definite literary form

εἶδος, εος, τό, ( εἴδω A)

A that which is seen: form, shape, freq. in Hom., of the human form or figure, esp. abs. in acc. with Adjs., εἶδος ἄριστος, ἀγητός, κακός, Il.3.39,5.787, 10.316;

ἀλίγκιος ἀθανάτοισιν Od.8.174

; opp. φρένες, 17.454; opp. βίη, Il.21.316; δευτέρα πεδ' Ἀγιδὼν τὸ εἶ. Alcm.23.58;

τὸ εἶδος τῆς γυναικὸς ὑπερεπαινέων Hdt.1.8

, etc.; appearance, of a dog, Od.17.308;

ὄφιες ποικίλοι τὰ εἴδεα Hdt.3.107

;

εἴδεα [τῶν θεῶν] σημήναντες Id.2.53

;

γυνὴ τό γ' εἶδος Ar.Th. 267

: hence, periphr. for person, S.El. 1177;

τὸ ἐπ' εἴδει καλόν Pl.Smp. 210b

.

b esp. of beauty of person, comeliness,

εἴδεος ἐπαμμένος Hdt.1.199

;

πλούτῳ καὶ εἴδει προφέρων Id.6.127

.

c Medic., physique, habit of body, constitution, Hp.Nat.Hom.9, Hum.1: more freq. in pl., Id.Aër.3, al.; εἴδεα εὔχροά τε καὶ ἀνθηρά ib.5.

2 generally, shape,

σχῆμα καὶ εἶδος Id.Off.3

, cf. Mochl.6, etc.; pattern, of 'figurate' numbers, Arist. Ph. 203a15;

ἡ μονὰς εἶδος εἰδῶν τυγχάνει Theol.Ar.4

, cf. 17; decorative pattern or figure, Plu. Them.29 (pl.); of a musical scale,

τοῦ διὰ τεσσάρων τρία εἰδη Aristox.Harm.p.74

M. (identified with σχῆμα, ibid.): in pl., shapes, i.e. various kinds of atoms (cf. ἰδέα), Democr. ap. Thphr. Sens.51.

b Geom., δύο εἴδη τῷ εἴδει δεδομένα two figures given in species, Euc.Dat.53, etc.; esp. in central conics, rectangle formed by a transverse diameter and the corresponding parameter, Apollon.Perg. Con.1.14,21, al.; also, species of numbers, of the terms in an algebraical expression involving different powers of the unknown quantity, Dioph.Def.11.

II form, kind, or nature,

τῶν ἀλλέων παιγνιέων τὰ εἴδεα Hdt.1.94

;

τὸ εἶ. τῆς νόσου Th.2.50

, etc.; ἐν ἁρμονίας εἴδει εἶναι, γενέσθαι, to be or become like.., Pl.Phd. 91d, cf. Cra. 394d; ὡς ἐν φαρμάκου εἴδει by way of medicine, Id.R. 389b; νόμων ἔχει εἶδος is in the province of law, Arist.Pol. 1286a3; situation, state of things,

σκέψασθε ἐν οἵῳ εἴδει.. τοῦτο ἔπραξαν Th.3.62

; plan of action, policy,

ἐπὶ εἶδος τρέπεσθαι Id.6.77

, 8.56; ἐπ' ἄλλ' εἶδος τρέπεσθαι take up another line, Ar.Pl. 317; specific notion, meaning, idea,

ἂν παρέχῃ τὸ ἓν εἶ. δύο ὀνόματα.., περὶ ἑνὸς εἴδεος δύο ὀνόματα οὐ τὰ αὐτά Aen.Tact.24.1

; department, Hp.VM12 (but also, elementary nature or quality, ib. 15); type, sort,

πυρετῶν Id.Epid.3.12

;

αὐγῆς Id.Off.3

, etc.: Rhet., style of writing,

τὰ εἴδη τῶν λόγων Isoc.13.17

, cf. Arist.Rh.Al. 1441b9 (pl.); later, definite literary form, Men.Rh.init., Procl.Chrest. p.243 W., EM295.52; also, example of a style,

ὅλοις εἴδεσι Isoc.15.74

; later, single poem, applied to Pindar's odes by Sch.; also, written statement,

ἀναγνωσθέντος εἴδους PAmh.2.65.11

(ii A.D.), cf. PTeb.287.12 (ii A.D.).

