No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Nontitular Son of Man: A History and Critique
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 July 2012
Extract
The expression ⋯ νἱ⋯σ το⋯ ⋯νθρώπον, found primarily in the Gospels on the lips of Jesus, has been the object of a centuries-long investigation that has sought to determine its meaning and origin. Patristic and medieval authors understood the phrase as a title of Jesus meaning ‘the Son of the human’, with ‘the human’ referring to either Mary or Adam. With the renewal of learning in the Renaissance and Reformation, interpreters began to examine the phrase in light of its Semitic background, tracing it to Hebrew ben adam or Aramaic bar enasha. A host of new interpretations arose. While most scholars continued to view the expression as some sort of title, others saw it as a nontitular idiom. Three possible idiomatic senses of the expression were investigated: the circumlocutional sense (‘this man’ = ‘I’), the generic sense (‘man’ in general), and the indefinite sense (‘a man’, someone). These nontitular interpretations, part of the debate since 1557, have become more prominent in the last 25 years and form an important feature of the current discussion.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994
References
1 The forms bar nash(α) and bar enashfα) both appear in Aramaic sources. Since some scholars have emphasized that the latter was the form current in Jesus' day, I have used it everywhere except in describing the views of scholars who employ the other form.
2 Theodore de Béze, annotations in vol. 3 of Novum d[omini] n[stri] Iesu Christi testamentum (Geneva: Stephanus, 1557) at Matt 8.20.
3 Camerarius, Joachim, Notatio figurarum sermonis in libris quatuor evangeliorum (1572)Google Scholar. Subsequently issued asCommentarius in novum foedus along with Beza's NT and annotations (Cambridge: Daniel, 1642)Google Scholarat Matt 9.5(6). Cf. at Matt 16.13 (‘me, that man’); John 12.34 (‘that man’).
4 Johannes Cocceius (d. 1669), Opera omnia 4:Scholia in evangelia secundum Matthaeum, Marcum, Lucam et Johannem, utet in Ada Apostolorum (3rd ed.; Amsterdam: Blaev, 1701)Google Scholar15 at Matt 8.20. Cocceius, however, goes on to say that the name actually had a deeper meaning for Jesus.
5 Hess, Johann Jacob, Geschichte der drey letzten Lebensjahre Jesu (1768–72; 4th edition consulted = Tübingen: Frank & Schramm, 1779)Google Scholar.For example, Hess interprets ‘Son of Man’at Matt 8.20 as ‘this man’ (1.539).
6 Lange, Samuel Gottlieb, Das Evangelium Johannis (Neustrelitz, 1796) 80–1Google Scholar(though at John 3.13–14 he translates the phrase as ‘Messiah’), according to Scholten, Wessel, Specimen hermeneutico–theologicum: de appelatione τοο νἱοο τοο νθρὠπον μα qua Iesus se Messiam professus est (Trajecti ad Rhenum: Paddenburg & Schoonhoven, 1809) 179–80Google Scholar.
7 Paulus, Heinrich Eberhard Gottlobb, Philologisch-kritischer und historischer Commentar über das neue Testament l: Der drey ersten Evangelien erster Hälfte (2nd ed.; Lübeck: Bonn, 1804) 470–1at Matt 8.20Google Scholar; revised and published as Exegetisches Handbuch über die drei ersten Evangelien (3 vols.; Heidelberg: Universitäts, 1831) 1. 465–6Google Scholarat Matt 8.20,1.500 at Matt 9.6. In Matt 12.8, however, Paulus takes the phrase to mean man in general (2.23).
8 Fritzsche, Karl Friedrich Augustus, Quatuor N.T. evangelia 1: Evangelium Matthaei (Leipzig: Fleischer, 1826) 319–20Google Scholarat Matt 8.20.
9 Kühnöl, Christian Theophilus, Commentarius in libros novi testamenti historicos 1: Evangelium Matthaei (3rd ed.; Leipzig: Barth, 1823) 231Google Scholarat Matt 8.20.
10 Strauss, David Friedrich, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined (German original, 4th ed., 1840; New York: Blanchard, 1860) 293–4Google Scholar.Bernhard Weiss later made the same point (i.e. the expression cannot refer deictically to the speaker without the addition of a pronoun) in Biblical Theology of the New Testament(German original, 1868; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: Clark [1893])Google Scholar1.75.
11 Colani, Timothée, Jesus-Christ et les croyances messianiques de son temps (2nd ed.; Strasbourg: Treuttel et Wurtz, 1864) 112–21Google Scholar, esp. 117.
