^{page 278 note 1} For a comprehensive and up-to-date bibliography, see Hooker, M. D., The Son of Man in Mark (London, 1967), pp. 201–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 278 note 2} Higgins, A. J. B., Jesus and the Son of Man (London, 1964), pp. 153, 182.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 1} Ibid. pp. 183 f.

^{page 279 note 2} Tödt, H. E., Der Menschensohn in der synophtischen Überlieferung (Güterslosh, 1963 ²);Google Scholar Eng. tr. The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition (London, 1965).Google Scholar One major difference in the positions, apart from the fact that Tödt's canvas is obviously more limited, is that Higgins is concerned with the Son of man in the mind of Jesus himself rather than (as Tödt) with the development of the concept in the early church.

^{page 279 note 3} Dr Higgins is prepared to concede, however, that some of the other sayings were spoken by Jesus without the use of the phrase Son of man; and that many of the ideas present in the inauthentic logia nevertheless belong to the teaching of Jesus.

^{page 279 note 4} Ibid. p. 183. Higgins there refers (n. 2) to his monograph, The Historicity of the Fourth Gospel (London, 1960)Google Scholar, which deals with this point in detail.

^{page 280 note 1} Fuller, R. H., The Foundations of New Testament Christology (London, 1965), pp. 143–51.Google Scholar

^{page 280 note 2} Ibid. pp. 182 f., 197 n. I, 229.

^{page 280 note 3} Ibid. pp. 229 f. Cf. Teeple, H. M., ‘The Origin of the Son of Man Christology’, J.B.L. LXXXIV (1965), 213–50.Google Scholar Following Vielhauer, P. (‘Gottesreich und Menschensohn in der Verkündigung Jesu’, in Schneemelcher, W. (ed.), Festschrift für Günther Dehn (Neukirchen, 1957), pp. 51–79;Google Scholar‘Jesus und der Menschensohn’, Z.T.K. LX (1963), 133–77)Google Scholar, Teeple denies the authenticity of any of the Son of man saysings. He discovers their origin not in the Jerusalem church, but ‘in hellenistic Jewish-Christianity’ (p. 250).

^{page 280 note 4} Cf. Bultmann, R., Theology of the New Testament (Eng. tr. London, 1952–1955), I, 3Google Scholar, where we have the famous statement about the message of Jesus being a ‘presupposition for the theology of the New Testament rather than a part of that theology itself’.

^{page 280 note 5} Op. cit.

^{page 280 note 6} Hahn, F., Christologische Hoheitstitel: Ihre Geschichte im frühen Christentum (Göttingen, 1963).Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 1} A recent exception, published after this study had been completed, is Borsch, F. H., The Son of Man in Myth and History (London, 1967)Google Scholar, see esp. pp. 16 f. Professor Borsch's approach to the Son of man problem belongs to the history of religions school. In the course of his detailed treatment he shows a willingness to accept the authenticity of much of the basic Johannine Son of man tradition. See, on the other side, the approach of Freed, E. D., ‘The Son of Man in the Fourth Gospel’, J.B.L. LXXXVI (1967), 402–9Google Scholar, who argues on purely literary grounds that there is no separate Son of man christology in the Fourth Gospel, and that ‘Son of man’ is simply a literary variant of other titles of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, notably Son and Son of God.

^{page 281 note 2} Higgins, , Jesus and the Son of Man, p. 182.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 3} Hooker, op. cit. pp. 196 f.

