cheenc03a.pdf

SON OF MAN
Latin verrion~ mnd~r irairxr hummir.
On the relation of Marcion and other Gnostics
to the S ~no~ti~
It cannot safely be
title see 6 41 t:
SON OF MAN
hominii as unrri gui~piom homo (Clovis, rub race
' filius'). Beza regarded the expression as a Hebrew
phrase for man, and suggested the Hebrews' cuitorn of
speaking of themrelver in the third person, but alsocalled
attention to the fact that in the gospels no one except
Jcsus does so. It is the merit of Grotius to have firrt
recognired that in Mr. 128 the conclusion must be,
'Therefore man is lord also of the sabbath.'
Pointing to Mk.2~8nrexhibifingthemoreoriginnl connrtion
he conclurively showed that the argument would havc no
cogency if the Son of mm were interpreted ar the hlerriah, and
could not have bee* understood, since rr the time Jcsur had
neither dcclned himrelf ro he rhc Messiah nor been willing to
hare his dircipler proslmim him e. such. In regard to Mr. 1232
he came to the same concivrion ar Ghnhbrord : but he refrained
from attemptin an explanation of any 0th- parragFs on the
%me principle fcrit. Sar. 6 r*if.).
The discovery that upon two occasions Jesus spoke.
not of himself, hut of man in general. when employing
this ~hmre, naturallv seemed less imoortmt than the
titub conjecture that he constantly used 'the
for PeIBOnd man,' in the sense of 'this man.' for
pronoun the personal pronoun. The latter war
maintained by Coccejus (Schol. in Mt.
8~). and found its way into the first life of Jesus by
Hes~ 11163261 %to\. Bolten's criticism \*as imoorlallf
becau&through ii'a third passage (Mt. 96) war aidrd to
the two of Grotius, and the Aramaic term barnifti war
brought into the discussion (Der Be?.ichtd. iWnfth. 1792).
He called sttention to the svriacuw of 6'r#hr(r-nafz with no
to 'thii'care. Chryrostom ckiainly regards ;he term
as simply designating 'man' in Jn, 6zl (hligne,69r2s).
That remr also substantially to have been the view of
Augustine (Contra Arion. 18). It is possible that
Cyprian's comparison of Mt. 1212 with z S. 2 ~5, and
inference that the church cannot forgive sins against
God, indicate5 that he underrtood jiius nominil to
designate 'man' in a generic sense in some
as Lierzmann h a suggested (p. 80). Jerome wm not
prevented by his knawlcdge of Hebrew from identifying When Herder (Chr. Srkr~~en. ii. [r796] 5+) explained
'the human being' as the virgin Mary (Corn, in Ps. the term as designating the ideal humanity of Jesus, he
8q) -,: and thir continued to be a common interoretation.
gaYe a new form to the idea that it war
Euthymius Zigvbenus (about roo A.D.) explains that
~ntended to teach the human nature of
dnOpwror may mean yvvi aa well as dvilp (Migne,129~9~), the Christ. But in thir modernisation the contrast
and Alexander of Jumege (d. 1209) only regrets the with the divine nature of the Christ war lost. and an
difficulty of rendering in Frenrh a title which is identical emphatically high conception was the result. Through
so far -as the meaning is concerned, but not gram- Schleiermacher (.?in/. qp8) and Neander (Leben /mu.
matically, with f1iur vilginil. In the firrt German xz9fl) this view gained a wide recognition.
translation it was indeed translated rdn dermoid (Codex
Teplenris and three earliest editions), and the Romance
version of IheWaldenrer hadflh de In uergenc. Nicolaur
de l.yra understood Mt. 128 to affirnr that blasphemy
against Christ's humanity is not as unpardonable as
that against his divinity, and Mt.1613 to be a confession
on his part of the humble fact of his humanity
while his disciples understand it of his divinity (Biblio
Sacra. 1588, vol. ii.). A curious comment on 'men'
in MI. 16x3 is 'hominen sunt qui de filio hominir
loquuntur, Dii enim qui deitatem i~itelligunt.'
\Vifh the renaissance of learning, the firrt attempts at
a ~hilolocical - ex~ianation a~marcd. ..
GenPbrord, a
.. noted Hebraist, commenting on Mt. 1232.
A". ms="."
declared that 'son of man' meant simply
to the-, ,man' and, returnine to Cv~rian's sue-
He' ~~
expression of the same sentiment. Sins against men
may be pardoned, but not sins against God (Dr
S. Trinitnfe, 1569). Flacius Illyricus defined jliur
Hofmann (Schrx~fbmeir, ii. Zig) could find in the
phrase no allusion to an ideal of humanity, but regarded
Is,
a aS ~ ~ b ~ syknymo"~ t ~ ~ ~ith t i ~ ~ ~ ~
Cornins
'he that cometh.' d (p~bprvor, containing
no indication of character Cremer ( Worterbuch151,
8+68) similarly saw in it a reference to the
man promiscd in the protrvungel, Gen. 3.5.
Already Scholten (Speiimen, 1809) interpreted the
term ns a title of ihi Messiah, the hea;enly king
dcrtined to reign as man over men.
19' Current Strauss (Lcben Jesu. 463 [z835]) expressed
MeSsianiC the opinion that the ion of man was one
of the current Messianic titles. V. Colin
1.2Al fh. 216 ,183,. ~~crc~t~cl n.~h h.n> I.>..l:d h.
< hr,c:r'' :~r[lb;~ll],~~lnlc~lllul~l!# .30111.31.3~;1.~~1:~11
It: rc.~;,rd~I I, th,. clde,, oar, of 111.. 1%