III class, kind,

πᾶν τὸ τῶν πίστεων εἶδος Isoc.15.280

, cf. D.24.192: freq. in Pl., περὶ παντὸς τοῦ εἴδους.. ἐν ᾧ .. Tht. 178a; ἑνὶ εἴδει περιλαβεῖν ib. 148d; εἰς ταὐτὸν ἐμπέπτωκεν εἶδος ib. 205d, etc.; logical species, Sph. 235d;

ἓν εἶδος ἀποχωρίζειν Plt. 262e

; τὰς διαφορὰς ὁπόσαιπερ ἐν εἴδεσι κεῖνται, ib. 285b, al., cf. Arist.Metaph. 1057b7, al., Cat. 2b7; as a subdivision of γένος, Id.Rh. 1393a27; ἐπὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ γένους πεύκη, εἴδει διαφέρουσα, Dsc.1.69.

2 = ἰδέα 11.2, Pl.Phd. 103e, R. 596a, Prm. 132a, al., Arist.Metaph. 990b9, al., etc.

3 form, opp. matter ([etym.] ὕλη), Id.Ph. 187a18, al., Metaph. 1029a29: hence, formal cause, essence, ib. 1032b1, etc.

IV in later Gr., wares of different kinds, goods, POxy.109.1 (iii/iv A.D.), PFay.34.7 (ii A.D.): hence, payments in kind, opp. χρυσίον, Just.Nov.17.8, cf. Cod.Just.1.4.18, al.; spices, Lyd.Mag.3.61; groceries, Anon.post Max.p.120 L.; εἶ. ἰατρικόν drug, Hsch. s.v. νίτρον, cf. Hippiatr.129.54 and v. ἑξάειδος, τετράειδος, τρίειδος; of a chemical reagent, Zos.Alch.p.205 B.

(или dry)

   1) гoтoвый, в гoтoвoм видe; нeизмeнный [пepвoнaч. o лeчeбныx тpaвax в лaвкe aптeкapя]

    Still he did feel that Miltoun was altogether too much of the "pukka" aristocrat... with his confounded way of seeing things all cut and dried (J. Galsworthy). If linguistic study be confined to a purely literary form of language, and especially to the literary forms of the ancient languages, there is a tendency for the student to get into the habit of considering language as something cut and dried, and fixed once for all in the definite mould (H. C. Wyld). By the end of the evening they had their plans for carrying out the robbery all cut and dried with nothing, they thought left to chance

   2) тpaфapeтный, шaблoнный, бaнaльный; лишённый яpкocти, opигинaльнocти, cуxoй

    He was the usual cut and dry apothecary... and about as emotional as bagpipe (R. L. Stevenson)

υἱός, οῦ, ὁ (Hom.+; loanw. in rabb.) prim. ‘son’

① a male who is in a kinship relationship either biologically or by legal action, son, offspring, descendant

ⓐ the direct male issue of a person, son τέξεται υἱόν Mt 1:21; GJs 14:2 (cp. Mel., P. 8, 53 ὡς γὰρ υἱὸς τεχθείς). Cp. Mt 1:23 (Is 7:14) and 25; 10:37 (w. θυγάτηρ); Mk 12:6a; Lk 1:13, 31, 57; 11:11; 15:11 (on this JEngel, Die Parabel v. Verlorenen Sohn: ThGl 18, 1926, 54–64; MFrost, The Prodigal Son: Exp. 9th ser., 2, 1924, 56–60; EBuonaiuti, Religio 11, ’35, 398–402); Ac 7:29; Ro 9:9 (cp. Gen 18:10); Gal 4:22 al. W. gen. Mt 7:9; 20:20f; 21:37ab; Mk 6:3; 9:17; Lk 3:2; 4:22; 15:19; J 9:19f; Ac 13:21; 16:1; 23:16; Gal 4:30abc (Gen 21:10abc); Js 2:21; AcPlCor 2:29. Also ἐγὼ Φαρισαῖός εἰμι υἱὸς Φαρισαίων Ac 23:6 is prob. a ref. to direct descent. μονογενὴς υἱός (s. μονογενής 1) Lk 7:12. ὁ υἱὸς ὁ πρωτότοκος (πρωτότοκος 1) 2:7.

