No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
Perhaps it is foolhardy at present to attempt to understand what the first evangelist means when he uses the term Ό υίòς το
άνωρώπου. Scholars are divided about the significance of the term both in Jewish eschatological speculation and as an Aramaic idiom. They are divided over the contribution of Jesus and of the early church to the Son of man sayings in the synoptics. Did Jesus preach about a future Son of man who would play a role in the eschatological drama and the church identify Jesus with that figure? Did Jesus use an Aramaic idiom which was misunderstood by a church interpreting their experience of the resurrection in the light of Daniel 7? Is ‘the Son of man’ a title, and is it a Christological title or a symbol for the saints? It is not surprising that articles are appearing with titles like: Can the Son of man problem be solved?
[1] See John, Bowker, ‘The Son of man’ in J.T.S. 1977, pp. 19–48.Google Scholar
[2] For German scholarship, there is the problem whether there existed in Judaism at the time of Jesus a belief in an eschatological figure, an agent of God's judgement, called ‘the Son of man’. Daniel 7 does not refer to ‘the Son of man’ but to ‘one like a Son of man’ and the Similitudes of Enoch are difficult both to date, since they are not found at Qumran, and to interpret, given the variety of expressions used to refer to ‘that Son of man’ and the doubt over the significance of ‘that’. Geza Vermes and Matthew Black still have to convince scholars that bar nash(a) could be used at the time of Jesus as a circumlocution for ‘I’ as well as in the generic sense. The examples cited by them seem only to prove the generic sense.Google Scholar
[3] For example, Colpe's detailed and erudite article in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.Google Scholar
[4] E.g. he omits ‘the Son of man’ compared with the Markan parallel in 16. 21, he adds ‘the Son of man’ at 16. 28, 24. 39, 25. 31, 26. 2 and elaborates the teaching in his own words at 13. 37 and 41 and probably at 10. 32, for which see the discussion in Edwards, R. A., The Sign of Jonah in the Theology of the Evangelists and Q. SCM Studies in Biblical Theology, 1971.Google Scholar
[5] 8.20.Google Scholar
[6] 9. 8 and generally throughout the Gospel, e.g. 5. 7, 6. 14, 25. 31 ff., etc.Google Scholar
[7] 16.24.Google Scholar
[8] 16. 25, and note that the resurrection of Jesus is no isolated event, 27. 52 f.Google Scholar
[9] 19. 28. A more detailed discussion of these passages will follow.Google Scholar
[10] Manson, T. W., The Teaching Of Jesus (Cambridge, 1931), p. 227.Google Scholar
[11] Fuller, R. H., The Foundations of New Testament Christology (Lutterworth, 1965).Google Scholar
[12] Brown, R. E., The Birth of the Messiah (London, 1977).Google Scholar
[13] Cf. 21. 23, 26. 22, and 8. 6, 9. 28, 14. 28, 15. 22 f., 17. 14 f., 20. 29 ff. The word is not used by Judas: 26. 25, 26. 49. See Held, H. J.: ‘Matthew as interpreter of the miracle stories’, in Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew: Bornkamm, Barth and Held (E.T. SCM 1963).Google Scholar
[14] 8. 6 and 25.Google Scholar
[15] Luke 9. 58 is parallel except that it is addressed more vaguely to τις.Google Scholar
[16] E.g. 6. 19 ff., 10. 9 ff., 34 ff., 19. 27 ff.Google Scholar
[17] Manson, T. W., The Sayings of Jesus (London, 1947), p. 72 points out that the saying cannot be proverbial because proverbs must contain a germ of truth and it is not the case that men have no home in contrast to the animals.Google Scholar
[18] Contrast Luke 8. 25 and Mark 4. 41 τίς άρα ουτος έστω with the Matthaean ποταπός.Google Scholar
[19] E.g. Hill, D., The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible (Oliphants, 1972).Google ScholarGreen, H. B., The Gospel according to Matthew, New Clarendon Bible (O.U.P., 1975).Google ScholarTödt, H. E., The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition (E.T. SCM 1965).Google Scholar
[20] Morna, Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark (SPCK 1967), p. 84.Google Scholar
[21] The healing miracles, as distinct from the nature miracles, are soteriological rather than Christological, and they are paradigms of faith in which magical elements are subordinated to the stress on the faith of the suppliants. See Hull, J. M., Hellenistic Magic and the Synoptic Tradition (SCM 1974).Google Scholar
[22] E.g. chapters 5–7.Google Scholar
[23] Hummel demonstrates that the quotation of Hosea 6. 6 is redactional. Hummel, R., Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kirche und Judentum im Matthausevangelium (Munchen, 1963), p. 97 ff.Google Scholar
