Google Scholar; Schweizer, E., op. cit. pp. 195–7.Google Scholar

^{page 329 note 6} A certain amount of assimilation of language between the predictions and the passion narrative is no proof that the predictions are secondary.

^{page 330 note 1} Cranfield, C. E. B., op. cit. p. 267.Google Scholar

^{page 330 note 2} Bultmann, R., The History of the Synoptic Tradition, p. 152Google Scholar; Bornkamm, G., Jesus von Nazareth (1956), pp. 161 f.Google Scholar; Tödt, H. E., op. cit. pp. 55–60Google Scholar; Higgins, A. J. B., op. cit. pp. 24, 57–60.Google Scholar

^{page 330 note 3} Summarized in Bultmann, R., Theology of the New Testament, 1, 28–32.Google Scholar

^{page 331 note 1} Ibid.

^{page 331 note 2} Vielhauer's position was anticipated by Sharman, H. B., Son of Man and Kingdom of God (1944 ²).Google Scholar

^{page 331 note 3} Conzelmann, H., ‘Gegenwart und Zukunft in der synoptischen Tradition’, Z.T.K. LIV (1957), 277–96 (pp. 281 ff.)Google Scholar; ‘Jesus’, R.G.G. ³ (1959), 111, cols. 630 f.Google Scholar

^{page 331 note 4} Teeple, H. M., ‘The Origin of the Son of Man Christology’, J.B.L. LXXXIV (1965), 213–50.Google Scholar

^{page 331 note 5} Stauffer, E., op. cit. pp. 108–11Google Scholar; Jesus Gestalt und Geschichte (1957), pp. 122–4Google Scholar (Eng. tr. Jesus and His Story, 1960, pp. 133–5).Google Scholar

^{page 331 note 6} Bammel, E., ‘Erwägungen zur Eschatologie Jesu’, in Cross, F. L. (ed.), Studia Evangelica, 111 (1964) (T.U. LXXXVIII), 3–32.Google Scholar

^{page 331 note 7} Bornkamm, G., op. cit. pp. 160–3, 206–8Google Scholar (Eng. tr. Jesus of Nazareth, 1960, pp. 175–8, 228–31).Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 1} Higgins, A. J. B., ‘Son of Man-Forschung since The Teaching of Jesus”’ in New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of T. W. Manson (1959), pp. 119–35.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 2} Higgins, A. J. B., Jesus and the Son of Man, p. 202.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 3} A position closely akin to that of Tödt is also adopted by Hahn, F., op. cit. pp. 13–53Google Scholar; Fuller, R. H., op. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 4} Schweizer, E., ‘Der Menschensohn’; ‘The Son of Man’, J.B.L. LXXIX (1960), 119–29Google Scholar; ‘The Son of Man Again’, N.T.S. x (1962–1963), 256–61Google Scholar; cf. Lordship and Discipleship (1960).

^{page 334 note 1} Schweizer, E., ‘The Son of Man’, pp. 121 f.Google Scholar

^{page 334 note 2} Black, M., ‘The “Son of Man” in the Old Biblical Literature’, Exp. T. LX (1948–1949), 11–15Google Scholar; ‘The “Son of Man” in the Teaching of Jesus’, ibid. pp. 32–6; ‘The Eschatology of the Similitudes of Enoch’, J.T.S. N.S. iii (1952), 1–10Google Scholar; ‘The Servant of the Lord and the Son of Man’, S.J.T. vi (1953), 1–11.Google Scholar

^{page 334 note 3} Black, M., ‘The Son of Man Problem in Recent Research and Debate’, B.J.R.L. XLV (1962–1963), 305–18.Google Scholar

^{page 335 note 1} Hodgson, P. C., op. cit. p. 91.Google Scholar

^{page 335 note 2} Higgins, A. J. B., op. cit. pp. 125 f.Google Scholar, 134, 133, 133 respectively.

^{page 336 note 1} Vielhauer, P., ‘Gottesreich und Menschensohn’, pp. 71–3Google Scholar; Tödt, H. E., op. cit. p. 332.Google Scholar

^{page 336 note 2} Compare Bruce, F. F., Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts (1960), p. 65Google Scholar: ‘Daniel's “one like a son of man” was from the first intended to be identical with the Isaianic Servant.’ Cranfield, C. E. B., op. cit. p. 273Google Scholar, notes that the rabbis always interpreted Dan. vii. 13 of the Messiah.

^{page 336 note 3} Tödt, H. E., op. cit. pp. 35 f.Google Scholar

^{page 337 note 1} Cf. Kümmel, W. G., Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte (1965), p. 468, n. 70.Google Scholar

^{page 337 note 2} Perrin, N., The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus (1963), pp. 160 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 337 note 3} Matt. xiii. 37 ff. and xvi. 28 are usually held to be editorial.

