[1] For the suggestion that the Synoptic Problem may finally be insoluble, see, e.g. Walker, William O. Jr, ‘An Unexamined Presupposition in Studies of the Synoptic Problem’, Religion in Life, 48 (1979), 41–52, esp. 41–2Google Scholar, and other literature there cited.

[2] Reginald Fuller, H., ‘The Synoptic Problem: After Ten Years’, Perkins Journal, 28 (1975), 67Google Scholar; cf., e.g. Fee, Gordon D., ‘Modern Text Criticism and the Synoptic Problem’, in J. J. Griesbach: Synoptic and Text-Critical Studies 1776–1976, ed. Orchard, Bernard and Longstaff, Thomas R. W. (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1978), p. 161Google Scholar, who expresses the same view (cf. also pp. 167–9). For a ‘negative’ application of this approach, see Talbert, Charles H. and McKnight, Edgar V., ‘Can the Griesbach Hypothesis Be Falsified?’, Journal of Biblical Literature, 91 (1972), 338–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Buchanan, George W., ‘Has the Griesbach Hypothesis Been Falsified?’, Journal of Biblical Literature, 93 (1974), 550–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[3] Cf. Fuller, , ‘The Synoptic Problem’, p. 67: ‘We must even be prepared to find them [i.e., the ‘direction indicators’] working in opposite directions…’Google Scholar

[4] Farmer, William R., ‘Basic Affirmation with Some Demurrals: A Response to Roland Mushat Frye’, in The Relationships Among the Gospels: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue, ed. Walker, William O. Jr (San Antonio: Trinity University, 1978), p. 310Google Scholar; for the same view, see, e.g. Orchard, J. B., ‘J. A. T. Robinson and the Synoptic Problem’, New Testament Studies, 22 (1976), 346–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Farmer, himself, has tended to emphasize the ‘compositional and redactional factors’; see, e.g. his ‘Redaction Criticism and the Synoptic Problem’, in The Society of Biblical Literature One Hundred Seventh Annual Meeting Seminar Papers (Society of Biblical Literature, 1971), vol. 1, pp. 239–50)Google Scholar. For a recent consideration of ‘the argument from order’, see, e.g., Tyson, Joseph B., ‘Sequential Parallelism in the Synoptic Gospels’, New Testament Studies, 22 (1976), 276–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a provocative treatment of ‘the weight of external evidence’, see Kennedy, George, ‘Classical and Christian Source Criticism’, in The Relationships Among the Gospels, ed. Walker, , esp. pp. 147–52.Google Scholar

[5] It is instructive at this point to note that Fuller is much less confident than is Farmer regarding the possibility of finally solving the Synoptic Problem; see, e.g., Walker, William O. Jr, ‘Introduction: The Colloquy on the Relationships among the Gospels’, in The Relationships Among the Gospels, ed. Walker, , p. 12.Google Scholar

[6] It is not necessarily true, of course, that literary developments in the early church paralleled historical developments in every case (e.g. a relatively late document may well reflect a much earlier stage of historical development, or the same document may reflect more than one stage of historical development); nevertheless, it must surely be granted that, all other things being equal, a source theory that does parallel the most probable course of historical development would be more plausible than one that did not.

[7] If such should, in fact, prove to be the case, the evidence would thereby be strengthened for a more complex relationship among the Synoptic Gospels than is generally assumed, and this more complex relationship would likely include some degree of ‘cross-fertilization’ among the gospels; on this, see, e.g. Fuller, Reginald H., ‘Classics and the Gospels: The Seminar’, in The Relationships Among the Gospels, ed. Walker, , pp. 173–6.Google Scholar

[8] M. Eugene Boring has suggested that, in proposing this new approach to the Synoptic Problem, I am actually proposing two different approaches, each of which may be helpful, but which might better be kept separate: one approach is to study a series of discrete sayings in the tradition, each containing a particular vocabulary; the other approach is to study a theme or motif in the tradition, not bound to a set of sayings containing a particular vocabulary. I find Boring's distinction helpful, but, at least for the moment, I prefer to treat the two as sub-categories under the general heading, ‘thematic’ or ‘motif by motif’ approach.

[9] On November 18, 1978, during the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in New Orleans, Louisiana, the late Samuel Sandmel suggested that the subject of Christian attitudes toward Judaism and Jews might fruitfully be explored in this way.

[10] The literature on the subject is massive. For two excellent recent bibliographies, see Casey, Maurice, Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7 (London: SPCK, 1979), pp. 241–59Google Scholar; and Higgins, A. J. B., The Son of Man in the Teaching of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1980), pp. 159–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[11] The most recent book on the subject, for example, does not accept any of these developments as valid; see Higgins, The Son of Man in the Teaching of Jesus. Nevertheless, there appears to be a growing consensus supporting at least some of the developments, and it is my own judgment that cogent arguments can be made for all of them.