[24] E.g. Green, H. B., Allen, W. C., St. Matthew, ICC (Edinburgh, 1907).Google Scholar
[25] An explicit connexion between divine and human perfection is made in 5. 48.Google Scholar
[26] Matthew 10. 17–22 is parallel to Mark 13. 9–13.Google Scholar
[27] No Markan parallel. See Luke 7. 34 which prefers τέκνων to the the Matthaean έργων, and the perfect έλήλυθεν for the aorist ήλθεν. It is too pedantic to suggest that the aorist shows the saying to be a church creation because it looks back upon the ministry as complete and in the past. Rather, Matthew uses the aorist because he intends the reader to look back to the example of Jesus eating with tax-collectors and sinners, 9. 10 ff.Google Scholar
[28] The reference to the disciples' hunger is not found in Mark, but improves the story by making a link between the activity of the disciples and that of David when he was hungry. The First Evangelist adds the example in verse 5 which concerns the sabbath. Both Matthew and Luke omit Mark 2.27.Google Scholar
[29] See 28. 19,12.18–21.1 do not wish to imply that he identifies the three concepts, only that he does not contrast them.Google Scholar
[30] No Markan parallel, but cf. Luke 12.10 in a different context.Google Scholar
[31] 10.24–25.Google Scholar
[32] Mark 8. 11–12.Google Scholar
[33] Luke 11. 30.Google Scholar
[34] M'Neile, A. H., The Gospel according to St. Matthew (Macmillan 1915),Google Scholarand the discussion by Edwards, R. A., The Sign of Jonah in the Theology of the Evangelists and Q (SCM Studies in Biblical Theology, 1971).Google Scholar
[35] A Matthaean composition. See Jeremias, J., The Parables of Jesus (E.T. SCM 1963), pp. 64 ff.Google Scholar
[36] It is perhaps of interest to note that the parable in 22. 1–14 which deals with a related subjectpictures the preaching as undertaken by a group not by an individual.Google Scholar
[37] The role of the angels in the eschatological drama is not to be identified cither with the present or with the future role of the disciples.Google Scholar
[38] Contrast Mark ò χριστóς and Luke τòν χριστòν το θεο.Google Scholar
[39] 16. 18 f. cf. 18. 18.Google Scholar
[40] Mark 8. 38–9. 1 and Luke 9. 26–27 are not exactly parallel with the Matthaean version.Google Scholar
[41] Cf. 5. 20 and 25. 31 ff.Google Scholar
[42] No synoptic parallels to verse 12.Google Scholar
[43] No Markan parallel. Luke 22. 28–30 refers to the disciples sitting on thrones but it is not a Son of man saying. For a detailed discussion of this saying see Broer, I.: ‘Das Ringen der Gemeinde um Israel’ in Jesus und der Menschensohn, ed. Pesch, und Schnackenburg, (Herder, 1975), pp. 148–65.Google Scholar
[44] Cf. 1 Corinthians 6. 2 and Revelation 20. 4.Google Scholar
[45] Cf. Mark 10. 33–34. The Matthaean version omits καì έμπτúσουσιν αύτ
although references to spitting appear in the Matthaean Passion Narrative at 26. 67 and 27. 30, and changes άποκτενοσω to the more definite οταυρ
σαι.Google Scholar
[46] See the parallel in Mark 10. 45 and a similar saying in Luke 22. 27. And see Matthew 23. 10 which has no synoptic parallels.Google Scholar
[47] Matthew 20. 28.Google Scholar
[48] Cf. 13. 41 f., 24. 27 ff.Google Scholar
[49] 24. 27–28, no Markan parallel but cf. Luke 17. 24 and 37b. 24. 27–44, cf. Mark 13. 35, Luke 17. 26 ff., only Matthew uses the word παρουσία in 24. 3, 27, 37, 39. Luke's έν ταῑς ήμέραις το άνθρώπου suggests duration, whereas Matthew's παρουσία suggests suddenness. The reference to Noah is familiar from Jewish eschatological speculation, e.g. 1 Enoch 6 ff.Google Scholar
[50] Mark 13. 26 èν νεφέλαις, Luke 21. 27 èν νεφέλη.Google Scholar
[51] Borsch, F. H., The Son of Man in Myth and History (E.T. SCM 1967), p.362.Google Scholar
[52] E.g. Isaiah 11.12, 13. 2, 18. 3, IQM III:1–IV:2.Google Scholar
[53] E.g. Isaiah 27. 13, IQM III:1–IV:2, 1 Thessalonians 4. 16, Revelation 8. 2 f.Google Scholar
[54] No synoptic parallels.Google Scholar
[55] Lindars, B., New Testament Apologetic (SCM 1961), p. 126.Google Scholar
[56] Glasson, T. F., ‘The Ensign of the Son of Man, Matthew 24. 30’, in J.T.S. 15 (1964), pp. 299 f.Google Scholar
[57] Contra, D. O. Via Jr., ‘The Church as the Body of Christ in the Gospel of Matthew’, Scottish Journal of Theology Vol. 11 (1958), pp. 271–86.Google Scholar
[58] Matthew 26. 2, 24, 45.Google Scholar
[59] 26.28.Google Scholar
[60] 28. 1 f.Google Scholar
[61] Genesis 1. 26. See Matthew 5. 48.Google Scholar
[62] Matthew 25. 31 ff. Colpe's suggestion that the community changed the dynamic concept of Jesus, that the apocalyptic Son of man is the symbol of Jesus' assurance of perfecting, into a static identification is not borne out by this study of Matthew's use of the term.Google Scholar