cheenc03a.pdf

SON OF
Gospels and Acts before Marcion, and surmised that
it originated in Asia Minor between the death of Paul
and the year go A.U. (On the latter point see § 43.)
In regard to the ue of bar-XdY by Jesus, Lietzmann
reached independent mnclusions that approximated
"lost clo~ely ta those of the present writer, from
whom he diffeicd chiefly in not being able to assume a
basis in the language of Jesus for the rub5equently
modified sayings concerning his death and resurrection
(see g 40). while he rejected Eerdmans' view that Jesus
occasionally ured it to denote himselt He ran also
disinclined to accept Meyer'r contention that the
occurrence of the phrase in some of the eschatological
passager shruld be traced back to Jesus, without
desiring, howcuer, to pass a judgnierlt in this matter
beyond the general conclusion that Jesus did not call
hiniself 'the Son of Man' (Th. Arbeilcn aur d. Rhrin.
Pred. Vcr [1899]).
The theory stated above was accepted and defended
by Wellhauren (Geirh.131 381 [1897]; Skiasen, 0x87 j?
31, of [1899]). He thought it probable that
theory,l Jesus once (Mk. 1032.34) expressed
apprehensions as to the outcome of hin
visit to Jerusalem ; but, a3 the exact wording cannot be
ascertained, he deemed it impossible to determine
whether the term bar-nifd was ured. As the source
war Dan. 713, he regarded it as possible that already the
Aramaic term bnr-ndid had come to be understood in
some circles as n designation of the Menriah.
PReiderer (New WorU ,448 [~By~l)nl~~d~pted the view,
which wa nor f- irvm 6is own ar~ler (on his in.
pe"io"5 theor concerning, Lk. 2236-3? see B 40.) Mart% (Dm
~vch DnniJ 5, rrpx1) xndxcated hlr acceptance. On the
lingulrtlc ndc, i>? n,3,d'"eh dz.'ntiFa(n~,~, n,3, nndd'rrh didnr king, a divinely appointed mler of Israel and the
nafi (rn>,>, a,,), manifestly originated as Christian (ranrlatianr
of the Greek term; but b.rmdS1ir theonly Aramaic word
nations, was not the starfine-point . but the rather unthat
denotes the individual of the genus mm md nothing expected result of a long series of invertigations.
- -- -- --
Klopper (ZWTh. 1899, p. 1618) accepts the validity
1 Wellhsuren, Pfleiderer, Marti, Bevan, Naldeke, Staerk. of Schmiedel's argurnentr (see 5 34). and thinks that
4723
33, Objections meet with much opposition. Van
Manen (2.r.) rightly protested against
by
the tendency to assume a genuineutterscholars,
ance behind every saving attributed to
Jerur in the synoptics, and td farget the peculiar
character and manifestly late origin of there writings.
But since even aithin the synoptic$ it is often possible
to trace a growth from a simpler form to one unquestionably
coloured by later thought, the investigator
certainly has the right to assume that this derelop-
ment did not begin in our present gospels. By testing
a certain word in an approximation to the Amznaic
form it must have had if uttered by Jerus, an entirely
different sense is not seldom suggested that may
~adily have been obscured by a natural mistake in
translation. or an cauallv , , natural doctrinal bias. As
to Mt. 161~
fi, van Manen is probably in the
main right (see g 39). as well as in upholding the
Messianic rienificance of the Greek term evervwhere.
and in rejecting the survival of Baur's position in
Eerdmanr. on Hilgenfeld'r argument bared upon
the Gospel according to the Hebrews, see 8 42. The
fact that Dalman (1.r) could find no other Aramaic
term likely to have'&& used by Jerus than bar-ndid.
and recognised the improbability of thir having been a
Messianic title, is more si~nificant than his contention
that bar-ndia in the sense of 'man' war a Syriac
innovation and not likely to have been thus uuderstood
in Galilee in the time of Tesos.