ⓑ the immediate male offspring of an animal (Ps 28:1 υἱοὺς κριῶν; Sir 38:25. So Lat. filius: Columella 6, 37, 4) in our lit. only as foal ἐπὶ πῶλον υἱὸν ὑποζυγίου Mt 21:5 (cp. Zech 9:9 πῶλον νέον).

ⓒ human offspring in an extended line of descent, descendant, son Ἰωσὴφ υἱὸς Δαυίδ Mt 1:20 (cp. Jos., Ant. 11, 73); s. 2dα below. υἱοὶ Ἰσραήλ (Ἰσραήλ 1) Mt 27:9; Lk 1:16; Ac 5:21; 7:23, 37; 9:15; 10:36; Ro 9:27; 2 Cor 3:7, 13; Hb 11:22 al.; AcPlCor 2:32. οἱ υἱοὶ Λευί (Num 26:57) Hb 7:5. υἱὸς Ἀβραάμ Lk 19:9. υἱοὶ Ἀδάμ 1 Cl 29:2 (Dt 32:8). υἱοι Ῥουβήλ GJs 6:3.

ⓓ one who is accepted or legally adopted as a son (Herodian 5, 7, 1; 4; 5; Jos, Ant. 2, 263; 20, 150) Ac 7:21 (cp. Ex 2:10).—J 19:26.

② a pers. related or closely associated as if by ties of sonship, son, transf. sense of 1

ⓐ of a pupil, follower, or one who is otherw. a spiritual son (SIG 1169, 12 οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ=the pupils and helpers [40] of Asclepius; sim. Maximus Tyr. 4, 2c; Just., D. 86, 6 οἱ υἱοὶ τῶν προφητῶν.—Some combination w. παῖδες is the favorite designation for those who are heirs of guild-secrets or who are to perpetuate a skill of some kind: Pla., Rep. 3, 407e, Leg. 6, 769b; Dionys. Hal., Comp. Verbi 22 p. 102, 4 Us./Rdm. ῥητόρων παῖδες; Lucian, Anach. 19, Dial. Mort. 11, 1 Χαλδαίων π.=dream-interpreters, Dips. 5 ἱατρῶν π., Amor. 49; Himerius, Or. 48 [=Or. 14], 13 σοφῶν π.): the ‘sons’ of the Pharisees Mt 12:27; Lk 11:19. Peter says Μᾶρκος ὁ υἱός μου 1 Pt 5:13 (perh. w. a component of endearment; s. Μᾶρκος). As a familiar form of address by a cherished mentor Hb 12:5 (Pr 3:11; ParJer 5:28; 7:24). υἱοὶ καὶ θυγατέρες B 1:1.

ⓑ of the individual members of a large and coherent group (cp. the υἷες Ἀχαιῶν in Homer; also PsSol 2:3 οἱ υἱοὶ Ἰερουσαλήμ; Dio Chrys. 71 [21], 15; LXX) οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ λαοῦ μου 1 Cl 8:3 (scripture quot. of unknown origin). υἱοὶ γένους Ἀβραάμ Ac 13:26. οἱ υἱοὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων (Gen 11:5; Ps 11:2, 9; 44:3; TestLevi 3:10; TestZeb 9:7; GrBar 2:4) the sons of men=humans (cp. dγ below) Mk 3:28; Eph 3:5; 1 Cl 61:2 (of the earthly rulers in contrast to the heavenly king).