[12] See, e.g. Perrin, Norman, ‘The Son of Man in Ancient Judaism and Primitive Christianity: A Suggestion’, Biblical Research, 11 (1966), 17–28Google Scholar, reprinted with a ‘Postscript’ in his A Modern Pilgrimage in New Testament Christology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), pp. 23–30Google Scholar; and Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (New York: Harper & Row, 1967), pp. 164–75Google Scholar; Vermes, Geza, ‘Appendix E: The Use of in Jewish Aramaic’, in Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (3rd ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1967), pp. 310–30Google Scholar; and Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels (London: Collins, 1973), pp. 160–91Google Scholar; Leivestad, Ragnar, ‘Der apokalyptische Menschensohn: Ein theologisches Phantom’, Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute, 6 (1968), 49–105Google Scholar; and ‘Exit the Apocalyptic Son of Man’, New Testament Studies, 18 (1972), 243–67Google Scholar; and Casey, , Son of Man, esp. pp. 7–141.Google Scholar

[13] See, e.g. Vielhauer, Philipp, ‘Gottesreich und Menschensohn in der Verkündigung Jesu’, in Festschrift für Günther Dehn zum 75. Geburtstag am 18. April dargebracht, ed. Schneemelcher, Wilhelm (Neukirchen: Erziehungsvereins, 1957), pp. 51–79Google Scholar; ‘Jesus und der Menschensohn. Zur Diskussion mit Heinz Eduard Tödt und Eduard Schweizer’, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, 60 (1963), 133–77Google Scholar; and ‘Ein Weg der neutestamentlichen Theologie? Prüfung der Thesen Ferdinand Hahns’, Evangelische Theologie, 25 (1965), 24–72, esp. 26–8Google Scholar; all of these reprinted in his Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament (München: Chr. Kaiser, 1965), pp. 55–91, 92–140, and 141–98 (esp. 145–60), respectivelyGoogle Scholar. Cf. also, e.g. Käsemann, Ernst, ‘Sentences of Holy Law in the New Testament’, ‘The Beginnings of Christian Theology’, and ‘On the Subject of Primitive Christian Apocalyptic’, in his New Testament Questions of Today (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), pp. 66–81, 82–107, and 108–37, respectivelyGoogle Scholar; Conzelmann, Hans, ‘Present and Future in the Synoptic Tradition’, in God and Christ: Existence and Providence, ed. Funk, Robert W. (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck] and New York: Harper & Row, 1968), pp. 26–44Google Scholar; and Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973), pp. 43–6Google Scholar; and Teeple, Howard M., ‘The Origin of the Son of Man Christology’, Journal of Biblical Literature, 84 (1955), 216–23Google Scholar. See also Perrin, , ‘Mark XIV.62: The End Product of A Christian Pesher Tradition?’, New Testament Studies, 12 (1966), 150–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘The Son of Man in Ancient Judaism and Primitive Christianity’; ‘The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition’, Biblical Research, 13 (1968), 3–25Google Scholar; all of which, together with other essays, introductory and concluding chapters, and ‘Postscripts’ to some of the essays, are included in his A Modern Pilgrimage in New Testament Christology, pp. 10–18, 23–36, and 57–83, respectivelyGoogle Scholar; and Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, pp. 164–99.Google Scholar

For a somewhat different line of approach, leading to similar conclusions, see, e.g. Vermes, , Jesus the Jew, esp. pp. 177–86Google Scholar; and Casey, , Son of Man, esp. pp. 157–240.Google Scholar

[14] See esp. the works by Perrin cited in n. 13 above; Walker, William O. Jr, ‘The Origin of the Son of Man Concept As Applied to Jesus’, Journal of Biblical Literature, 91 (1972), 482–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar, reprinted in The Bible in Its Literary Milieu: Contemporary Essays, ed. Tollers, Vincent L. and Maier, John R. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), pp. 156–65Google Scholar; Perrin, , ‘Postscript’ to ‘Mark 14:62’, in A Modern Pilgrimage in New Testament Christology, pp. 19, 21–2Google Scholar; and ‘Son of Man’, in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, supplementary vol., ed. Crim, Keith et al. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976), p. 835.Google Scholar

[15] This proposition is based largely upon the view that the earliest use of Son of Man as a title and the earliest form of the concept associated with it originated as the product of a pesher-type combination of Psalm 110. 1 and Daniel 7. 13 (with Psalm 8 serving as the link between the two), as worked out in the literature cited in n. 14 above. There are other scholars, however, who do not share this view of the origin of the Son of Man christology, who, nevertheless, agree that the Son of Man title and concept, as such, were originally eschatological in nature; see, e.g. Tödt, H. E., The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965), pp. 224–31Google Scholar, who regards the eschatological Son of Man sayings as the oldest of the Son of Man materials but believes that some (which do not refer directly to Daniel 7. 13) are authentic sayings of Jesus; and Vermes and Casey (see their works cited in n. 12 above), who regard some of the earlier, non-eschatological, Son of Man sayings as authentic sayings of Jesus but argue that these, in their original form, did not involve the titular use of Son of Man or the concept associated with it.