12 Wellhausen, Julius, Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte (Berlin: Reimer, 1894) 312n. 1Google Scholar.
13 ‘Naturally it is highly peculiar to say “the man” instead of “I”; but it would be no less striking to say “the Messiah”, instead of “I”’ (ibid.).
14 Already in the third edition of Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte (1897, p. 381 n. 1), he begins to move toward the view espoused in his Skizze und Vorarbeiten (see below).
15 Meyer, Arnold, Jesu Muttersprache (Freiburg/Leipzig: Mohr, 1896) 91–101Google Scholar.
16 Lietzmann, Hans, Der Menschensohn (Freiburg/Leipzig: Mohr, 1896) 84Google Scholar;Dalman, Gustav, The Words of Jesus (German original, 1898; Edinburgh: Clark, 1902) 249–50Google Scholar; Schmiedel, Paul Wilhelm, ‘Bezeichnet Jesus den Menschen als solchen durch “Menschensohn”?’, Protestantische Monatshefte 2 (1898) 291–308 (pp. 293–4)Google Scholar; Wellhausen, Julius, ‘Des Menschen Sohn’, in his Skizze und Vorarbeiten (Berlin: Reimer, 1899) 6. 187–215 (p. 200)Google Scholar; Fiebig, Paul, Der Menschensohn: Jesu Selbstbezeichnung (Tübingen: Mohr, 1901) 74–5Google Scholar.Meyer's view was also rejected byWrede, W., ‘Zum Thema “Menschensohn”’, ZNW 5 (1904) 359–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
17 Rhees, Rush, ‘A “Striking Monotony” in the Synoptic Gospels’, JBL 17 (1898) 87–102 (p. 98)Google Scholar.
18 Haupt, Paul, ‘Hidalgo and Filius Hominis’, JBL 40 (1921) 167–70Google Scholar; idem, ‘The Son of Man = hie homo = ego’, JBL 40 (1921) 183.
19 Campbell, J. Y., ‘The Origin and Meaning of the Term Son of Man’, JTS 48 (1947) 145–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, ‘Son of Man’; in A The ological Wordbook of the Bible’ (ed. Alan Richardson; New York: Macmillan, 1950) 230–2.
20 Black, Matthew, ‘Unsolved NT Problems: “The Son of Man” in the Teaching of Jesus’, ExpT 60 (1948/1949) 32–6 (p. 34)Google Scholar.
21 Schweizer, Eduard, ‘Der Menschensohn (Zur eschatologischen Erwartung Jesu)’, ZNW 50 (1959) 185–209 (p. 198)Google Scholar; Vielhauer, Philip, ‘Jesus und der Menschensohn: Zur Diskussion mit Heinz Eduard Tödt und Eduard Schweizer’, ZTK 60 (1963) 133–77 (pp. 157–9)Google Scholar, reprinted in his Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament (ThBü 31; Munich: Kaiser, 1965) 92–140 (pp. 118–20).
22 Formesyn, R. E. C., ‘Was There a Pronominal Connection for the “Bar Nasha” Self Designation?’, NovT 8 (1966) 1–35Google Scholar.
23 Vermes, Geza, ‘Appendix E: The Use of נש ךנא ךנ in Jewish Aramaic’, in Black, Matthew, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (3rd ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1967) 310–30Google Scholar; reprinted in his Post-Biblical Jewish Studies (Leiden: Brill, 1975) 147–65.
24 Vermes, , ‘Appendix E’, 320Google Scholar.
25 Vermes, , Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973) 160–91Google Scholar.See also idem, ‘The Present State of the “Son of Man” Debate’, JJS 29 (1978) 123–34, reprinted in his Jesus and the World of Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 89–99; idem, ‘The “Son of Man” Debate’, JSNT 1 (1978) 19–32.