ⓒ of one whose identity is defined in terms of a relationship with a person or thing

α. of those who are bound to a personality by close, non-material ties; it is this personality that has promoted the relationship and given it its character: son(s) of: those who believe are υἱοὶ Ἀβραάμ, because Abr. was the first whose relationship to God was based on faith Gal 3:7. In a special sense the devout, believers, are sons of God, i.e., in the light of the social context, people of special status and privilege (cp. PsSol 17:27; Just., D, 124, 1; Dio Chrys. 58 [75], 8 ὁ τοῦ Διὸς ὄντως υἱός; Epict. 1, 9, 6; 1, 3, 2; 1, 19, 9; Sextus 58; 60; 135; 376a; Dt 14:1; Ps 28:1; 72:15; Is 43:6 [w. θυγατέρες μου]; 45:11; Wsd 2:18; 5:5; 12:21 al.; Jdth 9:4, 13; Esth 8:12q; 3 Macc 6:28; SibOr 3, 702) Mt 5:45; Lk 6:35; Ro 8:14, 19 (‘Redeemer figures’ EFuchs, Die Freiheit des Glaubens, ’49, 108; against him EHommel in ThViat 4, ’52, 118, n. 26); 9:26 (Hos 2:1); 2 Cor 6:18 (w. θυγατέρες, s. Is 43:6 cited above); Gal 3:26 (cp. PsSol 17:27); 4:6a, 7ab (here the υἱός is the κληρονόμος and his opposite is the δοῦλος); Hb 2:10 (JKögel, Der Sohn u. die Söhne: Eine exeget. Studie zu Hb 2:5–18, 1904); 12:5–8 (in vs. 8 opp. νόθος, q.v.); Rv 21:7; 2 Cl 1:4; B 4:9. Corresp. there are sons of the devil (on this subj. cp. Hdb. on J 8:44) υἱὲ διαβόλου Ac 13:10. οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ πονηροῦ (masc.) Mt 13:38b. τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἐν Ἅιδου ApcPt Rainer. In υἱοί ἐστε τῶν φονευσάντων τοὺς προφήτας Mt 23:31 this mng. is prob. to be combined w. sense 1c. The expr. υἱοὶ θεοῦ Mt 5:9 looks to the future (s. Betz, SM ad loc.; cp. KKöhler, StKr 91, 1918, 189f). Lk 20:36a signifies a status akin to that of angels (Ps 88:7; θεῶν παῖδες as heavenly beings: Maximus Tyr. 11, 5a; 12a; 13, 6a.—Hierocles 3, 424 the ἄγγελοι are called θεῶν παῖδες; HWindisch, Friedensbringer-Gottessöhne: ZNW 24, 1925, 240–60, discounts connection w. angels and contends for the elevation of the ordinary followers of Jesus to the status of Alexander the Great in his role as an εἰρηνηποιός [cp. Plut., Mor. 329c]; for measured critique of this view s. Betz, SM 137–42.).

β. υἱός w. gen. of thing, to denote one who shares in it or who is worthy of it, or who stands in some other close relation to it, oft. made clear by the context; this constr. is prob. a Hebraism in the main, but would not appear barbaric (B-D-F §162, 6; Mlt-H. 441; Dssm., B p. 162–66 [BS 161–66]; PASA II 1884, no. 2 υἱὸς πόλεως [time of Nero; on this type of formulation SEG XXXIX, 1864]; IMagnMai 167, 5; 156, 12) οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου (αἰών 2a) Lk 16:8a (opp. οἱ υἱοί τοῦ φωτός vs. 8b); 20:34. τῆς ἀναστάσεως υἱοί (to Mediterranean publics the functional equivalent of ἀθάνατοι ‘immortals’; cp. ἀνάστασις 2b) 20:36b. υἱοὶ τῆς ἀνομίας (ἀνομία 1; cp. CD 6:15) Hv 3, 6, 1; ApcPt 1:3; τῆς ἀπειθείας (s. ἀπείθεια) Eph 2:2; 5:6; Col 3:6; τῆς ἀπωλείας ApcPt 1:2. ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας of Judas the informer J 17:12 (cp. similar expressions in Eur., Hec. 425; Menand., Dyscolus 88f: s. FDanker, NTS 7, ’60/61, 94), of the end-time adversary 2 Th 2:3. υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας (βασιλεία 1bη; s. SEG XXXIX, 1864 for related expressions) Mt 8:12; 13:38a. υἱοὶ βροντῆς Mk 3:17 (s. Βοανηργές). υἱὸς γεέννης (s. γέεννα) Mt 23:15; τ. διαθήκης (PsSol 17:15) Ac 3:25; εἰρήνης Lk 10:6. υἱοὶ τοῦ νυμφῶνος (s. νυμφών) Mt 9:15; Mk 2:19; Lk 5:34. υἱὸς παρακλήσεως Ac 4:36 (s. Βαρναβᾶς). υἱοὶ (τοῦ) φωτός (Hippol., Ref. 6, 47, 4 in gnostic speculation) Lk 16:8b (opp. υἱοὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου); J 12:36. υἱοὶ φωτός ἐστε καὶ υἱοὶ ἡμέρας 1 Th 5:5 (EBuonaiuti, ‘Figli del giorno e della luce’ [1 Th 5:5]: Rivista storico-critica delle Scienze teol. 6, 1910, 89–93).