[16] This proposition is based upon three considerations: (1) The third proposition above implies at least two stages in the exegetical process that produced the Son of Man christology prior to the actual appearance of that christology. (2) Other research suggests that there were still more stages in the process; see, e.g. Boers, Hendrikus W., ‘Psalm 16 and the Historical Origin of the Christian Faith’, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 60 (1969), 106–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and ‘Where Christology Is Real: A Survey of Recent Research on New Testament Christology’, Interpretation, 26 (1972), 310–12Google Scholar; Perrin, , ‘Postscript’, pp. 19–21Google Scholar; and ‘Son of Man’, pp. 834–5Google Scholar; Walker, Wm. O. Jr, ‘Christian Origins and Resurrection Faith’, The Journal of Religion, 52 (1972), 52–5Google Scholar; Robinson, John A. T., ‘The Most Primitive Christology of All?’, Journal of Theological Studies, n.s. 7 (1956), 177–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar, reprinted in his Twelve New Testament Studies (Naperville: Ailenson, 1962), pp. 139–53Google Scholar; Hahn, Ferdinand, The Titles of Jesus in Christology: Their History in Early Christianity (London: Lutterworth, 1969), pp. 129–35Google Scholar; and Fuller, Reginald H., The Foundations of New Testament Christology (New York: Scribner's, 1965), esp. pp. 184–6Google Scholar. (3) There is evidence that the final stage of the process – the stage that actually produced the Son of Man christology on the basis of Daniel 7. 13 – could have occurred only on the basis of the Greek, not the Hebrew (or the Aramaic), text of the Jewish Scriptures; see Walker, , ‘The Origin of the Son of Man Concept As Applied to Jesus’, p. 489Google Scholar; cf., e.g. Teeple, , ‘The Origin of the Son of Man Christology’, pp. 238, 247–50.Google Scholar

[17] For a survey of the data, see, e.g. Colpe, Carsten, ‘⋯ υί⋯ς τού ⋯νθρώπου’, in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 8, ed. Friedrich, Gerhard (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), pp. 461–4, 470–7Google Scholar. For the view that the Son of Man christology is absent from the letters of Paul, see, e.g. Fuller, , The Foundations of New Testament Christology, pp. 233–4Google Scholar; Cf. Hahn, , The Titles of Jesus in Christology, p. 20Google Scholar; Boers, , ‘Where Christology Is Real’, p. 312Google Scholar; and Lindars, Barnabas, ‘ReEnter the Apocalyptic Son of Man’, New Testament Studies, 22 (1975), esp. 62, n. 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[18] Mark 2. 10, 28; 8. 31, 38; 9. 9, 12, 31; 10. 33, 45; 13. 26; 14. 21a, 21b, 41, 62.

[19] Mark 8. 38; 13. 26; 14. 62.

[20] Mark 2. 10, 28.

[21] Mark 8. 31; 9. 9, 12, 31; 10. 33, 45; 14. 21a, 21b, 41.

[22] Mark 2. 10/Matthew 9. 6;Mark 2. 28/Matthew 12. 8; Mark 8. 38/Matthew 16. 27; Mark 9. 9/ Matthew 17. 9; Mark 9. 12/Matthew 17. 12; Mark 9. 31/Matthew 17. 22; Mark 10. 33/Matthew 20. 18; Mark 10. 45/Matthew 20. 28; Mark 13. 26/Matthew 24. 30b; Mark 14. 21a/Matthew 26. 24a; Mark 14. 21b/Matthew 26. 24b; Mark 14. 41/Matthew 26. 45; Mark 14. 62/Matthew 26. 64. It is true that Mark 8. 31 has ‘Son of Man’, while the parallel, Matthew 16. 21 has the third-person personal pronoun, but Matthew does take over the Markan pericope (Mark 8. 27–33/Matthew 16. 13–23), changing Mark's ‘Son of Man’ to ‘him’, probably because he has already, unlike Mark (and Luke), introduced the title at the beginning of his pericope (Matthew 16. 13; cf. Mark 8. 27/Luke 9. 18) and simply does not wish to repeat the title in the same pericope.

