Skip to main content

Full text of "Jesus as Son of Man"

See other formats


Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World 

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in 
the world by JSTOR. 

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other 
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the 
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. 

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this 
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial 

Read more about Early Journal Content at 
journal-content . 

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people 
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching 
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit 
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please 



Yale University 

In a discussion of the great christological passages of the 
Synoptic Gospels we have seen that the messianism of Jesus 
was pre-eminently ethical and religious. His attitude toward 
current expectations of Israel's redemption resembled that of 
the prophets in being critical rather than originative. He ethi- 
cized and spiritualized a hope which in its origins and in its 
undisciplined popular manifestations had little to differentiate it 
from the expectations entertained by heathen worshippers of 
their tribal or national divinities. 

As regards the political hopes of the Zealot, or nationalist, 
party this is universally recognized. Jesus' prohibition of the 
application of the title Christ to himself (Mk. 8 30) 1 is commonly 
explained as due to his unwillingness to be understood to claim 
messiahship in the political sense. 

As regards the Pharisaic, or pietistic, type of messianism, then 
largely affected by the apocalyptists, many influential critics 
are endeavoring to convince the modern world that Jesus' attitude 
was more sympathetic than critical. The apocalyptists since 
Daniel had given a transcendental turn to the ancient belief, 
and the Pharisees, once characterized by a more ethical and 
inward type of pietism, were now degenerating into a more formal 
legalism, while they enforced the burden of Mosaic requirements 
imposed by the scribes under penalty of exclusion from a share 
in the supermundane "world to come." This doctrine of a 
transcendental messianic "world to come" was an acknowledged 
innovation borrowed from apocalypse. The contention of J. 
Weiss and his school is that Jesus was fundamentally an Apo- 

1 Parallels are not cited where there is no evidence of independent tradition. 
In the reference Mk. 8 30 the earliest of the three embodiments of the tradition 
is appealed to. The fact that it is transcribed with slight modifications in Mt. 
16 20 and Lk. 9 21 adds nothing to the force of Mark's evidence. 


kalyptiker, in full sympathy with this tendency, especially as 
represented in John the Baptist, the popularizer of the move- 

Our own attempt has been to show that Jesus' preaching of " the 
kingdom" involves no less truly a critical attitude toward the 
transcendental other-worldliness of the Pharisees than toward 
the worldliness of Sadducee or Zealot. We hold that with all 
his sympathy for the Baptist's revolt against hierocracy, with 
all his endorsement of the Baptist's warnings of the impending 
judgment, Jesus explicitly differentiated his message from that 
of John also, emphasizing his own milder, more mystical type of 
messianism. The germs of this may in fact be found in the older 
literature of Pharisaism, and in the kindred writings of the school 
of "wisdom." 

Jesus' teaching, accordingly, regarding human destiny, as 
reflected in the messianic hope, goes deeper down and further 
back than Pharisaism. It is not identified with sect or party. 
It takes hold upon the ancient hope of Israel before it had suffered 
its special applications first to the institution of the Davidic 
monarchy, then to the post-exilic substitution of supermundane 
for nationalistic hopes. Jesus returns to the elementary prin- 
ciple of messianism, the old popular belief that Israel is (poten- 
tially) God's son. He agrees with the Pharisees that this ideal 
is to be realized by the son's "knowing" and "doing the will" 
of the Father. The difference lies partly in his conception of 
that "will"; for to the scribe and to his blind follower the Phari- 
see the will of God is a written precept to be obeyed; while to 
Jesus it is an inward disposition to be acquired. In this respect 
he approaches the wisdom-writers. The difference lies also in 
the result aimed at, which to the scribe and Pharisee is a re- 
ward added to the sonship, to Jesus the sonship itself with what- 
ever of blessing that may entail (Q; Mt. 5 45, Lk. 6 35). In 
this respect he is more in antagonism than in sympathy with 
the apocalyptists, and again resembles those of the school of 
"wisdom," though himself not a man of the schools, but of the 

