No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
‘The Son of Man’: Some of the Facts
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
Abstract
![Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'](https://static.cambridge.org/content/id/urn%3Acambridge.org%3Aid%3Aarticle%3AS0028688500021287/resource/name/firstPage-S0028688500021287a.jpg)
- Type
- Short Studies
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995
References
1 ‘Neglected Features in the Problem of “the Son of Man”’, in Gnilka, J., Hrsg., Neues Testament und Kirche (Freiburg/Basel/Wien: Herder, 1974) 413ff.Google Scholar, reprinted in Essays in New Testament Interpretation (Cambridge: CUP, 1982) 75ffGoogle Scholar. See also The Origin of Christology (Cambridge: CUP, 1977) 11ff.Google Scholar
2 See, e.g., Middleton, T. F., The Doctrine of the Greek Article (London, 1841) 36Google Scholar, summarizing a ruling of Apollonius Dyscolus. The Blaβ-Debrunner-Funk Grammar (1961) only grazes the matter (§252).
3 I owe this observation to Borsch, F. H., The Christian and Gnostic Son of Man (London: SCM, 1970) 43Google Scholar. I have not investigated other patristic writers.
4 Facsimile in Burrows, M. with Trever, J. C. and Brownlee, W. H., The Dead Sea Scrolls of St Mark's Monastery (New Haven: The American Schools of Oriental Research, 1951) 2Google Scholar, Plate 11.
5 Essays in New Testament Interpretation, 84 n. 27. Appeal is sometimes made also to targumic usages. I am not competent to judge of their date and degree of relevance.