[23] Mark 2. 10/Luke 5. 24;Mark 2. 28/Luke 6. 5; Mark 8. 31/Luke 9. 22; Mark 8. 38/Luke 9. 26; Mark 9. 31/Luke 9. 44; Mark 10. 33/Luke 18. 31; Mark 13. 26/Luke 21. 27; Mark 14. 21a/Luke 22. 22a; Mark 14. 62/Luke 22. 69. In one instance, Luke has simply avoided a redundant second reference to Son of Man in the same verse (Luke 22. 22b; cf. Mark 14. 21b/Matthew 26. 24b), and he has omitted one entire Markan pericope that contains two Son of Man references (Mark 9. 9–13/ Matthew 17. 9–13). Where Mark's ‘Son of Man’ is missing from Luke, in every case except one (Mark 14. 21b/Matthew 26. 24b/Luke 22. 22b; see above), either the entire Markan pericope is absent from Luke (Mark 9. 9–13/Matthew 17. 9–13; Mark 10. 35–45/Matthew 20. 20–28/cf. Luke 22. 24–27, which is a rather different version of the entire pericope) or the section of the pericope containing the Son of Man reference is absent from Luke (Mark 14. 39–42/Matthew 26. 42–46).

[24] Mark 9. 9/Matthew 17. 9; Mark 9. 12/Matthew 17. 12; Mark 10. 45/Matthew 20. 28; Mark 14. 21bfMatthew 26. 24b; Mark 14. 41/Matthew 26. 45.

[25] See, e.g. Kümmel, Werner George, Introduction to the New Testament (rev. ed.; Nashville and New York: Abingdon, 1975), p. 70.Google Scholar

[26] The eight are Matthew 8. 20/Luke 9. 58; Matthew 11. 19/Luke 7. 34; Matthew 12. 32/Luke 12. 10; Matthew 12. 40/Luke 11. 30; Matthew 24. 27/Luke 17. 24; Matthew 24. 37/Luke 17. 26; Matthew 24. 39/Luke 17. 30; Matthew 24. 44/Luke 12. 40 (some manuscripts also include Matthew 18. 11/Luke 19. 10). In addition, there are two Lukan Son of Man sayings (Luke 6. 22; 12. 8) where the Matthean parallels (Matthew 5. 11; 10. 32) have the first-person personal pronoun; these passages almost certainly come from Q, and it would appear more likely that Matthew has removed the title than that Luke has added it. Note also, however, that Matthew 10. 32/Luke 12. 8 has a partial parallel, including the Son of Man reference, in Mark 8. 38/Luke 9. 25/cf. Matthew 16. 27 and thus may reflect some degree of Markan influence.

[27] The five are Matthew 24. 27/Luke 17. 24; Matthew 24. 37/Luke 17. 26; Matthew 24. 39/Luke 17. 30; Matthew 24. 44/Luke 12. 40; Luke 12. 8/cf. Matthew 10. 32. In addition, while it is true that Matthew 12. 40 refers to the death and resurrection of the Son of Man, with little, if any, direct eschatological content, its Lukan parallel (11. 30) has no reference to death and resurrection and probably should be regarded as eschatological in its thrust. Furthermore, the pericope, Matthew 12. 38–42, begins with a request for a sign, refers to the sign of Jonah as the only sign that will be given, suggests that Jonah's three days and three nights in the whale was this sign, compares it to the death and resurrection of the Son of Man, and then points to the eschatological judgment; in Matthew 24. 30a, ‘the sign of the Son of Man’, which is clearly an eschatological phenomenon, may refer to the same idea. Thus, it would appear that Matthew has transformed an originally esehatological Son of Man saying into a reference to the death and resurrection of the Son of Man.

[28] Matthew 8. 20/Luke 9. 58; Matthew 11. 19/Luke 7. 34; Matthew 12. 32/Luke 12. 10; Luke 6. 22/cf. Matthew 5. 11.

[29] Cf. n. 27 above on Matthew 12. 40/Luke 11. 30.

[30] Matthew 10. 23; 13. 37, 41; 16. 13, 28; 19. 28; 24. 30a; 25. 31; 26. 2.

[31] Matthew 10. 23; 13. 41; 16. 28; 19. 28; 24. 30a;25. 31. Note that 16.28 and 24. 30a both represent insertions of Son of Man references into otherwise Markan material (cf. Mark 9. 1/Luke 9. 27; Mark 13. 26/Luke 21. 27). Note, too, that 19. 28 has a partial parallel, but without ‘Son of Man’, in Luke 22. 28–30; thus, it is possible that Matthew has introduced the title into or, more likely, that Luke has omitted it from Q material. The other three eschatological Son of Man references are in pericopes that are unique to Matthew.