If this interpretation of the messianism of Jesus be correct, 
it remains for us to explain how believers in his messiahship 


should have given it the intensely transcendental and apocalyp- 
tic interpretation reflected in the earliest evangelic tradition. 
Both Paul and the Synoptists are saturated with the type of 
eschatology characteristic of the Synagogue. In both cases 
the messianic hope is pre-eminently transcendental. How can this 
be, if Jesus himself had not so taught? The answer in general 
terms will be that the belief in Jesus' messiahship did not spring 
from the utterances of his life-time, so much as from the ecstatic 
experiences of his followers after his death, and that these were 
conditioned upon the disciples' predetermined forms of thought. 
At first it was not even pretended that Jesus had made his own 
person and work the subject of his teaching. This we find only 
in the late theological gospel emanating from Ephesus, the 
headquarters of Paulinism. In all the earlier writings, whether 
historical or epistolary in form, the doctrine of Christ's person and 
work is avowedly based, not on his remembered teaching, but 
on psychological phenomena in the experience of Paul and others, 
principally after Jesus' death. And Paul was an out-and-out 
Pharisean apocalyptist. 2 

It is a highly significant fact that while our two ultimate wit- 
nesses, Paul and the evangelic tradition, are at one (as they 
could not fail to be) in their fundamental conviction that Jesus 
had been "manifested as the Son of God with power by the 
resurrection from the dead" (Rom. 1 i), or, in Petrine phrase, 
had been "made" by it "both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2 36), 
they differ widely in the titles by which they express their con- 
ception of his being and office. The title "Lord" is that which 
in Paul's use expresses the nature and function of the Christ. 
It is not peculiar to him, for we have just seen it employed in a 
typical Petrine passage. Neither is it of Pauline coinage; for we 
find Paul quoting even an Aramaic ejaculation of which it forms 
part (Maran atha, "Our Lord, come"), and the phrase "Jesus is 
Lord" is repeatedly referred to as expressing the consensus of 

2 The transfiguration story is expressly designed to carry back the Pauline 
transcendental conception of the messiahship into the earthly career of Jesus. 
But even in the Synoptic tradition it intervenes as a psychological anachronism, 
a rebuke of the twelve, which as yet they are incapable of understanding, for con- 
ceiving the messiahship of Jesus "after the things that be of men." In the Apoca- 
lypse of Peter it is frankly placed after the resurrection. 


apostolic faith. Only indirectly and incidentally have we evi- 
dence even of Paul's acquaintance with the distinctively apoca- 
lyptic title Son of Man. His quotation from Psalm 8 in 1 Cor. 
15 27, and his doctrine of "the heavenly man," make us suspect 
indeed that in his thinking he applied to Christ, in his own dis- 
tinctive way, this apocalyptic title. But from his writings other- 
wise we should not so much as guess that the title had ever been 
applied to Jesus. 

The evangelic tradition, on the other hand, displays it in a 
manner entirely peculiar to itself. The title "Son of Man" 
occurs in no New Testament writing, outside of those of Matthew, 
Mark, Luke, and John; and these are notoriously interdependent. 
If, as many maintain, its frequent occurrence in the gospels can 
be accounted for on no other theory than the usage of Jesus 
himself, our view of his eschatological teaching will require adjust- 
ment to the fact. But we shall also be required to account for 
its non-appearance outside the four interdependent evangelic 
writers. If, on the other hand, we advance some other theory to 
account for its occurrence here, our burden of proof will not be 
light. We shall not be suffered to reject the combined testimony 
of the four evangelists that Jesus applied the title to himself, 
unless we deal comprehensively with this question of the literary 
interdependence of the sources; for no careful student will admit 
that the common participation in this feature can be due to 
accidental coincidence. Let us face the situation. The peculiar 
term can only have pervaded the four gospels by transmission 
from some very early common source. Such a primitive common 
source, capable of affecting all by its use of the title Son of Man 
as a self-designation of Jesus, is the document Q, only the Gospel 
of Mark lying, as some hold, outside the range of its influence. 
No other source definitely known to us ever occupied a place 
primitive and authoritative enough to produce this result. If, 
then, this application of the title be a contamination of the primi- 
tive tradition rather than a true record of Jesus' usage and con- 
sciousness, the evidence for such a conclusion must be sought in 
the document Q. 