^{page 337 note 4} Tödt, H. E., op. cit. pp. 332–6.Google Scholar

^{page 337 note 5} Schweizer, E., ‘Der Menschensohn’, pp. 186 f.Google Scholar

^{page 338 note 1} Tödt, H. E., op. cit. pp. 62–4.Google Scholar

^{page 338 note 2} Vielhauer, P., ‘Jesus und der Menschensohn’, pp. 144–6.Google Scholar

^{page 338 note 3} Cranfield, C. E. B., op. cit. p. 274.Google Scholar

^{page 339 note 1} Tödt, H. E., op. cit. p. 45.Google Scholar

^{page 340 note 1} Higgins, A. J. B., op. cit. p. 122Google Scholar; Kümmel, W. G., Promise and Fulfilment (1957), p. 46, n. 93.Google Scholar

^{page 340 note 2} Luke has the perfect tense; Matthew has the aorist tense.

^{page 340 note 3} Vielhauer, P., ‘Jesus und der Menschensohn’, pp. 163–5Google Scholar, following Bultmann, R., The History of the Synoptic Tradition, pp. 150–63 (p. 155)Google Scholar; cf. Hahn, F., op. cit. p. 44.Google Scholar

^{page 340 note 4} Schweizer, E., ‘Der Menschensohn’, p. 199Google Scholar; Higgins, A. J. B., op. cit. p. 122Google Scholar; Fuller, R. H., op. cit. pp. 127 f.Google Scholar

^{page 340 note 5} Manson, T. W., The Teaching of Jesus, pp. 217 f.Google Scholar; The Sayings of Jesus (1949), pp. 70 f.Google Scholar; Jeremias, J., The Parables of Jesus, p. 160, n. 37.Google Scholar

^{page 340 note 6} Higgins, A. J. B., op. cit. p. 123.Google ScholarTödt, H. E., op. cit. pp. 114–18Google Scholar, appears to adopt the same position.

^{page 340 note 7} The saying is accepted as genuine by Schweizer, E., op. cit. pp. 199 f.Google Scholar

^{page 340 note 8} Bultmann, R., op. cit. pp. 28, 98Google Scholar, followed by Vielhauer, P., op. cit. pp. 161–3Google Scholar; Hahn, F., op. cit. p. 44.Google Scholar

^{page 340 note 9} Job xiv speaks of the weakness of man, but makes no contrast with the animals. Homer, , Odyssey 18. 136 ff.Google Scholar, describes the plight of man when forsaken by the gods; Plutarch, , Tib. Gracchus 9, p. 828 cGoogle Scholar, refers to men in the circumstances of war. Cf. Manson, T. W., The Sayings of Jesus, p. 72Google Scholar; Schweizer, E., op. cit. p. 199Google Scholar; Higgins, A. J. B., op. cit. p. 124.Google Scholar

^{page 340 note 10} Vielhauer, P., op. cit. pp. 161–3.Google Scholar

^{page 341 note 1} The argument of Vielhauer that the setting of the saying in a context of discipleship is secondary since the saying itself makes no reference to discipleship surely requires no refutation. Was Jesus never permitted to leave obvious logical deductions to the common sense of his hearers, or must he spell out every utterance in words of one syllable for the benefit of sceptical critics?

^{page 341 note 2} Fuller, R. H., The Mission and Achievement of Jesus (1954), pp. 104 f.Google Scholar

^{page 341 note 3} E.g. Mark vi. 11, par. Luke ix. 5; Mark vi. 4.

^{page 341 note 4} Tödt, H. E., op. cit. p. 125Google Scholar; cf. p. 273; cf. Fuller, R. H., The Foundations of New Testament Christoloy, pp. 124 f.Google Scholar

^{page 341 note 5} Against Tödt, H. E., op. cit. p. 126Google Scholar; Hahn, F., op. cit. p. 43.Google Scholar

^{page 341 note 6} Tödt, H. E., op. cit. p. 130.Google Scholar

^{page 341 note 7} Vielhauer, P., op. cit. p. 159Google Scholar, argues that the saying presupposes a link between illness and sin which Jesus himself repudiated (Luke xiii. 1–5; John ix. 1–3). Commentators, however, are agreed that this principle is not to be found in the story.

^{page 341 note 8} Higgins, A. J. B., op. cit. pp. 27 f.Google Scholar

^{page 342 note 1} Schweizer, E., op. cit. p. 198.Google Scholar

^{page 342 note 2} Tödt, H. E., op. cit. p. 130Google Scholar; Vielhauer, P., op. cit. p. 160.Google Scholar

^{page 342 note 3} Wellhausen, J., Das Evangelium Marci (1903), pp. 17 f.Google Scholar

^{page 342 note 4} Tödt, H. E., op. cit. pp. 126 f.;Google ScholarHiggins, A. J. B., op. cit. p. 26.Google Scholar

^{page 342 note 5} The view is discussed by Taylor, V., The Gospel according to St Mark, pp. 199 f.Google Scholar

^{page 342 note 6} Bultmann, R., op. cit. p. 15 (but contrast p. 155).Google Scholar

^{page 342 note 7} Cranfield, C. E. B., op. cit. p. 100.Google ScholarBoobyer, G. H., ‘Mark II, 10a and the Interpretation of the Healing of the Paralytic’, H.T.R. XLVI (1954), 115–20Google Scholar, regards the insertion as pre-Marcan.