[32] Matthew 13. 37; 16. 13. Note, however, that the former is followed almost immediately in the same pericope by an eschatological Son of Man reference (16. 41); note, too, that the latter simply substitutes ‘Son of Man’ for ‘me’ in a Markan pericope (cf. Mark 8. 27/Luke 9. 18).

[33] Matthew 26. 2; there is a partial parallel (with ‘Son of Man’) in Mark 14. 1/Luke 22. 1 and close affinities in Mark 8. 31/Matthew 16. 21/Luke 9. 22; Mark 9. 31/Matthew 17. 22/Luke 9. 44; Mark 10. 33/Matthew 20. 18/Luke 18. 31; cf. also Luke 24. 7.

[34] Luke 17. 22; 18. 8; 19. 10; 21. 36; 22. 48; 24. 7.

[35] Luke 17. 22; 18. 8; 21. 36. Note that 17. 22 connects material unique to Luke (17. 7–21) with Q material (Matthew 24. 26–28/Luke 17. 23–24), which also includes a Son of Man saying. The other two eschatological Son of Man references are in pericopes that are unique to Luke.

[36] Luke 22. 48; 24. 7. The former has a distant parallel, without ‘Son of Man’, in Matthew 26. 50 and thus may derive, at least in part, from Q. Probably more significant, however, is the fact that both Mark (14. 41) and Matthew (26. 45), but not Luke, have a similar reference to Son of Man earlier in the same pericope, suggesting that ‘Son of Man’ in Luke 22. 48 may well be a misplaced Markan reference. It is also true that Luke 22. 48 is part of Luke's Passion Narrative, which many scholars believe to be based, at least in part, on a source other than the Markan Passion Narrative; see, e.g. Taylor, Vincent, The Passion Narrative of St Luke: A Critical and Historical Investigation, ed. Evans, O. E. (New York and London: Cambridge University, 1972)Google Scholar. This suggests possibility of yet another source containing Son of Man material. The second passage, Luke 24. 7, has close parallels in Markan material (Mark 8. 31/Luke 9. 22/cf. Matthew 16. 21; Mark 9. 31/Matthew 17. 22/Luke 9.44; Mark 10. 33/Matthew 20. 18/Luke 18. 31; cf. also Matthew 26. 2).

[37] Luke 19. 10. Note that, while the pericope, Luke 19. 1–10, is unique to Luke, some manuscripts include a parallel to the Son of Man reference at Matthew 18. 11.

[38] Special Matthew and Special Luke are probably not to be regarded as single sources; see, e.g. Kümmel, , Introduction to the New Testament, p. 76Google Scholar. It is quite possible, of course, that all of the non-Markan Son of Man sayings come from Q but that some were omitted by either Matthew or Luke, in which case the Son of Man materials derive from only two sources, Mark and Q.

[39] In Mark, sixty-four percent (9) of the sayings are of this type, twenty-one percent (3) are eschatological, and fourteen percent (2) refer to present authority.

[40] See, e.g. Kümmel, , Introduction to the New Testament, p. 76.Google Scholar

[41] It is possible, of course, that this apparent development is misleading and that Matthew and Luke were simply using another source or sources earlier in date than Mark, but the fact nevertheless remains that, according to the Two-Source Hypothesis, the later gospels reflect, in large measure, an eschatological Son of Man christology, while the earliest gospel presents primarily a suffering Son of Man christology.

[42] Matthew 8. 20; 9. 6; 10. 23; 11. 19; 12. 8, 32, 40; 13. 37, 41; 16. 13, 27, 28; 17. 9, 12, 22; 19. 28; 20. 18, 28; 24. 27, 30a, 30b, 37, 39, 44; 25. 31; 26. 2, 24a, 24b, 45, 64.

[43] Matthew 10. 23; 13. 41; 16. 27, 28; 19. 28; 24. 27, 30a, 30b, 37, 39, 44; 25. 31; 26. 64; indeed, ten of the thirteen refer explicitly to the ‘coming’ (ἔρχεσθαι or παρουσ⋯α) of the Son of Man (10. 23; 16. 27, 28; 24. 27, 30b, 37, 39, 44; 25. 31; 26. 64), with two others speaking either of his kingdom (13. 41) or of his sitting on a throne (19. 28; both his ‘sitting’ and his ‘coming’ are present in 26. 64).

[44] On Matthew 12. 40, see n. 27 above.

[45] The nine are Matthew 17. 9, 12, 22; 20. 18, 28; 26. 2, 24a, 24b, 45. On 12. 40, see n. 27 above.

[46] Matthew 8. 20; 9. 6; 11. 19; 12. 8, 32; 13. 37; 16. 13.

