David Mealand wrote:
> So do you think that Matthew (at stage 3b) used
> tou 'uiou tou anqrwpou in the same way as
> stage 1 of the tradition used barnasha?
Not quite sure what you mean by these stages. Let me assume you are
referring to the meaning of 'Son of Man' in Mt 12:32 as contrasted with the
meaning of some much earlier Aramaic context (such as the logia?!). If so,
then I don't understand the relevance of the question. If the whole Beezebul
controversy (Mt 12:22-32) is basically triple tradition, then on any
understanding of direct textual influence (e.g. Mark --> Matt --> Luke), it
is only in the Greek where a development of meaning can occur.
My initial reaction is that there is no significant development in the use
of 'Son of Man' between its use in Mark and its use in Matthew, and Mt 12:32
seems to me to be part of a Matthean expansion of a Markan text.
However, on my radical version of the 3ST, Matthew has translated several
occurrences of 'Son of Man' directly from the Aramaic logia, and I suppose
it is possible that some of these may have influenced Matthew's
understanding of the phrase in the Triple Tradition material.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]