^{page 342 note 8} The saying is accepted as genuine by Taylor, V., op. cit. p. 200Google Scholar; Kümmel, W. G., Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte, pp. 435 f., 468 n. 70.Google Scholar

^{page 342 note 9} Higgins, A. J. B., op. cit. p. 76Google Scholar, mentions these variant readings, but it is not absolutely clear what deduction he wishes to make from them.

^{page 342 note 10} Higgins, A. J. B., op. cit. p. 77.Google Scholar

^{page 342 note 11} Bultmann, R., op. cit. p. 155.Google ScholarHahn, F., op. cit. p. 45Google Scholar, objects that present ‘salvation’ as the purpose of the earthly work of Jesus is a late concept.

^{page 342 note 12} Higgins, A. J. B., op. cit. p. 76Google Scholar; Hahn, F., op. cit. p. 270, n. 5.Google Scholar

^{page 343 note 1} Cf. Tödt, H. E., op. cit. p. 133.Google Scholar

^{page 343 note 2} Prof. A. M., Hunter has suggested to me that the verse is a ‘shepherd’ saying (cf. Ezek. xxxiv. 16), and fits in admirably with Jesus' use of this motif.

^{page 343 note 3} Tödt, H. E., op. cit. p. 134.Google Scholar

^{page 343 note 4} Within the limits of the present article it is impracticable to discuss all the Son of man sayings; fuller consideration would not affect the results obtained above.

^{page 344 note 1} Schweizer, E., op. cit. pp. 188, 192.Google Scholar

^{page 344 note 2} Kümmel, W. G., Promise and Fulfilment, pp. 44 f.Google Scholar

^{page 344 note 3} Vielhauer, P., ‘Gottesreich und Menschensohn’, pp. 68–70Google Scholar; ‘Jesus und der Menschensohn’, pp. 141–7; Käsemann, E., ‘Sätze heiligen Rechtes im Neuen Testament’, N.T.S. 1 (1954–1955), 248–60 (pp. 256 f.).Google Scholar

^{page 344 note 4} Percy, E., Die Botschaft Jesu (1953).Google Scholar

^{page 344 note 5} Kümmel, W. G., Promise and Fulfilment, pp. 64–83Google Scholar; cf. my Eschatology and the Parables (1963), pp. 19–21.Google Scholar

^{page 344 note 6} Cranfield, C. E. B., op. cit. p. 161.Google Scholar Persecution is the normal lot of disciples and a sign of the end because the disciples already live in the last days.

^{page 344 note 7} Tödt, H. E., op. cit. p. 342.Google Scholar

^{page 345 note 1} Hahn, F., op. cit. p. 35Google Scholar, holds that the form of the saying as heiliges Recht can go back to Jesus himself.

^{page 345 note 2} This interpretation is put forward by P. Vielhauer as the way in which the early Church understood the saying; cf. Teeple, H. M., op. cit. p. 218.Google Scholar

^{page 345 note 3} There is no saying which speaks of both the present lowliness of the Son of man and his future glory, although these two ideas are brought together in what may be editorial compositions (Mark viii. 31–8; Luke xvii. 22–30); for the passion sayings, which refer to the death and resurrection of the Son of man, see below. This means that it is possible that Jesus may have maintained a certain ambiguity in his use of the title: in the ‘present’ sayings ‘Son of man’ could have been a circumlocution for ‘I’, while in the ‘future’ sayings it could have referred to another person. It is also noteworthy that according to Manson's, T. W. analysis (The Teaching of Jesus, pp. 211–25)Google Scholar the great majority of the Son of man sayings were addressed to the disciples and not to the people at large.

^{page 345 note 4} Jeremias, J., The Parables of Jests, pp. 48–50.Google Scholar

^{page 345 note 5} Vielhauer, P., ‘Gottesreich und Menschensohn’, p. 66Google Scholar; ‘Jesus und der Menschensohn’, pp. 147 f.

