(xxxii) b-d. The difference between åpvíov and åμvós (xxxiv)—(xxxvi) § 12. The Gnostics, Ignatius, and Barnabas (xxxvii)-(xli) § 13. Justin, Irenæus, and Tertullian NOTE II THE SELF-MANIFESTATIONS OF CHRIST [2999 (i)—(xvii)] (iv)-(v) § 3. "Going to meet," "going before," and "drawing near (vi) § 4. Different words employed by the Evangelists (vii)—(viii) § 5. Matthew's unique use of “anticipate" (ix)-(x) § 6. Matthew's account of Peter's "fishing" illustrated from John (xi) 7. Different symbolisms of "fish" (xii)-(xvii) § 8. The original meaning of the story of "the stater" (xvii) a-o. The "reclothing" of Peter NOTE I "THE SON OF MAN" § 1. Importance of the Title [2998 (i)] This title is applied by our Lord to Himself in all the gospels. But it has been divergently explained from very early times. The divergence may cause a corresponding divergence in estimates of Christ's doctrine. For example, some have considered that it implied a claim to be the Messiah; others, that it implied an identification of Himself with ordinary mankind; and it has been already indicated (Apologia p. 62) that very early patristic interpretation favoured the view that aveρwπos, "man"--which might mean "human being," male or female-meant, in this phrase, the female parent, so that "Son of man meant Son of the Virgin Mary." The task of throwing light on Christ's meaning by a comparison of evangelistic passages must be deferred to The Fourfold Gospel (Index, "Son of Man"). But evidence will be collected here bearing on the use of it in (1) Biblical Hebrew, (2) Jewish and Aramaic, (3) Early Christian writings. (4) An attempt will also be made to deduce from the facts here collected an inference as to the fundamental thought of the Law and the Prophets on which Christ based His adoption of this title. §2. Deficiency in Aramaic " in [2998 (ii)] The regular Biblical Hebrew for "man "son of man" is adam, regularly rendered aveρwπos, corresponding to homo. Hebrew has other words to express "man,” e.g. ish, regularly rendered ȧvýp, corresponding to vir. "Adam" dropped out of Aramaic except as meaning the patriarch. This placed Aramaic at a disadvantage with Hebrew because the former could not distinguish so well as Hebrew could, between "homo" and "vir," av@pwTos and ávýp (Germ. "Mensch" and "Mann"). In English and French we are under the same disadvantage. The distinction is regularly recognised in the LXX, which (with a few exceptions in Proverbs) may be almost said never to use ảvýp to represent adam, whereas it uses výp to represent ish, the Hebrew "vir," many hundreds of times. This deficiency in Aramaic forces us to rely less on the precise Aramaic words in which Jesus may have called Himself "Son of man," and more on the context and circumstances in which He gave Himself this title. But still more must we rely on the thought as distinct from the words-set forth in the best Biblical writings, and especially those parts of the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, from which our Lord quotes. Another reason for laying stress on the thought rather than the words is, that we have very little knowledge of the exact kind of Aramaic used in Galilee in I-30 A.D. It was probably very different from that of the later Targums composed four or five centuries afterwards. |