This document has been restored more carefully by Harnack 
than by any predecessor in the field, from the coincident non- 


markan material of Matthew and Luke. Harnack singles out 
the Thanksgiving to the Father (Mt. 11 25-27, Lk. 10 21-82) 
and the discourse on the Jews' Stumbling in Jesus (Mt. 11 2-11, 
12-13, 16-19, Lk. 7 18-28, 31-35, 16 16) as the most important in 
all Q for their christological content. 3 Having already dis- 
cussed the significance of the former of these passages, we may 
now take the latter as our starting-point for a consideration of 
the question of the real origin and significance of the title Son of 

In Harnack's restoration the passage reads as follows: "For 
John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a 
devil. The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 
So, a gluttonous man and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and 
sinners. But Wisdom hath been justified by her children." 

Harnack concludes his discussion of the christology of Q with 
a remark both just and significant: "Even with the most conser- 
vative application of psychological considerations it is apparent 
that Jesus' consciousness of sonship must have antedated his 
consciousness of messiahship, and paved the way for it." We 
take this to mean that of the two supposedly fundamental pas- 
sages of Q 4 Harnack himself recognizes the one distinguished by 
the use of the title "the Son" as more characteristic than that 
which employs the title the "Son of Man." Jesus unquestion- 
ably had the consciousness of sonship. He probably found in it 
the solution of the messianic hope cherished by the people. Did 
he infer from the present leadership imposed by circumstance 
upon the possessor of this consciousness such continued leader- 
ship in "the world to come" as current eschatology expected of 
the apocalyptic figure of the Son of Man? What ground have we 
for accepting the authenticity of the second title? 

It is scarcely conceivable that in so old a source as Q the title 
Son of Man should be repeatedly placed in Jesus' mouth if it did 
not really belong in some way to his vocabulary. But this ad- 
mission, while abandoning the philological line of argument of 
the Aramaists who maintain that in Aramaic the expression "the 

3 Spriiche und Reden Jesu, p. 166. 

4 In Harnack's Spriiche und Reden Jesu they are numbered 25 (Mt. 11 23-27, 
Lk. 10 21 f.) and 15 (Mt. 11 16-19, Lk. 7 31-35) respectively. 


Son of Man, " would be impossible, is by no means equivalent to 
an admission that Jesus applied the title to himself. For, first, 
it is not only probable but demonstrable that even our most 
ancient records, including Q itself, insert the title in many cases 
without authority, and, secondly, among the admittedly authen- 
tic instances of Jesus' own use of the term, there are several where 
the meaning is more characteristic of him if Son of Man is un- 
derstood as applying to some other than his own glorified per- 
sonality. We may take up these two propositions in order. 

1. It is certainly remarkable that Harnack, in a footnote on 
the very same page on which occurs his classification of the dis- 
course on the Stumbling of the Jews (Nos. 14, 15) with Jesus' 
Thanksgiving for his Revelation (No. 25) as the two most im- 
portant christological passages of Q, expresses the following opin- 
ion on the occurrence of the title Son of Man in the former: 

Of course in individual cases one is utterly without positive assurance 
that Jesus referred to himself as "the Son of Man" in sayings wherein 
Q represents him as so designating himself. It is more than doubtful, 
for example, that Jesus should have used the expression in No. 15; ' 
while earlier in the same discourse (No. 14, "Blessed is he that shall not 
be stumbled in me," etc.), he has quite manifestly avoided every messianic 
self -designation. 

