^{page 45 note 1} ‘The Synoptic Son of Man Sayings in Recent Discussion’, N.T.S. XII (1965–1966), 327–51Google Scholar.

^{page 46 note 1} Not common in recent research, but held also by Goppelt, L., ‘Zum Problem des Menschensohns: das Verhältnis von Leidens- und Parusieankündigung’, in Sierig, H. (ed.), Mensch und Menschensohn (Festschrift für K. Witte), 1963, pp. 20–32Google Scholar.

^{page 46 note 2} Actually Tödt has himself given a hint towards a solution. In spite of his accepting Bultmann's tripartite division of the sayings, and using it as one of the organizing principles of his book, he has shown that there is in all three groups an emphasis on Jesus' authority and initiative, especially on his challenging his contemporaries to repent in preparation for the Kingdom of God. Similarly, J. A. T. Robinson, whose approach is in many ways similar to that of E. Schweizer, notes that there is ‘an original connexion of some kind between the “coming of the Son of man” and “this generation”…(which) cuts right across the traditional division of the Son of man sayings’. Jesus and His Coming (1957), p. 84Google Scholar.

^{page 47 note 1} A most interesting aspect of the subject, which there is not the space to develop here, is that suggested by the method of Redaktionsgeschichte, that is, a comparative study of the Son of Man title in the four gospels. An understanding of how the evangelists respectively handle this key christological theme would contribute a good deal to elucidating the distinctive aims and points of view of each of the evangelists.

^{page 47 note 2} See especially Sjöberg, E., Der Menschensohn im aethiopischen Henochbuch (1946)Google Scholar.

^{page 47 note 3} Thus Black, M., ‘The Son of Man Problem in Recent Research and Debate’, B.J.R.L. XLV (1963), 312Google Scholar, ‘It is impossible to escape the suspicion that, while there is nothing distinctively Christian about the Son of Man figure in the Similitudes, it may have been inspired by the Gospels’. Cf. Milik, J. T., Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea (E.T. 1959), p. 33Google Scholar, and Cross, F. M., The Ancient Library of Qumran (2nd edn. 1961), pp. 202–3 nGoogle Scholar.

^{page 47 note 4} See, in addition to Black, M., op. cit.Google Scholar, the comprehensive review article of Higgins, A. J. B., ‘Son of Man-Forschung since The Teaching of Jesus’, in Higgins (ed.), New Testament Essays (1959), pp. 119–35Google Scholar.

^{page 47 note 5} See Emerton, J. A., ‘The Origin of the Son of Man Imagery’, J.T.S. IX (1958), 225–42Google Scholar.

^{page 48 note 1} Against Schweizer, E., ‘The Son of Man’, J.B.L. LXXIX (1960), 122Google Scholar.

^{page 48 note 2} See also IV Ezra xiii, which owes much of its imagery to Daniel, especially chapters vii and ii.

^{page 48 note 3} Christologische Hoheitstitel (1963), pp. 24fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 48 note 4} Expressed by e.g. Schweizer, E., op. cit. p. 122Google Scholar.

^{page 48 note 5} It is here that we must part company with I. H. Marshall: ‘The title Son of Man…was admirably fitted to express Jesus’ conception of his own person since it referred to a person closely linked with God and of heavenly origin…Furthermore, it was not a current term and was capable of being moulded by Jesus to suit his own conceptions.’ Op. cit. p. 350Google Scholar.

^{page 49 note 1} Cf. Malachi, iii. 23 (Eng. VSS, iv. 5)Google Scholar, John, i. 19–23Google Scholar; see Billerbeck's, P. essay, ‘Der Profet Elias nach seiner Entrückung aus dem Diesseits’, H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Komm. z. NT. aus Talmud und Midrasch, IV/2 (1928), Exkursus 28, p. 764Google Scholar. See also the suggestion of Black, M., ‘The Son of Man in the Teaching of Jesus’, Exp. T. LX (1948–1949), 34Google Scholar, that, as John the Baptist is identified with Elijah, so it may be intended in Mark, ix. 12Google Scholar that Jesus is identified with Enoch, the ‘Son of Man’ (I Enoch lxxi, cf. lx. 10).