ⓓ in various combinations as a designation of the Messiah and a self-designation of Jesus

α. υἱὸς Δαυίδ son of David of the Messiah (PsSol 17:21) Mt 22:42–45; Mk 12:35–37; Lk 20:41–44; B 12:10c. Specif. of Jesus as Messiah Mt 1:1a; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30f; 21:9, 15; Mk 10:47f; Lk 18:38f.—WWrede, Jesus als Davidssohn: Vorträge u. Studien 1907, 147–77; WBousset, Kyrios Christos² 1921, 4, Rel.³ 226f; ELohmeyer, Gottesknecht u. Davidssohn ’45, esp. 68; 72; 77; 84; TNicklin, Gospel Gleanings ’50, 251–56; WMichaelis, Die Davidsohnschaft Jesu usw., in D. histor. Jesus u. d. kerygm. Christus, ed. Ristow and Matthiae, ’61, 317–30; LFisher, ECColwell Festschr. ’68, 82–97.

β. ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, υἱὸς θεοῦ (the) Son of God (for the phrase s. JosAs 6:2 al. Ἰωσὴφ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ; there is no undisputed evidence of usage as messianic title in pre-Christian Judaism [s. Dalman, Worte 219–24, Eng. tr. 268–89; Bousset, Kyrios Christos² 53f; EHuntress, ‘Son of God’ in Jewish Writings Prior to the Christian Era: JBL 54, ’35, 117–23]; cp. 4Q 246 col. 2, 1 [JFitzmyer, A Wandering Aramean ’79, 90–93; JCollins, BRev IX/3, ’93, 34–38, 57]. Among polytheists on the other hand, sons of the gods in a special sense [s. Just., A I, 21, 1f] are not only known to myth and legend, but definite historical personalities are also designated as such. Among them are famous wise men such as Pythagoras and Plato [HUsener, Das Weihnachtsfest² 1911, 71ff], and deified rulers, above all the Roman emperors since the time of Augustus [oft. in ins and pap: Dssm., B 166f=BS 166f, LO 294f=LAE 346f; Thieme 33]. According to Memnon [I B.C./ I A.D.]: 434 Fgm. 1, 1, 1 Jac., Clearchus [IV B.C.] carried his boasting so far as Διὸς υἱὸν ἑαυτὸν ἀνειπεῖν. Also, persons who were active at that time as prophets and wonder-workers laid claim to the title υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, e.g. the Samaritan Dositheus in Origen, C. Cels. 6, 11; sim. an Indian wise man who calls himself Διὸς υἱός Arrian, Anab. 7, 2, 3; cp. Did., Gen. 213, 18 ὁ Ἀβρὰμ υἱὸς θεοῦ διὰ δικαιοσύνην. S. GWetter, ‘Der Sohn Gottes’ 1916; Hdb. exc. on J 1:34; s. also Clemen² 76ff; ENorden, Die Geburt des Kindes 1924, 75; 91f; 132; 156f; EKlostermann, Hdb. exc. on Mk 1:11 [4th ed. ’50]; M-JLagrange, Les origines du dogme paulinien de la divinité de Christ: RB 45, ’36, 5–33; HPreisker, Ntl. Zeitgesch. ’37, 187–208; HBraun, ZTK 54, ’57, 353–64; ANock, ‘Son of God’ in Paul. and Hellen. Thought: Gnomon 33, ’61, 581–90 [=Essays on Religion and the Anc. World II, ’72, 928–39]—originality in Paul’s thought): Ps 2:7 is applied to Jesus υἱός μου εἶ σύ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε Lk 3:22 D; GEb 18, 37.—Ac 13:33; Hb 1:5a; 5:5; 1 Cl 36:4. Likew. Hos 11:1 (w. significant changes): Mt 2:15, and 2 Km 7:14: Hb 1:5b. The voice of God calls him ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός (s. ἀγαπητός 1) at his baptism Mt 3:17; Mk 1:11; Lk 3:22; GEb 18, 37 and 39 and at the Transfiguration Mt 17:5; Mk 9:7; Lk 9:35 (here ἐκλελεγμένος instead of ἀγαπ.); 2 Pt 1:17. Cp. J 1:34. The angel at the Annunciation uses these expressions in referring to him: υἱὸς ὑψίστου Lk 1:32; GJs 11:3 and υἱὸς θεοῦ Lk 1:35 (Ar. 15, 1 ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου. Cp. Just., A I, 23, 2 μόνος ἰδίως υἱὸς τῷ θεῷ γεγέννηται). The centurion refers to him at the crucifixion as υἱὸς θεοῦ Mt 27:54; Mk 15:39; GPt 11:45; cp. vs. 46 (CMann, ET 20, 1909, 563f; JPobee, The Cry of the Centurion, A Cry of Defeat: CFDMoule Festschr. ’70, 91–102; EJohnson, JSNT 31, ’87, 3–22 [an indefinite affirmation of Jesus]). The high priest asks εἰ σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ Mt 26:63 (DCatchpole, NTS 17, ’71, 213–26). Passers-by ask him to show that he is God’s Son 27:40; sim. the devil 4:3, 6; Lk 4:3, 9. On the other hand, evil spirits address him as the Son of God Mt 8:29; Mk 3:11; 5:7; Lk 4:41; 8:28; and disciples testify that he is Mt 14:33; 16:16. S. also Mk 1:1 (s. SLegg, Ev. Sec. Marc. ’35).