26 Marshall, I. H., ‘The Synoptic Son of Man Sayings in Recent Discussion’, NTS 12 (1965/1966) 327–51 (p. 328)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; but Marshall backs away from this view in ‘The Son of Man in Contemporary Debate’,EvQ 42 (1970) 67–87 (pp. 70–1)Google Scholar; Dodd, C. H., The Founder of Christianity (London: Macmillan, 1970) 110–13Google Scholar; O'Neill, J. C., ‘The Silence of Jesus’, NTS 15 (1968/1969) 153–67 (pp. 158–62)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Müller, Mogens, ‘The Expression “the Son of Man” as Used by Jesus’, Studia Theologica 38 (1984) 47–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
27 Jeremias, Joachim, ‘Die älteste Schicht der MenschensohnnLogien’, ZNW 58 (1967) 159–72 (p. 165)CrossRefGoogle Scholar;idem, New Testament Theology: the Proclamation of Jesus (New York: Scribner's, 1971) 261 n. 1; Borsch, F. H., The Son of Man in Myth and History (Philadelphia: West minster, 1967) 23 n. 4Google Scholar; Déaut, R. Le, ‘Le substrat araméen des évangiles: scolies en marge de L Aramaic Approach de Matthew Black’, Biblica 50 (1968) 388–99 (pp. 397–9)Google Scholar; Colpe, Carsten, ‘νἰζ το νθὠπν’, TDNT 8 (1969) 403–4Google Scholar; Gelston, A., ‘A Sidelight on the “Son of Man”’, SJT 22 (1969) 189–96 (p. 189)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Boers, Hendrikus, ‘Where Christology Is Real’, Int 26 (1972) 300–27 (p. 307)Google Scholar; Bowker, John, ‘The Son of Man’, JTS n.s. 28 (1977) 19–48 (pp. 28–32, 42)Google Scholar; Kearns, Rollin, Vorfragen zur Christologie 1 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1978) 96Google Scholar; Casey, P. M., The Son of Man: the Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7 (London: SPCK, 1979) 224–6Google Scholar; Lindars, Barnabas, Jesus Son of Man (London: SPCK, 1983) 19–24Google Scholar; Collins, Adela Yarbro, ‘The Origin of the Designation of Jesus as “Son of Man”’, HTR 80 (1987) 391–407 (pp. 397–8)Google Scholar; Chilton, Bruce D., ‘The Son of Man: Human and Heavenly’, in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck (ed. Segbroeck, F. Van et al. ; 3 vols; Leuven: Leuven University, 1992) 1. 203–18Google Scholar.
28 Fitzmyer, Joseph A., review of Black, M., An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (3rd ed.) in CBQ 30 (1968) 417–28 (pp. 426–8)Google Scholar;idem, ‘The Contribution of Qumran Aramaic to the Study of the New Testament’, NTS 20 (1974) 382–407 (p. 397), reprinted in A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays (SBLMS 25; Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1979) 85–113 (pp. 95–6); idem, ‘Another View of the “Son of Man” Debate’, JSNT 4 (1979) 58–68; idem, The Study of the Aramaic Background of the New Testament', in A Wandering Aramean, 1–27 (pp 13–14); idem, ‘The New Testament Title “Son of Man” Philologically Considered’, in A Wandering Aramean, 143–60 (pp. 152–4); idem, ‘The Aramaic Language and the Study of the New Testament’, JBL 99 (1980) 5–21 (p. 20).
29 Bauckham, Richard, ‘The Son of Man: “A Man in My Position” or “Someone”?’, JSNT 23 (1985) 23–33 (p. 32 n. 15)Google Scholar.
30 Hare, Douglas R. A., The Son of Man Tradition (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 249–56Google Scholar.
31 Matt 11.19 par.; Luke 12.10 par.; Luke 12.8–9 (cf. Matt 10.32–3); Matt 8.20 par.; Luke 11.30 (cf. Matt 12.40); Mark 2.10. Hare also thinks it likely that an authentic statement employing the bar enasha idiom lies behind the passion sayings, but he declines to delineate the precise formulation of such an utterance.
32 See the present author's review of Hare in Heythrop Journal 33 (1992) 447–8Google Scholar.
33 Cyprian, , Testimonium 3.28Google Scholar(CSEL 3.1.142).
34 Génébrard, Gilbert, De S. Trinitate (Paris, 1569) 246–7Google Scholar.Quoted byLegasse, Simon, ‘Jésus historique et le Fils de l'homme: Aperçu sur les opinions contemporaines’, in Apocalypses et théologie de l'espérance (Paris: Cerf, 1977) 272 n. 3Google Scholar.
35 Flacius, Matthias (Illyricus), Clavis scripturae (Basel: Quecum, 1567)Google Scholars.v. filius: ‘it is used only by Ezekiel and Christ, for any one man … In the Gospel, Christ himself, using the third for the first person, names himself thus’.