^{page 49 note 2} On the interpretation of this passage see the author's article ‘Who are the “Sheep” and the “Goats”?’, Australian Biblical Review, XIII (1965), 19–28.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 1} It is usually said that in Luke, xii. 8fGoogle Scholar. the Son of Man is not judge but witness or advocate, because (a) the verb όμολογεīν describes what a witness does, not a judge, and because (b) Acts vii. 56 attests an early belief that the Son of Man stands (like a witness) rather than sits (like a judge). But these points are not convincing. Matthew, vii. 23Google Scholar uses όμολογεīν of a judge giving his verdict; and as to the posture of the Son of Man, there is a certain fluidity in this kind of imagery, as seen for example in the fact that in I Enoch xlv. 3ff. the Elect One sits in judgement, but in xlix. 2 ff. he ‘stands before the Lord of Spirits’ to judge. Thus there is no good reason to assume that in Acts vii. 56 the Son of Man is not a judge, or that Luke, xii. 8fGoogle Scholar. intends anything different from Mark, viii. 38 and parsGoogle Scholar.

^{page 50 note 2} So Bultmann, , History of the Synoptic Tradition (E.T. 1963), pp. 158fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 51 note 1} This is the interpretation given by Glasson, T. F., The Second Advent (1945), pp. 83–8Google Scholar, followed by Robinson, J. A. T., Jesus and His Coming (1957), pp. 74fGoogle Scholar.; so also Schweizer, E., ‘Der Menschensohn’, Z.N.W. L (1959), 189 fGoogle Scholar. These scholars believe that this also represents the original teaching and intention of Jesus. That is doubtful: all we can say for certain is that Luke understood the matter thus; the present writer is inclined to think that Luke has de-eschatologized the more original form represented by Matthew.

^{page 51 note 2} Kümmel, W. G., Promise and Fulfilment (E.T. 1957), p. 38Google Scholar, quotes with approval the view of B. Noack that ‘the day of the Son of Man’ and ‘the days of the Son of Man’ are synonymous: but this is a harmonistic kind of exegesis, which the more recent exegetical method of Redaktionsgeschichte has taught us to avoid—the precise formulation in the respective gospels is not to be regarded as without significance.

^{page 52 note 1} I Thess. v. 2; Rev. iii. 3, xvi. 15; II Pet. iii. 10.

^{page 53 note 1} On this cf. Robinson, , op. cit. pp. 77fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 54 note 1} If, as Marxsen, W. argues, Der Evangelist Markus (1959 ²), 122 ffGoogle Scholar., Mark, xiiiGoogle Scholar shows that Mark wrote his gospel in Palestine during the Jewish War of 66–70, this is understandable. The war is so fierce and the destruction on both sides so severe that there is no need to give any great thought to how the wicked are going to be punished. On the other hand, the rescuing of the elect from the awful carnage is a matter of anxiety. This the Son of Man will care for.

^{page 54 note 2} The idea that the Son of Man will at his coming ‘send out his angels and gather his elect’ has no Old Testament pars., but is reminiscent of I Enoch lxii. 11ff., ‘He will deliver them to the angels for punishment, to execute vengeance on them because they have oppressed his children and his elect…And the righteous and elect shall be saved on that day…And the righteous and elect shall have risen from the earth…’, cf. xxxix. 5, xlvii. 2, lx. 2, where the angels and the elect ones are closely associated. The atmosphere of the synoptic apocalypse is close to that of the Similitudes of I Enoch, where the double aspect of judgement—the salvation of the Son of Man's elect community and the annihilation of all outsiders—provides the whole theme of the book.

^{page 54 note 3} The Quest of the Historical Jesus (E.T. 1910), pp. 358fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 54 note 4} Theology of the N.T. I (E.T. 1951), 55Google Scholar.

^{page 54 note 5} ‘Der Menschensohn’, Z.N.W. L (1959), 191Google Scholar.

^{page 54 note 6} M.-J. Langrange, A.H. M'Neile, commentaries, ad loc.