[47] The sixteen are Matthew 8. 20/Luke 9. 58; Matthew 9. 6/Luke 5. 24; Matthew 11. 19/Luke 7. 34; Matthew 12. 8/Luke 6. 5; Matthew 12. 32/Luke 12. 10; Matthew 12. 40/Luke 11. 30; Matthew 16. 27/Luke 9. 26; Matthew 17. 22/Luke 9. 44; Matthew 20. 18/Luke 18. 31; Matthew 24. 27/Luke 17. 24; Matthew 24. 30b/Luke 21. 27; Matthew 24. 37/Luke 17. 26; Matthew 24. 39/Luke 17. 30; Matthew 24. 44/Luke 12. 40; Matthew 26. 24a/Luke 22. 22a; Matthew 26. 64/Luke 22. 69. Two other Lukan Son of Man references are so reminiscent of Matthean Son of Man materials in other contexts as to suggest the possibility of dependence: Luke 19. 10 (cf. Matthew 20. 28/Mark 10. 45) and Luke 22. 48 (cf. Matthew 26. 45/Mark 14. 41 earlier in the same pericope). Note, too, that Luke takes over three Son of Man sayings from Matthew (or introduces very similar sayings) but drops the Son of Man title from the sayings (Matthew 16. 13/Luke 9. 18; Matthew 16. 28/Luke 9. 27; Matthew 19. 28/Luke 22. 29–30).

[48] Matthew 8. 20/Luke 9. 58; Matthew 9. 6/Luke 5. 24; Matthew 11. 19/Luke 7. 34; Matthew 12. 8/Luke 6. 5; Matthew 12. 32/Luke 12. 10. It is true that Luke does not include the Son of Man references from Matthew 13. 37 and 16. 13; the former, however, is part of a pericope (Matthew 13. 36–43) that, in its overall thrust, is eschatological rather than present and is omitted in its entirety by Luke, and, in the latter, Luke (like Mark) includes the saying but substitutes the first-person personal pronoun for ‘Son of Man’ (Luke 9. 18; cf. Mark 8. 27); note, however, that both Luke (9. 22) and Mark (8. 31) have ‘Son of Man’ a few verses later in the same passage, where Matthew (16. 21) has the first-person personal pronoun.

[49] Matthew 16. 27/Luke 9. 26; Matthew 24. 27/Luke 17. 24; Matthew 24. 30b/Luke 21. 27; Matthew 24. 37/Luke 17. 26; Matthew 24. 39/Luke 17. 30; Matthew 24. 44/Luke 12. 40; Matthew 26. 64/Luke 22. 69. On Matthew 12. 40/Luke 11. 30, seen. 27 above. Note that, in two additional instances, Luke has the saying (or a similar saying) but without the title (Matthew 16. 28/Luke 9. 27; Matthew 19. 28/Luke 22. 29–30.

[50] Matthew 17. 22/Luke 9. 44; Matthew 20. 18/Luke 18. 31; Matthew 26. 24a/Luke 22. 22a; in addition, Luke 19. 10 may well reflect Matthew 20. 28, Luke 22. 22b simply has the third-person personal pronoun in place of the redundant ‘Son of Man’ of Matthew 26. 24b, and Luke 22. 48 apparently is based upon Matthew 26. 45. On Matthew 12. 40/Luke 11. 30 (‘suffering’ in Matthew but eschatological in Luke), see n. 27 above.

[51] Luke 6. 22/Matthews. 11; Luke 9. 22 (cf. Mark 8. 31)/Matthew 16. 21; Luke 12. 8/Matthew 10. 32.

[52] Luke 17. 22; 18. 8; 21. 36. Three additional Son of Man sayings are not included as new Lukan material because they are so reminiscent of similar Matthean material in other contexts as to suggest dependence; the three are Luke 19. 10 (cf. Matthew 20. 28/Mark 10. 45); Luke 22. 48 (cf. Matthew 26. 45/Mark 14. 41 earlier in the same pericope); and Luke 24. 7 (cf. such passages as Matthew 16. 21/Mark 8. 31/Luke 9. 22; Matthew 17. 22–23/Mark 9. 31/Luke 9. 44b; Matthew 20. 18–19/Mark 10. 33–34/Luke 18. 31–33).

[53] Matthew 12. 40/Luke 11. 30; seen. 27 above.

[54] Luke 9. 18; cf. Matthew 16. 13.