^{page 282 note 1} Hooker, op. cit. p. 18. But Dr F. H. Borsch's study (op. cit.), which maintains the importance of non-Jewish influence in the background to the Christian Son of man tradition, must be seriously reckoned with in future investigations. See also Emerton, J. A., ‘The Origin of the Son of Man Imagery’, J.T.S. n.s. IX (1958), 225–42Google Scholar, for the suggestion that the Hebraic tradition of the Son of man's enthronement was influenced by Canaanite myth and ritual; also Higgins, A.J.B., ‘Son of Man Forschung since “The Teaching of Jesus”’, in Higgins, A. J. B. (ed.), New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of T. W. Manson (Manchester, 1959), pp. 121 f.;Google ScholarRussell, D. S., Between the Testaments (London, 1960), pp. 134–6.Google Scholar

^{page 282 note 2} Manson, T. W., The Teaching of Jesus (Cambridge, 1935 ^{page note 2}), pp. 227–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 282 note 3} Abbott, E. A., The Son of Man (Cambridge, 1910)Google Scholar; Völter, D., Die Menschensohn-Frage neu untersucht (Leiden, 1916)Google Scholar; more recently (for at least the influence of Ezekiel), Parker, P., ‘The Meaning of “Son of Man”’, J.B.L. LX (1941), 151–7Google Scholar; Curtis, W. A., Jesus Christ the Teacher: A Study of His Method and Message (London, 1943), pp. 127–43Google Scholar; Duncan, G. S., Jesus, Son of Man (London, 1948), pp. 145 f.Google Scholar; Feuillet, A., ‘Le Fils de l'Homme de Daniel et la Tradition Biblique(I)’, R.B. LX (1953), 180–202Google Scholar; Richardson, A., An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament (London, 1958), pp. 128 f.Google Scholar; Sidebottom, E. M., The Christ of the Fourth Gospel (London, 1961), pp. 73–83 (for John).Google Scholar

^{page 282 note 4} See M. D. Hooker, op. cit. pp. 11–74. For an examination of the influence exercised by the Wisdom figure on the pre-Christian Son of man tradition, see the second part of Professor Feuillet's article cited above; Feuillet, A., ‘Le Fils de l'Homme de Daniel et la Tradition Biblique (2)’, R.B. LX (1953), 321–41.Google Scholar

^{page 283 note 1} See, for example, Manson, W., Jesus the Messiah: The Synoptic Tradition of the Revelation of God in Christ (London, 1943), pp. 165 f., 237–55Google Scholar; Borsch, op. cit. pp. 55–88, et passim.

^{page 283 note 2} The connexion in this passage between ‘[the people of] the saints of the Most High’ and Israel has been denied; see Hooker, op. cit. p. 13 n. 3. See also Coppens, J. and Dequeker, L., ‘Le Fils de l'homme et les Saints du Très-Haut en Daniel VII, dans les Apocryphes et dans le Nouveau Testament’, An. Lou. Bib. et Or. III, 23 (1961 ^{page note 2}), 33–54Google Scholar; Barrett, C. K., Jesus and the Gospel Tradition (London, 1967), p. 42 and n. 15.Google Scholar

^{page 283 note 3} Moule, C. F. D., ‘From Defendant to Judge—and Deliverer’, S.N.T.S. Bulletin III (1952), 45;Google Scholar reprinted in The Phenomenon of the New Testament (London, 1967), pp. 82–99 (p. 89).Google Scholar

^{page 283 note 4} Hooker, op. cit. pp. 24–30.

^{page 283 note 5} Cf. also Davies, W. D., Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology (London, 1955 ^{page note 2}), p. 280 n. 1Google Scholar: ‘The Son of Man in Daniel is a suffering figure’.

^{page 283 note 6} Hooker, op. cit. p. 29.

^{page 283 note 7} It is assumed here that the Similitudes of Enoch represent pre-Christian Jewish apocalyptic thought of the first century B.C., and that they are a unity. See Emerton, loc. cit. p. 225. No certainty about the date of the Similitudes exists, but their absence from the literature of Qumran (so far) need not preclude a date prior to the first century A.D.

^{page 283 note 8} Hooker, op. cit. p. 47.

^{page 284 note 1} See Manson, T. W., ‘The Son of Man in Daniel, Enoch and the Gospels’, B.J.R.L. XXXII (1950), 171–95;Google Scholar reprinted in Manson, T. W., Studies in the Gospels and Epistles, ed. Black, M. (Manchester, 1962), pp. 123–45.Google Scholar Manson finds an ‘oscillation’ between the individual and the corporate meanings of the Son of man in I Enoch.

