cheenc03a.pdf

SON OF MAN
'riie most natural explanation is certa~nly that it war
not known to him.
The earliert Aramaic translation of che Goroelr, the Sinairic
Apart frorn the gospels, rlctrij6 is the only pnsrnge .>ru., m.' :cr% 0 3 09 70, *,m.hou I y :'wh d*.s~.d~z (--3
in NT where 6 vihr ro0 dvtpljrou occurs. \Vhether ,3,Bende~gnY,,''''" \lk.+' l.L.:,'In..J,,.Ic,,: ,,
lI. botsiib, it comes from the Author to Theaphilur
I h.lH, an~IJr8 l?>$>nIs, ?,h(y-: ;.lei,:
in the Ancient 18 ..IN.I ..r r ~ c . , , : I ...ihC. r..n . rr.rrr
or represents ;r real utterance of Stephell
[~ee STFPII'N, 71. if shows that there were some
Christians who did not rcverentiy shrink from the use
of what in the gospelr ir the exclusive relCderignation
of Jesus. nor hrrlrnre to employ it lest it be misunderstood
by Greek-speaking people. The author manifestly
takes for granted that the excited populace must recognisc
in the phrase a designation of Jesus and not
merely a ilerrianic title. What in deemed blasphemy Only in the Pesh. is b vihr roc duRp9rou uniformly
ir not that he claims to see the Messiah on the right endered b'reh dmuia. Drrver's statement (Hartings,
hnnd of God, for that ir hi5 place, but that he claims to DB4182) that in the Sin., Curet.. and Perh. the term is
behold the murdered Jesus in the Mesriah'r place. ihuayr represented hy 8rrh dc'-ndid is incorrect. The
If the statenlent is historical. Stephen may have raid ,ccurence of 6'mh dT~zabnin Lk. is* (Sin.. Cur.). Mk.
in Aiarn;tic : ' l see bor~ndM,' i.r.. 'a man,' or 'the 338 (Sin., Ev.) and the identical Lk. 926 (Cur.). Lk.
man,' infendin to continue his sentence, or referring 2248 (Cur.) and JD.I~~z (Sin.. Ev.) is not without its
to the righteous rnan with whore death he had just mportance. It suggests that in the case of some saychareed
the ueoole. . . But it mav be a free imitation of ngr Creh dP-fdni had so established itself in common
Lk. 2369.
sage that even tmnslntors who, for dogmatic reasons,
The term d vibr 700 duRpdrrou occurs in the gospels ?referred b'reh dt-niiiii were influenced by it. It is
la, ,,;currenoes eighty-one times-riz, thirty timer in :r.ident that trrh dr'bnrn'iio ia a creation of Christian
ML.. fourteen in Mk.. twenty-five in
in the
heology designed to avoid misconstruction of 8rrh
Lk., and twelve in Jn.
ZEebri. Originally the latter war no donbt intended
Thereferencer area3followr :-Mf. 8zo961023 11 19 12832+o .o mean simplyjliui huminir; but the root idea (jliui
13371' 16~327.E 17gx?r? 3928 201808 24~7jrn63739~+ ?.in) could not fail to be embarrassing to the dogma
25jr 260%+~6 561 Mk.21018 83138 9gxzjr 10j3,~ 1326
142m64161; ~fr.5;~ e5zz 734 Dlzla&i8 1130 128~040 :hat Jesus was not the son of a man. Its use by I?%ul
1722241630 15831 11110 212736 2222+869 247; Jn. 151 3x3J ,f Tella (see g 4) shows that the suhsritute was not tall.527)
8175361828 935 122334~61331.
inown among the Christians of Mesuputamiu. Cureton
Mt. l8rx (=Lk. ISro). 26x3 and Lk. 9566 (=Lk. zrpluined thvt his translator 'was not accurately nc-
19,") TR are rightly obelised by critical editors. The ~uainted with the Grcek language, and therrforc tmnssixly~nine
Synoptic passages clearly do not represent ?is ated . . . Jiizir viri not horniris' (K~,uninr, p. lii).
many distinct utterances. Ry removing the most Rut the Greek phrase, which ir everywhere the same.
obvious parallels, Holaten and Oort leave forty-two, :auld not have troubled him, and he knew his own
Mangold nnd Driver forty. In any such arrangement snguape. If, in some ,,lsces, he used whnt he must
there is much exercise of subjective judgment, since
passages in the different gospelr that are not nbrolufely
alike are regarded us identical, while exact parallels in
the rame gospel "lay or may not be considered ar
lare regarded as a synonym, the reason ir probably to
,e looked for in tradition.
It is significant that 8reh dT-nd.6~ never occurs in the
Palestinian Irctionor!~, and that in hlt. and Lk. b'rch dE-
duplicstes. AL it E of SO~E importance to know which
of these occur in all three, in two, or only in one of the
gospels. the following arrangement may be made for
convenience' snkc, involving no judgment as to the
nnnlber of fioiee, or separate occaiionr, when the
evangelists considered Jeaur ar having used the exm~sion.
Eight in Mf.. Mk.. and Lk. :
One in Mk, and Lk. :
SON OF MAN
22. BIk. Sjr . . Lk. 9s~.
Nine in Mt, alone :
23. Mc. 1023 28. Aft. 10 18
: :: :
29. ,, 243-
30. ,, 2> 51.
26. ,, I to miiapprehension. The form apparently first
:hoien. b'reh dr'cdra, mizhf be understood as the son
Five in Mt. and Mk. :
g. Mt.l?g Mk.Q 12. Mt.26216 Mk. 142x6.
0 , 7 ,, 99 rg. ,, 28.5 ,, 1 4 ~ ~ .
I'. ,, 2028 ,, 1045.
Eight in Mt. and Lk. :
14. MI. 8no Lk. g5s r8. Mt.241~ Lk. 1714.
1. 1l.g 7 3 ip_ ,. 2437 ,, 1726.
16. ,, 123s ,, l?rm n. ,, 2439 ,, 1730.
IF ., 1240 ,, 1130 2,. ., 21*+ ,, n,o.
nOTe~eriou~,ahdthe phraseseema graduallyto ha& been
:rorded out of use until the officially recognired version
lad no ocher form than &'re6 dP-naid. 'Son of the
luman being,' might be interpreted 'son of Mary.'
~ m i m ~731, Lk. 2218, is either a scribal error or N ~ is a , ~ ~
itcr addition; "win?, Jn.6~7, WB no doubt preceded by
4774