In other words, Harnack himself concedes the probable un- 
authenticity of the term in the passage which he advances as the 
most important! For we can only escape the linguistic argument 
of Lietzmann, Wellhausen, and N. Schmidt, that as a title "Son 
of Man" would be meaningless in the Aramaic spoken by Jesus, 
if we suppose that the etymologically colorless expression, equiva- 
lent to "human being," homo, Mensch, had acquired a more 
specific connotation through its application in Daniel and later 
apocalypses. Its employment, then, by Jesus would be either 
enigmatic, or distinctly messianic in the transcendental sense. 
Either employment would call public attention to his personality 
in a manner admittedly contrary to the policy of silence observed 
by himself and imposed upon his disciples (Mk. 8 30). Even 
those, accordingly, who maintain that this was Jesus' "favorite 

5 The passage whose comparison of the coming of the Baptist with that of 
"the Son of Man" was quoted above. 


self -designation" are cautious about admitting his employment 
of it otherwise than in the privacy of the apostolic circle, and sub- 
sequently to the revelation of the messiahship at Caesarea Philippi. 
The passage from Q regarded by Harnack as the most important 
manifestly meets neither of these conditions. Here, therefore, 
the occurrence of the title is certainly to be attributed to the 
redactor of Q. To him the appearance of Jesus in his work of 
preaching and healing in Galilee, contrasting as it did with the 
Baptist's warning of judgment, was the coming of the Son of 
Man. Jesus himself, if he really looked upon his work as ful- 
filling the expected coming of the Son of Man, 6 could not have 
thus publicly declared it and at the same time retained the incog- 
nito which he imposed upon his disciples. 

Since we are dealing with Harnack's discussion of the christol- 
ogy of Q, and since we are clearly within the range of his own 
conclusions when we infer from the passage under consideration 
that Q manifests a disposition to insert the title Son of Man 
without historical warrant, we may properly call attention here 
to a further significant observation of the same distinguished 

Christology as Q understood it gives a perfectly consistent and simple 
portrait. Q has no other conception than this: Jesus was the Messiah, 
ordained to divine sonship at his baptism, and all his sayings accordingly 
rest upon this background. If, however, the introductory narrative be 
removed in thought, an essentially different conception results (p. 169). 

This comes very near to an admission of the contention of 
Wernle in the most thorough study applied to the question until 
Harnack's, that we must distinguish a Q 1 and a Q 2 , attributing to 
the later hand (Q 2 ) the introductory narratives relating to John 
the Baptist, together with some other elements. 7 Manifestly, the 
two sections on Jesus' baptism by John, and on the stumbling of 
the Jews at John and Jesus, have in common not merely the trait 
of the Baptist's work, but the common purpose, not apparent in 
Q as a whole, of setting the personality of Jesus on the highest 

6 On Jesus' idea of the Coming of the Son of Man, see below. 

7 Wernle, Synoptische Frage, p. 226: "Diese zwei StUcke [the Baptist's dis- 
course and the Temptation of Jesus] sehen uberhaupt aus wie eine geschichtliche 
Einleitung, die nachtraglich dem Werk vorgesetzt wurde." 


plane. Here, if anywhere in Q, we must suspect secondary 

Besides the discount to be made on the score of this admitted 
Tendenz of Q 2 or Q r , we must also ask consideration for the effect 
of a more general disposition of the times illustrated not only in 
Q, but from the Pauline epistles down to the period of the Oxy- 
rhynchus Logia, namely, the disposition to attribute to Jesus 
"faithful sayings" or other current saws and apothegms having 
more or less affinity with his teaching, in particular "wisdom- 
sayings," such as that of Lk. 13 34-35, which in Mt. 23 37-39 
is attributed directly to Jesus, with suppression of the actual 
derivation from "the Wisdom of God." The Oxyrhynchus logion 
"I stood in the midst of the world, and in the flesh was I seen 
of them," etc., is another plaint of the divine Wisdom, kindred to 
Baruch 3 37, similarly put in the mouth of Jesus. There is strong 
textual reason for so regarding Mk. 2 27 also, which appears 
neither in the parallels nor in the text, but is found as a rabbinic 
saying in Joma (fol. 85). To this category of aphorisms included 
among the sayings of Jesus from very early times because of 
resemblances of phraseology or content must, in our judgment, 
be reckoned at least one whose strongest title to the place it 
occupies is its employment of the expression "the Son of Man." 
It is the saying of Q: "The foxes have holes and the birds of the 
air have nests, but the Son of Man hath not where to lay his head " 
(Mt. 8 19-20, Lk. 9 57-58). The very mode of its employment 
here (in antithesis to the birds and beasts) is so different from any 
other of the employments attributed to Jesus, and the plaintive 
tone of self-pity so opposite to the grateful assurance of his hos- 
pitable reception in Mk. 10 29 f. (cf. Lk. 8 3, 10 38-42, 22 35), 
that we cannot regard the saying as authentic. 8 It seems to be 
a current aphorism contrasting the helplessness of the individual 
human being, a waif and stray when left alone in the environment 
of nature, with the self-sufficiency of birds and beasts. Only by 
a play upon the expression "Son of Man" can it be applied to 
Jesus at all. Even were its authenticity admitted, there is the 
same reason in this case as in that of the saying contrasting 