^{page 284 note 2} Manson, , Studies in the Gospels and Epistles, p. 133.Google Scholar

^{page 284 note 3} See Emerton, loc. cit. p. 226 n. 2.

^{page 284 note 4} Hooker, op. cit. p. 46.

^{page 284 note 5} op. cit. p. 56. See the whole analysis of II Esdras, pp. 49–56.

^{page 284 note 6} Pace Tödt (op. cit. pp. 22–31), Who sees in the Son of man of Jewish apocalyptic a ‘thorughtly transcendent’ figure who manifests exclusively traits of universal sovereignty.

^{page 285 note 1} Schweizer, E., ‘Der Menschensohn’, Z.N.W. L (1959), 185–209;Google Scholar‘The Son of Man’, J.B.L. LXXIX (1960), 119–29, esp. 121 f.Google Scholar

^{page 285 note 2} Schweizer, ‘The Son of Man’, loc. cit. 122. See also idem, ‘The Son of Man Again’, N.T.S. IX (1963), 256–61. In this case it cannot be out of place to make the further connexion between Son of man and redemptive servant of Yahweh in the teaching of Jesus. So Cullmann, O., The Christology of the New Testament (Eng. tr. London, 1963 ^{page note 3}), pp. 160 f.Google Scholar; Dodd, C. H., According to the Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology (London, 1952), p. 119Google Scholar; Taylor, V., Jesus and His Scarifice (London, 1937), p. 48.Google Scholar Cf. also Zimmerli, W. and Jeremias, J., The Servant of God (Eng. tr. London, 1965 ^{page note 2}), pp. 101–3.Google Scholar

^{page 286 note 1} So Bultmann, op. cit. p. 29. See the treatment by Fuller, op. cit. pp. 121–3; and (on the other side) the comment of Cullmann, op. cit. p. 156.

^{page 286 note 2} This is not to deny, however, that the Son of man christology receives its own reshaped expression in the post-resurrection period, notably in the writings of Paul.

^{page 286 note 3} Black, M., An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford, 1967 ^{page note 3}).Google Scholar

^{page 286 note 4} See, e.g., Black, M., ‘The Semitic Element in the New Testament’, Exp. T. LXXVII (1965–1966), 20–3, esp. p. 21.Google Scholar

^{page 286 note 5} 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. 32–6; also An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (1954 ^{page note 2}), p. 250 n. 2 (3rd edn., p. 106 n. 2)Google Scholar; also (more recently), ‘From Schweitzer to Bultmann: The Modern Quest of the Historical Jesus’, McCormick Quarterly, XX (1966–1967), 271–83, esp. pp. 276–82.Google Scholar

^{page 287 note 1} G. Vermes, ‘The Use of ψ ┐ℶ/ℵψ ┐ℶ in Jewish Aramaic’, in Black, op. cit. pp. 310–28.

^{page 287 note 2} Higgins, A. J. B., ‘The Words of Jesus According to St John’, B.J.R.L. XLIX (1966–1967), 363–86, esp. p. 370.Google Scholar

^{page 287 note 3} For a note on the relevance of the Aramaic background of the Fourth Gospel to a possible Johannine sayings source, see Black, , An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (1967 ^{page note 3}), pp. 149–51.Google Scholar

^{page 287 note 4} It is somewhat artificial even there.

^{page 287 note 5} Haggins, , Jesus and the Son of Man, pp. 153–84.Google Scholar

^{page 288 note 1} Cf. ibid. pp. 157 f. Borsch, op. cit. pp. 278 f., links this saying with the synoptic tradition in terms of the ‘opening of heaven’ at the baptism of Jesus (Mark i. 10 par.).

^{page 288 note 2} Robinson, J. A. T., Jesus and His Coming (London, 1957), pp. 47–9Google Scholar, regards this phrase, with its present reference, as original to Mark.

^{page 288 note 3} Cullmann, op. cit. p. 185.