—Jesus also refers to himself as Son of God, though rarely apart fr. the Fourth Gosp.: Mt 28:19 (the Risen Lord in the trinitarian baptismal formula); Mt 21:37f=Mk 12:6 (an allusion in the parable of the vinedressers).—Mt 27:43; Mk 13:32; Rv 2:18. The main pass. is the so-called Johannine verse in the synoptics Mt 11:27=Lk 10:22 (s. PSchmiedel, PM 4, 1900,1–22; FBurkitt, JTS 12, 1911, 296f; HSchumacher, Die Selbstoffenbarung Jesu bei Mt 11:27 [Lk 10:22] 1912 [lit.]; Norden, Agn. Th. 277–308; JWeiss, Heinrici Festschr. 1914, 120–29, Urchristentum 1917, 87ff; Bousset, Kyrios Christos² 1921, 45ff; EMeyer I 280ff; RBultmann, Gesch. d. synopt. Trad.² ’31, 171f; MDibelius, Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums² ’33, 259; MRist, Is Mt 11:25–30 a Primitive Baptismal Hymn? JR 15, ’35, 63–77; TArvedson, D. Mysterium Christi: E. Studie zu Mt 11:25–30, ’37; WDavies, ‘Knowledge’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Mt 11:25–30, HTR 45, ’53, 113–39; WGrundmann, Sohn Gottes, ZNW 47, ’56, 113–33; JBieneck, Sohn Gottes als Christusbez. der Synopt. ’51; PWinter, Mt 11:27 and Lk 10:22: NovT 1, ’56, 112–48; JJocz, Judaica 13, ’57, 129–42; OMichel/OBetz, Von Gott Gezeugt, Beih. ZNW [Jeremias Festschr.] 26, ’60, 3–23 [Qumran]).—Apart fr. the synoptics, testimony to Jesus as the Son of God is found in many parts of our lit. Oft. in Paul: Ro 1:3, 4, 9; 5:10; 8:3, 29, 32; 1 Cor 1:9; 15:28; 2 Cor 1:19; Gal 1:16; 2:20; 4:4; Eph 4:13; Col 1:13; 1 Th 1:10. Cp. Ac 9:20. In Hb: 1:2, 8; 4:14; 5:8; 6:6; 7:3, 28; 10:29. In greatest frequency in John (cp. Herm. Wr. 1, 6 the Λόγος as υἱὸς θεοῦ. Likew. Philo, Agr. 51 πρωτόγονος υἱός, Conf. Lingu. 146 υἱὸς θεοῦ.—Theoph. Ant. 2, 1 [p. 154, 12] ὁ λόγος ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ, ὅς ἐστιν καὶ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ; Iren. 3, 12, 2 [Harv. II 55, 2]): J 1:49; 3:16–18 (s. μονογενής 2), 35f; 5:19–26; 6:40; 8:35f; 10:36; 11:4, 27; 14:13; 17:1; 19:7; 20:31; 1J 1:3, 7; 2:22–24; 3:8, 23; 4:9f, 14f; 5:5, 9–13, 20; 2J 3, 9.—B 5:9, 11; 7:2, 9; 12:8; 15:5; Dg 7:4; 9:2, 4; 10:2 (τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ; also ApcEsdr 6:16 p. 31, 22 Tdf.; ApcSed 9:1f); IMg 8:2; ISm 1:1; MPol 17:3; Hv 2, 2, 8; Hs 5, 2, 6 (ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ὁ ἀγαπητός); 8; 11; 5, 4, 1; 5, 5, 2; 3; 5; 5, 6, 1; 2; 4; 7 (on the Christology of the Shepherd s. Dibelius, Hdb. on Hs 5, also ALink and JvWalter [πνεῦμα 5cα]); Hs 8, 3, 2; 8, 11, 1. Cp. 9, 1, 1; 9, 12, 1ff.—In trinitarian formulas, in addition to Mt 28:19, also IMg 13:1; EpilMosq 5; D 7:1, 3.—The deceiver of the world appears w. signs and wonders ὡς υἱὸς θεοῦ D 16:4 (ApcEsdr 4:27 p. 28, 32 Tdf. ὁ λέγων• Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ [of Antichrist]).—EKühl, Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu 1907, 16–44; GVos, The Self-disclosure of Jesus 1926.—EBurton, ICC Gal 1921, 404–17; TNicklin, Gospel Gleanings ’50, 211–36; MHengel, The Son of God (tr. JBowden) ’76; DJones, The Title υἱὸς θεοῦ in Acts: SBLSP 24, ’85, 451–63.