8 Against Harnack, who exclaims, apropos of the same, "Welch' ein Zeichen 
der Echtheit!" (p. 165). 


Jesus' mode of life with the Baptist's for questioning its use of 
the title Son of Man under the circumstances described. It seems 
far more probable that this pendant to the warning against super- 
ficial discipleship (Mt. 8 21 f., Lk. 9 59 f.) has been taken up 
merely because of a misunderstanding of its untechnical use of 
the term "the son of man." 

A third instance of Jesus' employment of the title Son of Man, 
adduced by Harnack in his reconstruction of Q, we are also com- 
pelled to reject as unauthentic, though it may possibly have 
stood in the source. Jesus is reported to have presented "the 
Son of Man" as "a sign to this generation in explanation of his 
offer of 'the sign of Jonah.'" Since it occurs in the same dis- 
course as the instance first adduced, which Harnack himself con- 
siders doubtful on the ground that Jesus manifestly avoids mak- 
ing a public claim to messianic authority, it is difficult to see the 
consistency of maintaining the authenticity of this. However, 
we need not insist on this point, for it is easy to show indepen- 
dently that the explanation offered of "the sign of Jonah" is 
secondary and unauthentic. 

We have at least four variant accounts of Jesus' answer to 
the demand for a sign from heaven. The oldest of our existing 
sources presents the enigma without any attempt at solution. 
Mk. 8 n, lie (Mt. 16 1-4) treats it as simply a refusal to the 
unworthy people of their demand for an evidential miracle. Jesus 
"sighed deeply in his spirit and saith, Why doth this generation 
seek after a sign? Verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be 
given unto this generation." The addition, "no sign but the 
sign of Jonah," made in Matthew's transcript of this verse, is of 
course due to the influence, direct or indirect, of Q. Both forms 
of the Markan version agree, however, in representing that Jesus 
did not make a merely apparent refusal of the demand (which 
after all was ultimately to be granted), but made absolute the 
refusal of miraculous confirmation of his message. Both our 
first and our third Gospels, contrariwise, introduce explanations 
of the enigma calculated to mitigate the inconsistency of the 
refusal with their own disposition to find the chief evidences for 
their claims precisely in the miraculous element of Jesus' career, 
in particular the resurrection. The explanations given, however, 


are inconsistent the one with the other. Critics are agreed that 
Matthew's interpretation of the sign of Jonah as the resurrection 
is too flagrantly contradictory of the context to be authentic. 
They are very generally disposed, however, to accept the expla- 
nation of Luke that the sign of Jonah is the person of Jesus. 9 
In reality we have only to place the two side by side in the iden- 
tical context to see that both are guesses, Luke's only less in- 
consistent than Matthew's with the general bearing of Jesus' 
discourse. We give the context in a translation of Harnack's 
text of Q. 

But he said, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, 
and no sign shall be given it save the sign of Jonah. 

For like as Jonah was in the sea- For like as Jonah was himself 

monster's belly three days and a sign to the men of Nineveh, so 

three nights, so shall the Son of shall the Son of Man be to this 

Man be in the heart of the earth generation. 
three days and three nights. 

The men of Nineveh shall arise in the judgment with this generation 
and shall condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah, 
and lo, a greater matter than Jonah is here. 