^{page 288 note 4} Higgins, , Jesus and the Son of Man, pp. 159 f.Google Scholar

^{page 288 note 5} Black, , An Aramaic Approach to the Gospelsm and Acts (1954 ^{page note 2}), p. 85Google Scholar; but cf. the note on p. 252. Dr Black seems to have had second thoughts about this explanation, however, judfing by its omission from the new edition of his book.

^{page 288 note 6} The LXX of Gen. xxviii. 12 clarifies the ambiguous Hebrew by referring ⌉ℶ to the ladder and not to Jacob.

^{page 288 note 7} Quoted by Robinson, op. cit. p. 168 n. I.

^{page 288 note 8} Cf. Sidebottom, op. cit. pp. 79–81.

^{page 288 note 9} Cf. Dodd, C. H., The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1954), pp. 246 f.Google Scholar

^{page 289 note 1} See Moule, C. F. D., ‘A Note on “Under the Fig Tree” in John i. 48, 50’, J.T.S. n.s. v (1954), 210 f.Google Scholar

^{page 289 note 2} So Michaels, J. R., ‘Nathanael Under the Fig Tree’, Exp. T. LXXVIII (1966–1967), 182 f.Google Scholar

^{page 289 note 3} Dodd, , The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, p. 245 n. 1.Google Scholar See also Dahl, N. A., ‘The Johannine Church and History’, in Klassen, W. and Snyder, G. F. (ed.), Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation (London, 1962), pp. 136 f.Google Scholar; Schweizer, E., ‘The Son of Man’, J.B.L. LXXIX (1960), 126 f.Google Scholar

^{page 289 note 4} Note Ezek. i. 1; ii. 1; and xvii, 1–5 for Israel as the ‘vine’; see Sidebottom, op. cit. p. 76.

^{page 290 note 1} Fuller, op. cit. pp. 229 f. See further on John vi. 62, below. Longenecker, R. N., ‘Some Distinctive Early Christological Motifs’, N.T.S. XIV (1967–1968), 524–4Google Scholar, has recently argued on the other hand that there are good grounds for believing that katabasis–anabasis christology was a feature of early Palestinian Jewish Christianity.

^{page 290 note 2} See Barrett, C. K., The Gospel According to St John (London, 1955)Google Scholar, ad loc. p. 178.

^{page 290 note 3} See Dodd, , The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, p. 244.Google Scholar Borsch (op. cit. pp. 273 f.) suggests that the reference of the ‘previous ascent’ implied in this logion is to the ascent of the one ordained to the function of the Son of man, in line with the myth and ritual pattern whereby the Man ascends to heaven and is there shown divine secrets. In this way the ‘dual realities’ of the Man myth (his role in heaven and representatively on earth) are maintained. But the explanation need not beso complex, particularly if ούδεΙς άναβέβήκεν either represents a theological tense or does not (yet) refer to the Son of man at all. See Brown, R. E., The Gospel According to John (I–XII) (Garden City, New York, 1966)Google Scholar, ad loc. pp. 132 f.

^{page 290 note 4} Cf. Barrett, , Jesus and the Gospel Tradition, pp. 95–7.Google Scholar

^{page 291 note 1} So Black, , An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (1967 ^{page note 3}), p. 141.Google Scholar

^{page 291 note 2} The substratum of Acts ii. 33 (Peter's comment on Ps. xvi. IIc, unquoted) betrays in turn the influence (at an early, theologically creative stage) of two primitive testimonies: Ps. cx. I and Ps. lxviii. 19 (18). Son Lindars, B., New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significanes of the Old Testament Quotations (London, 1961), pp. 42–5.Google Scholar Lindars acknowleges only the secondary influence of Ps. cxviii. 16 in the Acts ii passage (Ibid. p. 44).

^{page 291 note 3} Borsch, op. cit. pp. 284–91, esp. p. 290.

^{page 291 note 4} Black, M., ‘The Son of Man Problem in Recent Research and Debate’, B.J.R.L. XLV (1962–1963), 305–18, esp. p. 317;Google Scholar but note also the qualification in his article, ‘From Schweitzer to Bultmann: The Modern Quest of the Historical Jesus’, loc. cit. p. 280 n. 16 (cf. pp. 279–81).