^{page 55 note 1} History of the Synoptic Tradition (E.T. 1963), p. 121Google Scholar.

^{page 56 note 1} Cf. xi. 17, which quotes Jer. vii. 11, in the context of which (vv. 12–14) the destruction of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar is seen as God's punishment on Judah in the time of Jeremiah.

^{page 56 note 2} In Luke this saying (Luke, xxii. 69)Google Scholar is preceded by a passage, unique to Luke, which recalls the ending of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus: preaching to the Jews about the Messiahship of Jesus is useless, for they will not believe; nor will they participate in any meaningful discussion of the question. In this way they bring down judgement on themselves, and of this they are warned with the announcement that the Son of Man, the heavenly judge, is about to be enthroned in the presence of God.

^{page 57 note 1} In Matthew, (ix. 2–8)Google Scholar it is the second occurrence, the first being viii. 20, which happens to be the only passage in the gospels where the connexion between the title ‘Son of Man’ and the theme of judgement cannot readily be traced.

^{page 57 note 2} L'institution et ľ événement (1950), p. 20Google Scholar.

^{page 57 note 3} Cf. Marshall, I. H., op. cit. p. 341Google Scholar.

^{page 57 note 4} Two features of the pericope in its Matthaean form call for some notice: first, the omission of the question of the scribes, ‘Who is able to forgive sins except God alone?’ (Mark, ii. 7)Google Scholar, and then the form of the conclusion, ‘They praised God, who had given such authority to men’. So apparently there are others to whom this right has been granted. The solemn use of the phrase έπί τῆς γῆς (a characteristically Matthaean expression, which in the present pericope is textually unstable in Mark and may be a secondary addition from Matthew) suggests comparison of Matthew, xvi. 19 and xviii. 18 fGoogle Scholar., where Jesus gives Peter, and then the Twelve, the right to ‘bind and loose’ on earth, with the guarantee that their action is validated in heaven. The context of Matthew, xviii. 18fGoogle Scholar. makes it clear that the reference is to church discipline, including the forgiveness of sins, and there is no good reason to think it means anything different in Matthew, xvi. 19Google Scholar, even though there is rabbinic evidence of the use of the expression in reference to the authority to teach halakah. See further below. Matthew, ix. 8Google Scholar seems to be a veiled reference to this right of the disciples to exercise discipline in the church. Whereas Mark concentrated attention on the lifetime of Jesus on the one hand and on the coming event of universal judgement on the other hand, Matthew is also concerned about the eschatological atmosphere of the interim. If eschatological judgement began in the earthly ministry of the Son of Man and will be consummated by his appearance on the heavenly throne, it is also being carried out in his name and under his authority by his own special community, the church. A man's acceptance or rejection by the church not only anticipates but actually determines his fate in the ultimate judgement, since to the church is given the assurance that its earthly bindings and loosings will be ratified in the heavenly court. In Matthew there is a strong hint of a tangible, earthly community of the elect who will be saved in the last judgement: a feature that is again reminiscent of the Similitudes of I Enoch.

^{page 59 note 1} One possible explanation is suggested by F. Hauck in his comment on the par. in Luke, xii. 10Google Scholar: it is forgivable to have spoken against ‘den in verborgener Gestalt wandelnden Menschensohn’, but not against the Spirit, ‘der offenkundig aus den Jüngern redet und unleugbar sein Werk auf Erden treibt’ (Das Eu. des Lukas, Theol. Handkommentar zum N. T., 1934, ad loc.; italics added)Google Scholar. It is by no means clear, however, that either Matthew or Luke understood ‘the Son of Man’ as a title indicating hiddenness.

^{page 61 note 1} Flusser, D., ‘Blessed are the Poor in Spirit’, I.E.J. X (1960), 1–13Google Scholar, has shown on the basis of several parallels from Qumran (I QH xviii. 14–15, v. 22, I QM xi. 9) that ‘both the term “poor in spirit” and the second and third Beatitudes in Matthew are organic parts of one literary whole. It is therefore certain that Mt v. 3–5 faithfully preserves the saying of Jesus and that Lk vi. 20 is an abbreviation of the original text’ (p. 11).