A glance at Mt. 21 28-32, which, if not also embodying ma- 
terial from Q, is at all events in substance a parallel to the story 
of the Galilean demand for a sign from heaven, will show that in 
Jesus' conception the great sign of the times was the repentance 
of the masses at "the baptism of John." It was to him a ful- 
filment of the promise (Mai. 4 6) of the great repentance to be 
wrought by Elias before the Day of Yahweh. In remaining cal- 
lous to this movement of the publicans and sinners the scribes 
and Pharisees had rejected their sign "from heaven." Thus 
the two examples of the Ninevites and the Queen of the South 
condemn "this generation" for its rejection of the "wailing" 
of John and the "piping" of Jesus. It is compared to "children 
in the market-place" because it yields neither to threat nor to 
entreaty. Whether, then, we have in Mt. 11 and Mt. 21 dupli- 
cate traditions of the same incident, or parallel utterances of 

9 Jn. 6 30 ff. combines these two. 


Jesus on similar occasions, in either case they determine for us 
the sense of the answer unfavorably comparing the men of this 
generation to the men of Nineveh. It is only in the second mem- 
ber of the poetic comparison, that which compares them unfavor- 
ably to "the Queen of the South," that Jesus refers to his own 
preaching as "a greater matter" than the wisdom of Solomon. 10 
In the first member he refers \x> the preaching of John the Baptist. 
Both the interjected explanations of the sign of Jonah, there- 
fore, Luke's as well as Matthew's, are incorrect; and, if incor- 
rect, then certainly unauthentic. Jesus referred by this expres- 
sion 11 neither to his own personality nor to his resurrection, but 
to "the baptism of John." 

2. Dismissing those instances whose real bearing attests not 
an authentic use by Jesus of the title Son of Man in application 
to himself, but on the contrary a disposition on the part of trans- 
mitters of the tradition to multiply unauthentic instances, we 
come to a relatively small residuum whose first value is to ex- 
plain the Tendenz observed. Jesus really did employ the phrase; 
otherwise the Tendenz would be inexplicable. But did he em- 
ploy it in application to himself? A satisfying answer calls for 
consideration of every authentic instance without exception, 
first of all the undisputed occurrences in Q. They are as 

(1) Mt. 12 82, Lk. 12 io. ls 

(2) Mt. 24 27, 87, 89, Lk. 17 24, 26, 80. 

The former passage is one of the principal bones of conten- 
tion between Wellhausen and the critics who continue to main- 
tain the priority of Q to Mark. In Wellhausen's view, compari- 
son of the variants in Mt. 12 si, 12 82, derived respectively 

10 Note the similar antithesis in Lk. 12 13-34, where Solomon appears as the 
rich and wise king of Ecclesiastes in contrast with the poverty of Jesus and his 

11 Assonance between the names John and Jonah may have played a part. 

u It is not apparent from Haraack's language in note 2 on p. 165 whether he re- 
gards this occurrence as "unsicher," as well as that in Lk. 12 8, where the parallel 
Mt. 10 32 has simply "I," or whether he holds to Mt. 12 32, Lk. 12 10 as certainly 
authentic. The former is designated by him No. 34 a the latter No. 84 . His 
statement on p. 165 is: "Doch ist er [der Ausdruck Menschensohn] in Nr. 84. 


from Mk. 3 28 and Q (cf. Lk. 12 10), shows the priority of Mark 
to Q. He says: 

In Mk. 3 28 we have: All blasphemies are forgiven the sons of men, 
except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. In Q (Lk. 12 10) on the con- 
trary: Utterances against the Son of Man are forgiven, only those against 
the Holy Spirit are not. 

Were Wellhausen right, Q would be convicted in one more 
instance of introducing the title Son of Man with no better 
authority than a perversion of Mk. 3 28, thus increasing the 
probability that it is from later modification that the peculiar 
usage has pervaded gospel tradition. 