^{page 292 note 1} Schnackenburg, R., ‘Der Menschensohn im Johannesevangelium’, N.T.S. XI (1964–1965), 123–37, esp. pp. 130 f.Google Scholar; but see Zimmerli and Jeremias, op. cit. p. 97 n. 441.

^{page 292 note 2} Glasson, T. F., Moses in the Fourth Gospel (London, 1963), pp. 38 f.Google Scholar, suggests that the Fourth Evangelist alludes in this saying to the cross as ‘the greatest sign of all’, since σημεĩου is the word used for ‘pole’ in the LXX of Num. xxi. 8 f. Even if we accept this typical piece of allusiveness, we are not compelled on that showing alone to dismiss the saying as inauthentic.

^{page 292 note 3} It occurs in Heb. ii. 6, but in a quotation from Ps. viii.

^{page 292 note 4} Pace Sidebottom, op. cit. pp. 92 f.

^{page 292 note 5} So Moule, ‘From Defendant to Judge—and Deliverer’, loc. cit. pp. 92 f.

^{page 292 note 6} Higgins, , Jesus and the Son of Man, p. 168.Google Scholar

^{page 293 note 1} See Brown, R. E., ‘The Paraclete in the Fourth Gospel’, N.T.S. XIII (1966–1967), 116 f.Google Scholar; also Preiss, T., Life in Christ (Eng. tr. London, 1954), pp. 9–31.Google Scholar

^{page 293 note 2} So Cullmann, op. cit. p. 186; also Early Christian Worship (Eng. tr. London, 1953), pp. 93–102Google Scholar; Higgins, , Jesus and the Son of Man, p. 175.Google Scholar See also Jeremias, J., Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu (Göttingen, 1960 ^{page note 3}), p. 101Google Scholar; Borsch, op. cit. pp. 295–9.

^{page 294 note 1} Fuller, op. cit. p. 229.

^{page 294 note 2} Pace Higgins, , Jesus and the Son of Man, p. 176.Google Scholar

^{page 294 note 3} Dodd, , The Interpertation of the Fourth Gospel, p. 247.Google Scholar

^{page 295 note 1} Higgins, , Jesus and the Son of Man, pp. 176 f.Google Scholar

^{page 295 note 2} Dodd, , The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, p. 377 f.Google Scholar

^{page 295 note 3} Higgins, , The Historicity of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 73 f.Google Scholar

^{page 295 note 4} See my article, ‘New Light on the Fourth Gospel’, Tyndale Bulletin, XVII (1966), 42 f.Google Scholar

^{page 296 note 1} Cullmann, O., The Christology of the New Testament, p. 186.Google Scholar There is an interesting (upward?) progression in John ix from ‘prophet’ (17) to ‘Christ’ (22) to ‘Son of man’ (35).

^{page 296 note 2} So for example Dodd, C. H., Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, (Cambridge, 1963), p. 114;CrossRefGoogle ScholarHiggins, , Jesus and the Son of man, p. 175Google Scholar; Moule, C. F. D., The Birth of the New Testament (London, 1962), p. 94 f.Google Scholar

^{page 296 note 3} So Burney, C. F., The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel (Oxford, 1922), pp. 75 f.Google Scholar; but of. Black, , An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, pp. 78 f.Google Scholar; Barrett, The Gospel According to St John, ad loc. p. 352.

^{page 296 note 4} Borsch (op. cit. pp. 305–9, esp. pp. 308 f.) notes that the sayings of John xii. 25 f., Mark viii. 34 f. and Matt. x. 38 f., which appear in Son of man contexts (although he tretches the point for Matthew), may well have ‘developed from common tradition’, and that John has perhaps ‘preserved the more primitive from of these sayings’ (p. 308).

^{page 297 note 1} 75 omits the second question; but this does not seem to be a real variant.

^{page 297 note 2} Bultmann, op. cit. p. 82.