^{page 61 note 2} Par. Matthew, xii. 40Google Scholar, but this verse must be regarded as spurious; see Stendahl, K., The School of St Matthew and its Use of the 0. T. (1954), pp. 132 f. ConsequentlyGoogle Scholar, Luke, xi. 30Google Scholar is probably an editorial note indicating the logical connexion between the two successive verses in the source, Matthew, xii. 39 and 41Google Scholar.

^{page 62 note 1} So also Paul, , Gal. iii. 6–9Google Scholar; cf. Rom. iv.

^{page 63 note 1} And Qumran, cf. on Luke, vi. 22 aboveGoogle Scholar.

^{page 63 note 2} In parallel stories from Egyptian and rabbinic sources (a demotic papyrus of the first century, and pT Hagiga 2, 77d, discussed by Gressmann, H., ‘Vom reichen Mann und armen Lazarus’, Abhandlungen der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaft (1918), p. 7Google Scholar: cited by Creed, J. M., The Gospel According to St Luke (1930), pp. 209 f.)Google Scholar the point is emphasized that on earth the rich man had been wicked and the poor man good; but there is no such indication in Luke's parable.

^{page 63 note 3} Cf. Mark, ii.1–12 pars., viii. 34–8 parsGoogle Scholar.; Matthew, x. 1–25, xiii. 37, xvi. 13–19, xix. 28Google Scholar; Luke, vi. 22, etcGoogle Scholar.

^{page 64 note 1} Thus the title is not used in Mark, i. 16–20Google Scholar, Matthew, iv. 18–22Google Scholar or Luke, v. 1–11Google Scholar, or in Mark, ii. 13–17 parsGoogle Scholar.

^{page 64 note 2} In Luke there are two passion sayings before the passion narrative which mention the betrayal and rejection of the Son of Man but not his death and resurrection: ix. 44 (par. Mark, ix. 31/Google ScholarMatthew, xvii. 22f.)Google Scholar and xvii. 25. In the case of ix. 44 the explanation probably is that this verse stands just before the beginning of Jesus' journey to Jerusalem, in the narration of which Luke emphasizes that the Jews' rejection of Jesus leads to their own ruin; at the outset, therefore, the point Luke wishes to be made clear is that ‘the Son of Man is about to be betrayed into the hands of men ’—the consequences of this betrayal will be brought out later on in the travel narrative. The point of xvii. 25 is similar, but the connexion of the death of the Son of Man with his function of judgement is made more explicit. In Luke's source the passage in which this verse is set was apocalyptic, and the verse itself is shown to be a part of Luke's editorial modification of the whole pericope by the fact that in no other passage in the synoptic gospels is the death of the Son of Man mentioned in the context of ‘parousia’ and the like. On the other hand, the death of the Son of Man is connected with his function ofjudgement in a non-apocalyptic sense, especially in Luke.

^{page 65 note 1} But listed in Bauer's lexicon in bibliography s.v. σοφία.

^{page 65 note 2} Nieuw Theologische Tijdschrift, VIII (1919), 22–42Google Scholar.

^{page 65 note 3} The text editions prefer to τέκνων in Matthew, but the MS support for this reading is not particularly strong. Since from the beginning Matthew was more widely used in the church than Luke was, it would be more reasonable to expect that Luke should have been assimilated to Matthew than vice versa; but in fact only Sinaiticus reads in Luke. Matthew could have been altered to read ‘works’ rather than ‘children’ on the basis of an understanding of Matthew as teaching ‘justification by works’ in such passages as vii. 16–23, xvi. 27, xxv. 31–46, cf. James, ii. 21Google Scholar.

^{page 65 note 4} The difference between LXX's active verb and M.T.'s stative and Origen's passive is not important.

^{page 66 note 1} Völter argues that this passage is directly influenced by Sirach, esp. chapters vi, xxiv, and li, and also by Prov. viii and ix, and other ‘wisdom’ literature.