[55] Matthew 9. 6/Luke 5. 24/Mark 2. 10; Matthew 12. 8/Luke 6. 5/Mark 2. 28; Matthew 16. 27/Luke 9. 26/Mark 8. 38; Matthew 17. 22/Luke 9. 44/Mark 9. 31; Matthew 20. 18/Luke 18. 31/Mark 10. 33; Matthew 24. 30b/Luke 21. 27/Mark 13. 26; Matthew 26. 24a/Luke 22. 22a/Mark 14. 21a; Matthew 26. 64/Luke 22. 69/Mark 14. 62. Note also the possibility that Luke 19. 10 is based upon Matthew 20. 28 (cf. Mark 10. 45) and Luke 22. 48 upon Matthew 26. 45 (cf. Mark 14. 41); see nn. 47 and 52 above.

[56] Matthew 16. 27/Luke 9. 26/Mark 8. 38; Matthew 24. 30b/Luke 21. 27/Mark 13. 26; Matthew 26. 64/Luke 22. 69/Mark 14. 62.

[57] Matthew 9. 6/Luke 5. 24/Mark 2. 10; Matthew 12. 8/Luke 6. 5/Mark 2. 28.

[58] Matthew 17. 22/Luke 9. 44/Mark 9. 31; Matthew 20. 18/Luke 18. 31/Mark 10. 33; Matthew 26. 24a/Luke 22. 22a/Mark 14. 21a. On Matthew 20. 28/Luke 19. 10/Mark 10. 45; Matthew 26. 45/Luke 22. 48/Mark 14. 41, see nn. 47 and 52 above.

[59] The three are Matthew 17. 9/Mark 9. 9; Matthew 17. 12/Mark 9. 12; Matthew 26. 24b/Mark 14. 21b. On Matthew 20. 28/Luke 19. 10/Mark 10. 45; Matthew 26. 45/Luke 22. 48/Mark 14. 41, see nn. 47 and 52 above.

[60] Luke 9. 22/Mark 8. 31; cf. Matthew 16. 21.

[61] Matthew 24. 27, 37, 44; Luke 17. 24, 26, 30 (three Son of Man references in the same immediate context).

[62] Matthew 8. 20/Luke 9. 58; Matthew 11. 19/Luke 7. 34; Matthew 12. 32/Luke 12. 10; Matthew 12. 40/Luke 11. 30; Matthew 24. 44/Luke 12. 40.

[63] Even if Luke has simply created his Son of Man Sondergut, perhaps on the basis of the Matthean Son of Man materials, this suggests a tendency on the part of a later writer to introduce new Son of Man sayings, which would appear to be contrary to the more likely tendency, implied by the six propositions formulated earlier in this paper regarding Son of Man, namely, the tendency to eliminate or change the Son of Man title where it was found in the source material.

[64] See, e.g. Kümmel, , Introduction to the New Testament, p. 76Google Scholar; cf. also, however, n. 63 above.

[65] It is possible, of course, that Luke was simply using another source or sources earlier in date than Matthew, but the fact nevertheless remains that, according to the Griesbach Hypothesis, the second gospel introduces eschatological Son of Man sayings not present in the first.

[66] Matthew 8. 20/Luke 9. 58; Matthew 9. 6/Luke 5. 24; Matthew 11. 19/Luke 7. 34; Matthew 12. 8/Luke 6. 5; Matthew 12. 32/Luke 12. 10; Matthew 12. 40/Luke 11. 30; Matthew 16. 27/Luke 9. 26; Matthew 17. 22/Luke 9. 44; Matthew 20. 18/Luke 18. 31; Matthew 24. 27/Luke 17. 24; Matthew 24. 30b/Luke 21. 27; Matthew 24. 37/Luke 17. 26; Matthew 24. 39/Luke 17. 30; Matthew 24. 44/Luke 12. 40; Matthew 26. 24a/Luke 22. 22a; Matthew 26. 64/Luke 22. 69.

[67] Matthew 16. 13; 26. 24b have Lukan parallels with the personal pronoun rather than the title (Luke 9. 18; 22. 22b); Matthew 16. 28; 19. 28; 20. 28; 26. 2 have Lukan parallels without the specific Son of Man reference (Luke 9. 27; 22. 29–30; 22. 27 but cf. also 19. 10; 22. 1); and Matthew 26. 45 has what appears to be a parallel (although in a different context) at Luke 22. 48.

[68] Luke 6. 22; 9. 22; 12. 8 have Matthean parallels with the personal pronoun rather than the title (Matthew 5. 11; 16. 21; 10. 32); Luke 17. 22 is in the midst of Q material; Luke 19. 10 is reminiscent of Matthew 20. 28; and Luke 22. 48; 24. 7 have what appear to be parallels (although in different contexts) at Matthew 26. 45 and Matthew 17. 22; 20. 18.