^{page 297 note 3} Black, , An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, p. 330.Google Scholar

^{page 297 note 4} See under (c)

^{page 297 note 5} Schulz, S., Untersuchungen zur Menschensohn-Christologie im Johannesevangelium (Göttingen, 1957), pp. 121 f.Google Scholar, sees John xiii. 31 f. the intrusion of a pre-Johannine Son of man hymn based on I Enoch li. 3.

^{page 297 note 6} See also under (c) and (i).

^{page 298 note 1} On this showing alone, it is hard to see how we can distinguish, as does Anderson, H., Jesus and Christian Origins: A Commentary on Modern Viewpoints (New York, 1964), pp. 267 ff.Google Scholar, between the Gospels as ‘materials for the incarnation’, and the ‘kerygmatic’ writings as materials for the exaltation of Jesus.

^{page 298 note 2} Moule, , The Phenomenon of the New Testament, p. 35.Google Scholar

^{page 298 note 3} Cf. Borsch, op. cit. p. 350; Schnackenburg, loc. cit. pp. 130 f. The absence of an explicit ‘kingdom’ theology in association with the Johannine Son of man sayings is not a real difference either, considering the extent to which the kingdom of God is implied in the background to the Son of man figure himself, as well as in the theology of the Fourth Gospel in tolo. See also Ps. viii. 7 (6).

^{page 298 note 4} S. S. Smalley, loc. cit. pp. 38 f.

^{page 298 note 5} John xiii. 31 is a possible exception; but even there the surrounding discussion concerns the identity of Jesus in terms of origination and destination (xiii. 20, 36).

^{page 299 note 1} This again is not far from the synoptic prestation. See Marshall, I. H., ‘The Synoptic Son of Man Sayings in Recent Discussion’, N.T.S. XII (1965–1966), 327–51, esp. pp. 350 f.Google Scholar

^{page 299 note 2} Hooker, op. cit.

^{page 299 note 3} Moule, , The Phenomenon of the New Testament, p. 34 n. 21.Google Scholar

^{page 300 note 1} Barrett, C. K., ‘Stephen and the Son of Man’, in Eltester, W. (ed.), Apophoreta: Festschrift für Ernst Haenchen (Berlin, 1964), pp. 35 f.Google Scholar

^{page 300 note 2} Ibid. p. 37.

^{page 300 note 3} Moule, C. F. D., ‘The Christology of Acts’, in Keck, L. E. and Martyn, J. L., Studies in Luke- Acts: Festschrift for Paul Schubert (Nashville, New York, 1966), pp. 163 f.Google Scholar

^{page 300 note 4} Hooker, op. cit. p. 197.

^{page 300 note 5} So Cullmann, , The Christology of the New Testament, pp. 183 f.Google Scholar

^{page 300 note 6} Phil. ii. 5–11 may not include a pre-Pauline christological hyumn. For a recent plea against the theory that it does, see Hammerlich, L. L., An Ancient Misunderstanding (Copenhangen, 1966).Google Scholar See also Martin, R. P., Carmen Christi: Philippians II. 5–11 in Recent Interetation and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship (Cambridge, 1967), pp. 42–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 300 note 7} Smalley, loc. cit. pp. 55–62; see also Robinson, J. M., A New Quest of the Historical Jesus (London, 1959).Google Scholar

^{page 301 note 1} Cf. Robinson, J. A. T., ‘The Place of the Fourth Gospel’, in Gardner-Smith, P. (ed.), The Roads Converge (London, 1963), pp. 73 f.Google Scholar

^{page 301 note 2} Op. cit.

^{page 301 note 3} Loc. cit.

^{page 301 note 4} The Apocalypse, which superficially seems as far away from the Fourth Gosperl as it could be, is at times remarkable ‘Johannine’. Is it pure coincidence that are two appearances of ‘one like a son of man’ in that book (i. 13; xiv. 14), both in a setting of vindication and judgment, and both different in degree but not in kind from the appearance of the Son of man figure in the Fourth Gospel?