γ. ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου lit. ‘the son of the man’ (the pl. form οἱ υἱοὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων appears freq. in the LXX to render בְּנֵי אָדָם = mortals, e.g. Gen 11:5; Ps 10:4; 11:2; cp. ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπολείας J 17:12 [s. 2cβ]) ‘the human being, the human one, the man’ in our lit. only as a byname in ref. to Jesus and in an exclusive sense the Human One, the Human Being, one intimately linked with humanity in its primary aspect of fragility yet transcending it, traditionally rendered ‘the Son of Man.’ The term is found predom. in the gospels, where it occurs in the synoptics about 70 times (about half as oft. if parallels are excluded), and in J 12 times (s. EKlostermann, Hdb. exc. on Mk 8:31). In every case the title is applied by Jesus to himself. Nowhere within a saying or narrative about him is it found in an address to him: Mt 8:20; 9:6; 10:23; 11:19; 12:8, 32, 40; 13:37, 41; 16:13, 27f; 17:9, 12, 22; 18:10 [11] v.l.; 19:28; 20:18, 28; 24:27, 30, 37, 39, 44; 25:13 v.l., 31; 26:2, 24ab, 45, 64; Mk 2:10, 28; 8:31, 38; 9:9, 12, 31; 10:33, 45; 13:26; 14:21ab, 41, 62; Lk 5:24; 6:5, 22; 7:34; 9:22, 26, 44, 56 v.l., 58; 11:30; 12:8, 10, 40; 17:22, 24, 26, 30; 18:8, 31; 19:10; 21:27, 36; 22:22, 48, 69; 24:7.—John (FGrosheide, Υἱὸς τ. ἀνθρ. in het Evang. naar Joh.: TSt 35, 1917, 242–48; HDieckmann, D. Sohn des Menschen im J: Scholastik 2, 1927, 229–47; HWindisch, ZNW 30, ’31, 215–33; 31, ’32, 199–204; WMichaelis, TLZ 85, ’60, 561–78 [Jesus’ earthly presence]) 1:51; 3:13, 14; 5:27 (BVawter, Ezekiel and John, CBQ 26, ’64, 450–58); 6:27, 53, 62; 8:28; 9:35; 12:23, 34; 13:31. Whether the component of fragility (suggested by OT usage in ref. to the brief span of human life and the ills to which it falls heir) or high status (suggested by traditions that appear dependent on Da 7:13, which refers to one ‘like a human being’), or a blend of the two dominates a specific occurrence can be determined only by careful exegesis that in addition to extra-biblical traditions takes account of the total literary structure of the document in which it occurs. Much neglected in the discussion is the probability of prophetic association suggested by the form of address Ezk 2:1 al. (like the OT prophet [Ezk 3:4–11] Jesus encounters resistance).—On Israelite thought contemporary w. Jesus and alleged knowledge of a heavenly being looked upon as a ‘Son of Man’ or ‘Man’, who exercises Messianic functions such as judging the world (metaph., pictorial passages in En 46–48; 4 Esdr 13:3, 51f) s. Bousset, Rel.