36 Grotius, Hugo, Annotationes in libros evangeliorum (1641)Google Scholar in Opera omnia theologica (Faksimile–Neudruck der Ausgabe Amsterdam 1679; Stütgart/Bad Cannstatt: Frommann, 1972)Google Scholarat Matt 12.8: ‘But, as I said, it is well known that to the Hebrews ben adam [a son of man] signifies any man …’ On the parallel passage, Mark 2.28, he interprets νἰζ οο νθρὠπον to mean ‘any men’ as at Mark 3.28, and continues: ‘Nor does the article stand in the way here: for νἰζ οο νθρὠπον is said correctly when it concerns the human race on the whole’. Also at Matt 12.32:‘… νἰν νθρὠπον [son of man], though with the article added, is to be understood here not Christ alone, but any man, Christ, of course, not excepted. For the article is frequently the sign of generality…’
37 E.g. Simon Episcopius (d. 1643), Notae breves in xxiv. priora capita Matthaei in vol. 2 of his Opera theologica (Amsterdam: Blaev, 1650)Google Scholar:at Matt 12.8 and 12.32, ‘any man at all’.Céne, Charles Le, An Essay for a New Translation of the Bible (French original, 1696; London: Nutt, 1702) Part 2, pp. 834Google Scholar:‘a man in general’ at Matt 8.20, 12.8,12.32.Clarke, Samuel, A Paraphrase on the Four Evangelists (21 vols.; London: Knapton, 1701–1702)Google Scholar:at Matt 12.8, ‘any man’ (including and especially Christ). Arguments against Grotius' interpretation of Matt 12.32 were given by Quenstedt, Johann Andreas, Theologia didactico–polemica (1685, Part 2, p. 86; 1715, Parti,p. 956–7)Google Scholar.
38 Bolten, Johann Adrian, Der Bericht des Matthäus von Jesu dem Messia (1792), as summarized in some detail by Scholten, 174–9Google Scholar.
39 So Scholten, 179. Similarly Eichhorn, Johann Gottfried (Allgemeine Bibliothek der biblischen Literatur 5 [1793] 524)Google Scholardescribed Bolten's translation of ‘Son of Man’ in Matt 10.23 by ‘a man’ (someone) as ‘artificial’.
40 Schmidt, Nathaniel, ‘WAS אשנ ננ a Messianic Title?’ JBL 15 (1896) 36–53Google Scholar.
41 Wellhausen, , Skizze und Vorarbeiten, 6.187–215Google Scholar.
42 Dupont, Georges, Le Fils de L'homme (Paris: Fischbacher, 1924)Google Scholar.
43 Guignebert, Charles Alfred Honoré, Jesus (French original, 1933; New York: University, 1956) 270–9Google Scholar.
44 Meyer, , Jesu Muttersprache (1896)Google Scholar: generic ‘man’ (Mark 2.10, 28; Matt 12.32); circumlocution for T (Matt 8.20); ‘someone’ (Matt 11.19).
45 Schulthess, F., ‘Zur Sprache der Evangelien’, ZNW 21 (1922) 241–58 (pp. 247–50)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.In addition to using ‘Son of Man’ generically in Matt 9.6 and 8.20, ‘Jesus also spoke of himself in an emphatic sense by hahu barnasha or hahu gabra instead of by “T” (248).
46 Holtzmann, Oscar, The Life of Jesus (German original, 1901; London: Black, 1904) 166–71.Google ScholarHoltzmann found all three idiomatic usages in the Gospels: generic (Mark 10.44–5; Luke 19.10; Matt 8.20; 16.13); circumlocutional (Matt 11.18–19); indefinite (Mark 8.38; 14.62).
47 Bultmann, Rudolf, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (German original, 2nd ed.; 1931; New York: Harper & Row, 1968).Google ScholarBultmann found a circumlocution for ‘I’ in Mark 2.10 (p. 15) and the generic use in Mark 2.28 (pp. 16–17), Matt 8.20 (p. 28), and Matt 12.32 (p. 131).
48 Manson, T. W., The Teaching of Jesus (2nd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1935) 211–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Manson saw the generic use in Mark 2.10, 2.28, Luke 12.10 = Matt 12.32; the circumlocutional, in Luke 7.34 par., 11.30 par.
49 Hiring, Jean, Le royaume de Dieu et sa venue (Paris: Alcan, 1937) 75–83, 88–110.Google ScholarAccording to Héring, in the passion sayings Jesus used bar nasha in either a circumlocutional sense (this person = I) or an indefinite sense (a certain man); in sayings relating to his earthly ministry, he used it in a generic sense (Mark 2.10; 2.28; Matt 12.32) or with the sense of the first person (Matt 8.20; 11.19).