But on this question we are constrained to take the view 
of Wellhausen's opponents. "Son of Man" is the original, "sons 
of men" the derived form. This is not a mere inference from the 
conclusion forced upon us by the evidences of Q's priority in all 
other instances of relation to Mark, it is apparent from the con- 
text of this particular discourse. According to all three reporters 
the utterance in question should explain the peculiarly heinous 
nature of the offence just committed (the declaration, "He cast- 
eth out by Beelzebub") which excepts it from even the divine 
pardon. According to Q (Mt. 12 32, Lk. 12 lo) this is because, 
while seemingly directed only against Jesus, it had really assailed 
the Spirit of God. Because it is not Jesus personally who effects 
the healings and exorcisms, but "the Spirit of God," the offence 
is unpardonable. This is precisely the distinction which Mark, 
in accordance with the whole spirit of his gospel as shown in 
repeated instances, refuses to admit. The difference pointed to 
by Jesus between his exorcisms, performed "by the Spirit (Lk. 
finger) of God," without any assumption of special power or 
gift resident in himself, and the exorcisms of "your sons" (Mt. 
12 27 f., Lk. 11 19 f.), — a vital element of the whole argument, — 
is omitted by Mark. The result — the intended result, so far 
as we can judge — is to make it appear that blasphemy of Jesus, 
by calumny of his works of power, is identical with blasphemy 
of the Holy Spirit, and hence unpardonable. In Q the offence 
is unpardonable because it is not against Jesus, but against the 
Holy Spirit. In Mark the offence is unpardonable because it is 


against Jesus, and this is equivalent to an offence against the Holy 
Spirit. It is scarcely needful to indicate which of these two con- 
structions of Jesus' utterance bears the stamp of originality and 

But the later Markan construction would have encountered 
an insuperable obstacle if the language of Q, "Whosoever blas- 
phemeth the Son of Man it shall be forgiven him," had been left 
unchanged. The alteration in Mk. 3 28 to "All blasphemies 
shall be forgiven to the sons of men" is indispensable to Mark's 
conception, and hence was probably made for this reason. 

Have we, then, by establishing in this instance the originality 
in Q of the title Son of Man, established its authenticity as a 
title applied by Jesus to himself? On the contrary, the whole 
force of Jesus' argument depends upon the distinction between his 
own personality as on a level with other men's, and the superhuman 
dignity of "the Spirit of God." In other words, the term Son 
of Man is used here not in the transcendental sense of apocalypse, 
but in the ordinary Old Testament sense of an every-day mortal 
as contrasted with God. The article, if the article was used 
in Jesus' utterance, would have to be understood as generic, — 
in German, die Ldsterung gegen den Menschen wird vergeben, which 
in English must be rendered: "Blasphemy against a man can be 
forgiven." This, by all the evidence of context, is the real mean- 
ing of Jesus' saying. If there is application of a special title to 
Jesus himself in the passage of Q, it is not meant by Jesus, but 
is the importation of the compiler himself. 

(3) The only other occurrences of the title Son of Man in Q 
stand in a single context, and unquestionably refer to the apoca- 
lyptic figure of the transcendental, Danielic, Deliverer. We 
give the passage in Harnack's reconstruction (No. 56) : 

If, then, they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the wilderness, go 
not forth; behold, he is in his chambers, believe it not. For as the light- 
ning goeth forth from the east and shineth unto the west, so shall be the 
Coming of the Son of Man; wheresoever the carcase is, there will the 
vultures be gathered. 

As were the days of Noah, so shall be the Coming of the Son of Man. 
For as men were in the days before the cataclysm, eating and drinking, 
marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into 


the ark, and knew not until the cataclysm came and swept them all away, 
so shall be the Coming of the Son of Man. 

There will be two in the field; one shall be taken and one left. Two 
women shall be grinding at the mill; one shall be taken and one left. 

If there is any real ground in Q for regarding the title Son of 
Man as a "self-designation of Jesus," it must be found in these 
three connected occurrences of the phrase "the Coming of the 
Son of Man." Did Jesus mean by it his own return in glory; 
or did he refer to the Executioner of the divine judgment of whom 
John the Baptist had sounded the warning? 

