Über Den ausdruck ≪menschensohn≫ in den evangelien

Index

“…The present results also cohere with the independent findings of those who have recently considered the term as it appears in the canonical Gospels, determining that it was in all probability used by the historical Jesus as an exclusive non-titular self-reference (e.g. Hare 1990;Hill 1983;Hurtado 2011;Müller 1984;Schwartz 1986;Smith 1991). Moreover, in the context of historical Jesus studies generally, there are four reasons for preferring an exclusive, non-titular, self-referential application of the term 'Son of Man' by Jesus (Hurtado 2011:167, 174): (1) it would explain why Jesus used the term in such a wide variety of seemingly incompatible contexts; (2) it would explain why Matthew and Luke, on certain occasions, felt adequately uninhibited to substitute the term 'Son of Man' in their sources with 'I'; (3) not only in Greek, but also in Hebrew and Aramaic, the definite form of the expression 'the son of the man' had a particularising force, meaning that it referred to someone or something in particular; and (4) it would explain why the term occurs in the tradition as an expression used almost exclusively by Jesus.…”

“…(p. 90) A number of other scholars have followed a similar approach, with similar results (e.g. Hill 1983:35-51;Hurtado 2011:159-177;Müller 1984;Schwartz 1986;Smith 1991:207-242). Synchronic analyses of the individual canonical Gospels reveal a likely diachronic development of the expression 'Son of Man' from an exclusive, non-titular and 'more or less colourless' self-reference to a title for Jesus (Müller 2008:419).…”

“…Instead, these scholars agreed that all the Gospel texts that reference or allude to Daniel 7:13 were inauthentic. The 'circumlocution theory' was taken over, modified and presented anew by a number of prominent scholars in the field, including Müller (1984), Schwartz (1986) and Hare (1990). However, not all scholars were convinced by Vermes's suggestion that ‫נׁשא‬ ‫בר‬ simply meant 'I', instead preferring a generic and/or indefinite explanation (e.g.…”