50 Sjöberg, Erik, Der verborgene Menschensohn in den Evangelien (Lund: Gleerup, 1955) 239 n. 3:Google Scholar‘It is unthinkable that Jesus would have expressed general statements about the life of man or assigned to men the right to forgive in God’s place … The attempt to understand bar nasha, like hahu gabra, as a circumlocution for “I” … founders on the fact that this use of bar nasha is nowhere to be found in the Aramaic sources’.
51 Casey, P. M., ‘The Son of Man Problem’, ZNW 67 (1976) 147–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar; expanded in Son of Man (1979); idem, ‘Aramaic Idiom and Son of Man Sayings’, ExpT 96 (1985) 233–6; idem, ‘The Jackals and the Son of Man’, JSNT 23 (1985) 3–22; idem, ‘General, Generic, and Indefinite: The Use of the Term “Son of Man”, in Aramaic Sources and in the Teaching of Jesus’, JSNT 29 (1987) 21–56.
52 Mark 2.10; 2.28; 8.38; 9.12; 10.45; 14.21 (twice); Matt 8.20; 11.19; 12.32; Luke 12.8; 22.48.
53 Lindars, Barnabas, ‘Jesus as Advocate: A Contribution to the Christology Debate’, BJRL 62 (1980) 476–97;Google Scholaridem, ‘The New Look on the Son of Man’, BJRL 63 (1981) 437–62; idem, Jesus Son of Man (1983). These works mark a change of opinion from his earlier article,‘Reenter the Apocalyptic Son of Man’, NTS 22 (1975) 52–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
54 Five in Q (Matt 2.32; 8.20; 10.32–3; 11.19; Luke 11.30; and parallels); four in Mark (Mark 2.10 and three reconstructed forms lying behind the passion predictions).
55 Bauckham, , ‘Son of Man’, 26–7Google Scholar.
56 Lindars, Barnabas, ‘Response to Richard Bauckham: The Idiomatic Use of Bar Nasha‘, JSNT 23 (1985) 35–41Google Scholar.
57 Lindars, , ‘Response’, 35Google Scholar.
58 Bauckham, ‘Son of Man’.
59 Fuller, Reginald H., ‘The Son of Man: A Reconsideration’, in The Living Text: Essays in Honor of Ernest W. Saunders (ed. Groh, Dennis E. and Jewett, Robert; Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1985) 207–17Google Scholar.
60 Burkett, Delbert, The Son of the Man in the Gospel of John (JSNTS 56; Sheffield: Shef–field Academic, 1991)Google Scholar.
61 Casey argues that the translators had no choice but to translate the absolute state with articles, since they wanted to make clear that the expression referred to a specific person, Jesus (‘General, Generic, and Indefinite’, 32). But if the expression were the idiom that Casey claims, the translator would have known that it included Jesus in its reference and would have had no need to add articles.
62 Fiebig showed that the emphatic bar nasha can mean not only ‘the man’ but also ‘a man’ (Menschensohn, 20, 25, 29,44). The emphatic ending -α may apply to the whole expression, in which case the meaning is ‘(the) man’, or only to nasha, in which case the meaning is ‘a man’(p. 54).
63 In Casey's theory, ‘general statements’ could include both the generic and indefinite senses, but in practice he consistently translates the phrase as indefinite.
64 Casey, , ‘General, Generic and Indefinite’, 37Google Scholar.
65 So Bultmann, , Synoptic Tradition, 312–13.Google ScholarNote the same process at work in Matt 26.2, Matthew's redaction of Mark 14.1.
66 Lindars, , ‘Response’, 39Google Scholar.
67 Bauckham, , ‘Son of Man’, 31Google Scholar.
68 Fuller, , ‘A Reconsideration’, 212Google Scholar.
69 Chilton, ‘The Son of Man: Human and Heavenly’.
70 Matt 8.20; 11.19; Mark 8.31; Matt 17.12; 17.22–3; 20.18–19; 20.28; 26.2; 26.24; Luke 22.48; Matt 26.45; Luke 24.7; and parallels. Two other sayings, according to Chilton have both a generic and an angelic reference (Matt 12.8; 12.32).
71 Chilton, 210.
72 Among more recent interpreters, see Hay, Lewis S., ‘who argues for the generic interpretation in the two Markan passages: The Son of Man in Mark 2:10 and 2:28’, JBL 89 (1970) 69–75Google Scholar.