The general bearing of the teaching here in question is the same 
as of the apocalyptic chapter of Mark, into which parallel utter- 
ances have been taken up. Jesus deprecates resort to the casters 
of horoscopes and calculators of the end of the world and of the 
coming judgment. Vain and futile are their predictions. The 
coming of the Son of Man is a great divine event, comparable 
only to the mighty judgments visited on the earth in the days of 
Noah, or on the cities of the Plain in the days of Lot. What 
Old Testament writers refer to as the Day of Yahweh is now 
spoken of as the day of the coming of the Son of Man. We 
must certainly allow for the effecting in popular usage of an 
equivalence between the transcendental figure of Daniel (with 
the more recent apocalypses dependent on it) and the Coming 
One of John the Baptist. But there is no indication whatever 
that the equivalence, "Jesus is the Son of Man," had entered the 
mind of the speaker in the above discourse, or indeed any mind 
previous to that of the compiler of the Sayings. Until it can be 
shown (1) that Jesus regarded himself as the Messiah; (2) that 
he also considered this office to involve his return as executioner 
of the divine judgment in the coming of the Son of Man, the 
passage — the only one in which we have reason to think Jesus 
employed the title as applying to a transcendental figure — re- 
mains utterly without force to prove the contention in support 
of which it is adduced. The real evidence that Jesus entertained 
the fantastic dreams of apocalypse as applying to his own per- 
sonality in a resurrected state thus reduces itself to nothing. 
There is evidence in plenty that the compiler of Q in the form 
employed by our evangelists had adopted the equivalence, "Jesus 


is the Son of Man," and made no scruple of occasionally substi- 
tuting the title for the personal pronoun where it seemed to him 
appropriate. There is here a possible explanation of the prac- 
tice which has spread to all the gospels. There is no adequate 
evidence that Jesus ever applied the title to himself. 

We have two possible criteria to determine whether this pos- 
sible explanation of the spread of the usage is also the true one. 
(1) Mark, if at all dependent on Q, is admittedly so in a differ- 
ent sense and to a less degree than Matthew or Luke. We should 
expect, then, to find the title Son of Man less at home (so to 
speak) in Mark than in Q. (2) In Acts, especially in the speeches 
of Peter, we have by common consent a very early type of chris- 
tology, if indeed we have not traces of a type of evangelic tra- 
dition wholly unaffected by Q. Let us briefly consider these 
two criteria. 

(1) The facts regarding the Markan employment of the title 
are briefly summarized on p. xxxviii of the introduction to my 
commentary entitled Beginnings of Gospel Story, as follows: 
"The title Son of Man does not appear to characterize the funda- 
mental elements of Mark (P). It occurs in editorial supplements 
derived from Q, and even then in an adapted sense." Space 
limitations of course preclude the citation here of the evidence 
on which this statement is made, but a reference to the individ- 
ual instances as discussed in the volume quoted will suffice. The 
title does not appear from these to be indigenous to Mark, but 
an exotic. It occurs only in passages where there is independent 
evidence of the influence of Q. 

(2) There is no occurrence of the title Son of Man throughout 
the Petrine speeches of Acts, though these are so largely con- 
cerned with the doctrine of Christ's humiliation and exaltation. 
As is well known, its only occurrence in the New Testament 
outside the four gospels is in the Speech of Stephen, Acts 7 56, 
recognized by Harnack and many others as derived from a differ- 
ent source. Even here it is not the words of the speech itself, 
but of its reporter, which suggest the equivalence, "The Son of 
Man is Jesus." On the theory that this was "the favorite self- 
designation of Jesus" the striking fact of its complete absence 
from the speeches of Peter in Acts remains as inexplicable as the 
equally unbroken silence of Paul. 


We have reached the conclusion of our examination of the 
data. A just valuation of all the documentary evidence will 
at least compel us to admit a large discount from its prima fade 
impression. The alleged consensus of witnesses may easily 
reduce itself to the testimony of one, and the evidence of this 
one, the compiler of Q, is not altogether consistent with his own 
material or with the indirect evidence of others. Against it 
stands the incongruity of the conception with other teachings 
of Jesus, and the case with which the enthusiastic apocalypti- 
cism of the early church might pass from certain sayings about 
the "Coming of the Son of Man" to the equivalence, "Jesus him- 
self is the coming Son of Man." The preponderance of evidence 
would seem to incline toward an origin for this equivalence not 
in the sane and sober mind of Jesus, but in the exalted and vision- 
ary expectations of a church on fire with momentary expecta- 
tions of the end.