Son of Man
- Felix asked the question about the use of the two articles in "ho huios tou anthropou." This is odd Greek indeed. The semitic background (already mentioned), and Ramsey's suggestion of the parallel between Son of Man and Son of God is helpful.However, the reference to Hooker's remarks need to be taken further. I am in a rush for class, but might I refer everyone to a most important discussion of this issue which is rarely noticed: C. F. D. Moule, "Neglected Features in the Problem of 'the Son of Man'," in Neues Testament und Kirche: Fuer Rudolf Schnackenburg (ed. J. Gnilka; Freiburg: Herder, 1974), 413-28.The three issues mentioned above (semitic, Son of God, and Hooker's suggestions) are all there ... along with Moule's little known suggestion of the Son of Man issue.Must rush to class.Frank MoloneyThe Catholic University of America
- Would Pilate's "idou ho anthropos", "behold the man" in John 19:5 be
intended to recall in irony the "ho huios tou anthropou", Son of Man,
self-designation of Jesus? If so it would seem to support Wink's idea of the
latter phrase's as referring to "the Man" as an archetypal figure. Well,
perhaps I won't know until I receive my copy of Francis' thesis.
I can't resist passing on what N. T. Wright heard a coleague of his mutter
at a scholarly meeting where the "Son of Man" issue was being discussed-
"Son of Man, Son of Man, that way lies madness."
A warning to the curious?