Perhaps it is foolhardy at present to attempt to understand what the first evangelist means when he uses the term Ό υίòς το άνωρώπου. Scholars are divided about the significance of the term both in Jewish eschatological speculation and as an Aramaic idiom. They are divided over the contribution of Jesus and of the early church to the Son of man sayings in the synoptics. Did Jesus preach about a future Son of man who would play a role in the eschatological drama and the church identify Jesus with that figure? Did Jesus use an Aramaic idiom which was misunderstood by a church interpreting their experience of the resurrection in the light of Daniel 7? Is ‘the Son of man’ a title, and is it a Christological title or a symbol for the saints? It is not surprising that articles are appearing with titles like: Can the Son of man problem be solved?

In a previous article, ‘Synoptic Parousia Parables and the Apocalypse’, I discussed certain features of the tradition-history of three parousia parables: the Thief (Matt. 24. 43 f. par. Luke 12. 39 f.; Gosp. Thomas 21 b, 103), the Watching Servants (Luke 12. 35–38; cf. Matt. 24. 42; Mark 13. 33–37;Gosp. Thomas 21 b, 103), and the Servant in Authority (Matt. 24. 45–51 par. Luke 12. 42–48). In the cases of the Thief and the Watching Servants, there is remarkably good evidence outside the Gospels for the popularity of these parables in the early church (1 Thess. 5. 2; 2 Pet. 3. 10; Rev. 3. 3, 20; 16. 15; Did. 16. 1), and on the basis of this evidence, as well as the Gospels, I suggested that the forms in which these parables and allusions to them occur can best be explained by a process of ‘deparabolization’, in which the narrative form of a parable is partly or wholly replaced by more direct application of the imagery of the parable to the hearers or readers, as metaphor or simile. Both because of their extensive use in early Christian paraenesis and because of their amenable subject-matter, the parables of 130 the Thief and, especially, the Watching Servants were subject to considerable deparabolization.

The problem of whether the meal conducted by Jesus (Mt. 26. 17–30: Mk. 14. 12–26; Lk. 22. 7–22; Jn. 13), was a Passover Seder is a matter of long-standing discussion and need not be entered into or documented here.1 What deserves further attention, however, is the light shed on this question by 1 Cor. 10. 16, which was recently considered in the pages of this journal.2 In this discussion the author cites the view of others that the cup of Mt. 26. 27 refers to the cup of blessing accompanying the Grace After Meals, birkhat hamazon, or in terms of the cup-sequence of the Passover Seder, the third cup.3 The author further indicates that the same scholars generally view ‘the cup of blessing’ at 1 Cor. 10. 16, to be the kosshel berakhah, and take this term to be a technical one that refers to the cup of thanksgiving for food, birkhat hamazon, or again, the third cup of the Passover Seder. Cohn-Sherbok argues, however, that Mt. 26. 27 refers to the fourth cup of the Seder, which accompanies the birkhat hashir, the blessing of song, which comes at the end of Hallel (M. Pes. 10. 7; B. Pes. 118 a).4 Finally, in discussing Paul's phrase, to poterion tes eulogias (1 Cor. 10. 16), Cohn-Sherbok argues that it need not refer to any particular cup of the Seder, and might mean generally a cup consecrated by Jesus.5 16, to be the kosshel berakhah, and take this term to be a technical one that refers to the cup of thanksgiving for food, birkhat hamazon, or again, the third cup of the Passover Seder. Cohn-Sherbok argues, however, that Mt. 26. 27 refers to the fourth cup of the Seder, which accompanies the birkhat hashir, the blessing of song, which comes at the end of Hallel (M. Pes. 10. 7; B. Pes. 118 a).4 Finally, in discussing Paul's phrase, to poterion tes eulogias (1 Cor. 10. 16), Cohn-Sherbok argues that it need not refer to any particular cup of the Seder, and might mean generally a cup consecrated by Jesus.5

The short study by G. J. Cuming in the January, 1981, issue of New Testament Studies, pp. 283–5, has raised again the question of the interpretation of the verb iiroriadrjuev in 1 Cor. 12. 13. Along with most modern commentators Cuming rejects a reference to the Lord's Supper and finds instead a reference to the rite of baptism administered by affusion

In NTS 25/4 (1979), pp. 523–525 John W. Wenham attempts to unravel the formerly obscure variants in Mark 14. 30, 68 and 72. With the use of common sense, and a detective skill with the traces of alternative readings, he finds that the shorter readings are right. At verse 30 one should understand ‘before the cock crows, thou shalt deny me thrice’; at verse 68 no reference to the cock should appear; and at verse 72 we read ‘and the cock crew’ and ‘before the cock crows, thou shalt deny me thrice’. This is, after all, what St John says.