[69] The twenty-seven (allowing for some overlap among sayings in nn. 66, 67, and 68 above) are: Luke 6. 22/cf. Matthew 5. 11; Matthew 8. 20/Luke 9. 58; Matthew 9. 6/Luke 5. 24; Luke 12. 8/cf. Matthew 10. 32; Matthew 11. 19/Luke 7. 34; Matthew 12. 8/Luke 6. 5; Matthew 12. 32/Luke 12. 10; Matthew 12. 40/Luke 11. 30; Matthew 16. 13/cf. Luke 9. 18; Luke 9. 22/cf. Matthew 16. 21; Matthew 16. 27/Luke 9. 26; Matthew 16. 28/cf. Luke 9. 27; Matthew 17. 22/Luke 9. 44 and cf. Luke 24. 7; Matthew 19. 28/cf. Luke 22. 29–30; Matthew 20. 18/Luke 18. 31 and cf. Luke 24. 7; Matthew 20. 28/Luke 19. 10 and cf. Luke 22. 27; Luke 17. 22; Matthew 24. 27/Luke 17. 24; Matthew 24. 30b/Luke 21. 27; Matthew 24. 37/Luke 17. 26; Matthew 24. 39/Luke 17. 30; Matthew 24. 44/Luke 12. 40; Matthew 26. 2/cf. Luke 22. 1; Matthew 26. 24a/Luke 22. 22a; Matthew 26. 24b/cf. Luke 22. 22b; Matthew 26. 45/Luke 22. 48; Matthew 26. 64/Luke 22. 69.

[70] The eleven are Luke 12. 8/cf. Matthew 10. 32; Matthew 16. 27/Luke 9. 26; Matthew 16. 28/cf. Luke 9. 27; Matthew 19. 28/cf. Luke 22. 29–30; Luke 17. 22; Matthew 24. 27/Luke 17. 24; Matthew 24. 30b/Luke 21. 27; Matthew 24. 37/Luke 17. 26; Matthew 24. 39/Luke 17. 30; Matthew 24. 44/Luke 12. 40; Matthew 26. 64/Luke 22. 69. Initially, Matthew 12. 40 apparently refers to the impending death and resurrection of the Son of Man, but the parallel, Luke 11. 30, has no such reference, and the overall thrust of the pericope, both in Matthew and in Luke, is clearly eschatological; see n. 27 above.

[71] Luke 6.22/cf. Matthew 5. 11; Matthew 8. 20/Luke 9. 58; Matthew 9. 6/Luke 5. 24; Matthew 11. 19/Luke 7. 34; Matthew 12. 8/Luke 6. 5; Matthew 12. 32/Luke 12. 10; Matthew 16. 13/cf. Luke 9. 18; Matthew 20. 28/Luke 19. 10 and cf. Luke 22. 27.

[72] Luke 9. 22/cf. Matthew 16. 21; Matthew 17. 22/Luke 9. 44 and cf. Luke 24. 7; Matthew 20. 18/Luke 18. 31 and cf. Luke 24. 7; Matthew 26. 2/cf. Luke 22. 1; Matthew 26. 24a/Luke 22. 22a; Matthew 26. 24b/cf. Luke 22. 22b; Matthew 26. 45/Luke 22. 48.

[73] Matthew 10. 23; 13. 37, 41; 17. 9, 12; 24. 30a; 25. 31.

[74] Luke 18. 8; 21. 36.

[75] Matthew 10. 23; 13. 37, 41; 24. 30a; 25. 31.

[76] Matthew 17. 9, 12.

[77] I.e., the sixteen from n. 66, plus the seven from n. 67, plus the four from n. 68 that do not appear to have parallels in Matthew, plus the seven from n. 73, plus the two from n. 74.

[78] See nn. 70, 74, and 75 above.

[79] See nn. 72 and 76 above.

[80] See n. 71 above.

[81] Luke 9. 22/cf. Matthew 16. 21/Mark 2. 31; Matthew 17. 9/Mark 9. 9; Matthew 17. 12/Mark 9. 12; Matthew 17. 22/Luke 9. 44 (cf. Luke 24. 7)/Mark 9. 31; Matthew 20. 18/Luke 18. 31 (cf. Luke 24. 7)/Mark 10. 33; Matthew 26. 24a/Luke 22. 22a/Mark 14. 21a; Matthew 24. 24b/Luke 22. 22b/Mark 14. 21b; Matthew 26. 45/Luke 22. 48/Mark 14. 41.

[82] Matthew 9. 6/Luke 5. 24/Mark 2. 10; Matthew 12. 8/Luke 6. 5/Mark 2. 28.

[83] Matthew 16. 27/Luke 9. 26/Mark 8. 38; Matthew 24. 30b/Luke 21. 27/Mark 13. 26; Matthew 26. 64/Luke 22. 69/Mark 14. 62.

[84] Matthew 26. 2 (cf. Luke 22. 1 and Mark 14. 1).