^{page 346 note 1} Eschatology and the Parables, pp. 16–24, 36–8.Google Scholar The saying is accepted as genuine by Kümmel, W. G., Promise and Fulfilment, pp. 54–6.Google Scholar

^{page 346 note 2} Jeremias, J., The Parables of Jesus, pp. 153–7.Google Scholar

^{page 346 note 3} Tödt, H. E., op. cit. pp. 99 f.Google Scholar; Higgins, A. J. B., op. cit. pp. 91 f. Cf.Google ScholarKümmel, W. G., Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte, p. 462, n. 28.Google Scholar

^{page 346 note 4} Taylor, V., op. cit. p. 569.Google Scholar

^{page 346 note 5} Cranfield, C. E. B., op. cit. pp. 444 f.Google Scholar The view rejected in the text is developed especially by Robinson, J. A. T., Jesus and His Coming (1957), pp. 43–52.Google Scholar

^{page 346 note 6} C. E. B. Cranfield, ibid.; Higgins, A. J. B., op. cit. pp. 73 f.Google ScholarTödt, H. E., op. cit. p. 40Google Scholar, wrongly denies the judicial nature of the scene.

^{page 346 note 7} It is not certain whether the ‘I am’ of Jesus represents acceptance or rejection of the status suggested by the high-priest's question. If the latter view is accepted, the thought in the saying is very similar to that in Luke xii. 8 f. If the former view is accepted, then here we have a unique instance in the Synoptic Gospels of Jesus claiming an earthly messianic status. Cf. Cranfield, C. E. B., op. cit. pp. 443 f.Google Scholar

^{page 347 note 1} Tödt, H. E., op. cit. p. 36.Google Scholar Tödt's further remarks, pp. 266–9, do nothing to remove the impression that his argument is a circular one.

^{page 347 note 2} Vielhauer, P., ‘Gottesreich und Menschensohn’, pp. 64 f.Google Scholar

^{page 347 note 3} Teeple, H. M., op. cit. p. 213, n. 7.Google Scholar

^{page 347 note 4} See John xviii. 15, with Dodd, C. H., Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (1963), pp. 80, 86–8.Google Scholar

^{page 347 note 5} Tödt, H. E., op. cit. p. 36Google Scholar, states categorically and without proof, ‘It is improbable indeed that the community had at its disposal detailed reports about the course of the examination in which Jesus' words were repeated accurately. Besides, the community was not much interested in historical details, but preferred to describe the passion by means of the words of Scripture.’ For another view see Kümmel, W. G., Promise and Fulfilment, pp. 49–51Google Scholar; Higgins, A. J. B., op. cit. p. 67.Google Scholar

^{page 347 note 6} Matt. xix. 28 is a doubtful exception to the rule.

^{page 348 note 1} The connexion between resurrection and parousia in Mark xiv. 58, 62 is of a veiled nature. Note that our argument here disproves principle 6 for study of the Son of man concept.

^{page 348 note 2} In addition to the Q tradition, the L tradition also contains references to the passion of Jesus which have good claims to authenticity; cf. especially Taylor, V., Jesus and His Sacrifice, pp. 164 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 348 note 3} Zimmerli, W. and Jeremias, J., The Servant of God, p. 100.Google Scholar

^{page 348 note 4} Higgins, A. J. B., op. cit. pp. 80 f.Google Scholar; Hahn, F., op. cit. p. 46 n.Google Scholar

^{page 348 note 5} Rehkopf, F., Die lukanische Sonderquelle (1959), pp. 50–6.Google Scholar The author complements the studies of H. Schürmann by finding traces of a non-Marcan source in Luke xxii. 21–3, 47–53. For the Proto-Luke theory in general, see the recent defence in Caird, G. B., Saint Luke (1963), pp. 23–7.Google Scholar

^{page 349 note 1} Higgins, A. J. B., op. cit. pp. 50–2.Google Scholar

^{page 349 note 2} Lindars, B., who stresses the creative use of the Old Testament by the church, admits that in its references to Isa. liii it followed the lead of Jesus himself (New Testament Apologetic, 1961, p. 88).Google Scholar

^{page 349 note 3} Tödt, H. E., op. cit. p. 156.Google Scholar

^{page 349 note 4} Tödt, H. E., op. cit. pp. 156–61.Google Scholar The presence of allusions to Isa. liii in the sayings of Jesus is a much-debated question which cannot be discussed here.

^{page 349 note 5} For the genuineness of Mark xii. 10 see Cranfield, C. E. B., op. cit. pp. 386 f.Google Scholar

^{page 350 note 1} With regard to the much-discussed text, Mark x. 45, we can do no more here than express our belief in its authenticity.

^{page 350 note 2} Cf. Cullmann, O., op. cit. p. 162Google Scholar: ‘by means of this very term Jesus spoke of his divine, heavenly character’; Higgins, A. J. B., op. cit. p. 202.Google Scholar

^{page 351 note 1} We should probably not ignore also the way in which ‘Son of man’ was capable of a corporate reference, pace Hahn, F., op. cit. pp. 18 f.Google Scholar

^{page 351 note 2} It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss the use in Acts vii. 56 and in John.