^{page 66 note 2} Mark, viii. 38Google Scholar; Luke, xi. 29fGoogle Scholar. (cf. Matthew, xii. 38–45Google Scholar following mention of the Son of Man in v. 32); Mark, ix. 19Google Scholar pars. following v. 12 par.; Luke, xvii. 24fGoogle Scholar.; Mark, xiii. 30Google Scholar pars. following vv. 26f. pars.

^{page 67 note 1} Manson, T. W., ‘Mark ii. 27f.’, in Coniectanea Neotestamentica XI (Seminarium Neotestamenticum Upsaliense, 1947), pp. 138–46Google Scholar, observes that in Jewish thought the Sabbath was not made for man in general but as a special gift for Israel, and that therefore some interpretation is to be sought whereby the Sabbath is seen as made for an elect community. But there is no justification for Manson's idea that in the N.T. ‘the Son of Man’ can be simply identified with the Christian community. For a summary of criticisms see Higgins, A. J. B., ‘Son of Man-Forschung since The Teaching of Jesus’, in Higgins (ed.), N.T. Essays in Memory of T. W. Manson (1959), pp. 126fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 67 note 2} Cf. Riesenfeld, H.. ‘Sabbat et jour du Seigneur’, in Higgins, op. cit. pp. 210fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 68 note 1} Cf. Riesenfeld, , op. cit. p. 215Google Scholar.

^{page 68 note 2} It is even conceivable that this pericope is historically accurate: that Jesus' intention in sitting loose to the Sabbath laws was precisely to draw attention to the eschatological significance of his ministry.

^{page 69 note 1} Where Mark, x. 37Google Scholar has ‘in your glory’, Matthew, xx. 21Google Scholar has ‘in your kingdom’, which means the same; cf. Matthew, xiii. 41, xvi. 28, xxv. 31, 34Google Scholar.

^{page 69 note 2} This is referred to as a baptism and as the drinking of a cup. It may not be too fanciful to understand this terminology as pointing to the sacraments and thus to the community life of the church, in which the ultimate salvation obtained by the ransoming death of the Son of Man is anticipated. But the sacramental reference must not be insisted on, since means ‘be drowned’ in Epictetus, Gnom. 47Google Scholar, cf. Polybius I li. 6, XVI. vi. 2, etc.; figuratively, Plato, Euthyd. 277 dGoogle Scholar. Drinking a cup is a common Old Testament metaphor of suffering.

^{page 69 note 3} Das Evangelium des Markus (Krit.-exeget. Komm. ü. d. N.T. 1: 2, 11th edn. 1951), p. 356Google Scholar.

^{page 70 note 1} Luke, ix. 44Google Scholar (par. Mark, ix. 31/Google ScholarMatthew, xvii. 22f.)Google Scholar and xvii. 25—on these see above, note 2, p. 64.

^{page 70 note 2} Black, M., ‘The Son of Man in the Teaching of Jesus’, Exp. T. LX (1948–1949), 34Google Scholar.

^{page 71 note 1} Cf. John, xii. 23–34, xiii. 31Google Scholar.

^{page 72 note 1} Except Dan. vii. 21, if (following v. 18) ‘the saints of the Most High’ are identified with the ‘one like a Son of Man’ of v. 13. But in the New Testament, as in the Similitudes of I Enoch, the Son of Man is an individual figure, though always related to a community.

^{page 72 note 2} On the one hand the ‘woe’ language of this passage is like that of Matthew, xviii. 6fGoogle Scholar., which is concerned with the salvation of the elect and the punishment of their oppressors; on the other hand the only close parallel in all the New Testament and its background literature to the sentence ‘It would have been good for that man if he had not been born’ is in I Enoch xxxviii, the context of which depicts in the greatest possible sharpness the division at the last judgement between those associated with the ‘Righteous One’ (= ‘the Elect One’, liii. 6, = ‘the Son of Man’, lxii) and the rest, who will be destroyed. Thus there is reason to think that in the second half of the verse ‘the Son of Man’ is deliberately used as the title of the eschatological judge.

^{page 74 note 1} This is not to deny the validity of the question about genuineness and origin as such, but the validity of assessing the genuineness and origin of the sayings as groups.