³ 352–55; NMessel, D. Menschensohn in d. Bilderreden d. Hen. 1922; ESjöberg, Kenna 1 Henok och 4 Esra tanken på den lidande Människosonen? Sv. Ex. Årsb. 5, ’40, 163–83, D. Menschensohn im äth. Hen. ’46. This view is in some way connected w. Da 7:13; acc. to some it derives its real content fr. an eschatological tradition that ultimately goes back to Iran (WBousset, Hauptprobleme der Gnosis 1907, 160–223; Reitzenstein, Erlösungsmyst. 119ff, ZNW 20, 1921, 18–22, Mysterienrel.³ 418ff; Clemen² 72ff; CKraeling, Anthropos and Son of Man: A Study in the Religious Syncretism of the Hellenistic Orient 1927); acc. to this tradition the First Man was deified; he will return in the last times and usher in the Kingdom of God.—Outside the gospels: Ac 7:56 (v.l. τοῦ θεοῦ; GKilpatrick, TZ 21, ’65, 209); Rv 1:13; 14:14 (both after Da 7:13; sim. allusion to Da in Just., D. 31, 1). The quot. fr. Ps 8:5 in Hb 2:6 prob. does not belong here, since there is no emphasis laid on υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου. In IEph 20:2 Jesus is described as υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου καὶ υἱὸς θεοῦ. Differently B 12:10 Ἰησοῦς, οὐχὶ υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἀλλὰ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ Jesus, not a man’s son, but Son of God.—HLietzmann, Der Menschensohn 1896; Dalman, Worte 191–219 (Eng. tr., 234–67); Wlh., Einl.² 123–30; PFiebig, Der Menschensohn 1901; NSchmidt, The Prophet of Nazareth 1905, 94–134, Recent Study of the Term ‘Son of Man’: JBL 45, 1926, 326–49; FTillmann, Der Menschensohn 1907; EKühl, Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu 1907, 65ff; HHoltzmann, Das messianische Bewusstsein Jesu, 1907, 49–75 (lit.), Ntl. Theologie² I 1911, 313–35; FBard, D. Sohn d. Menschen 1908; HGottsched, D. Menschensohn 1908; EAbbott, ‘The Son of Man’, etc., 1910; EHertlein, Die Menschensohnfrage im letzten Stadium 1911, ZNW 19, 1920, 46–48; JMoffatt, The Theology of the Gospels 1912, 150–63; WBousset, Kyrios Christos² 1921, 5–22 (the titles of the works by Wernle and Althaus opposing his first edition [1913], as well as Bousset’s answer, are found s.v. κύριος, end); DVölter, Jesus der Menschensohn 1914, Die Menschensohnfrage neu untersucht 1916; FSchulthess, ZNW 21, 1922, 247–50; Rtzst., Herr der Grösse 1919 (see also the works by the same author referred to above in this entry); EMeyer II 335ff; HGressmann, ZKG n.s. 4, 1922, 170ff, D. Messias 1929, 341ff; GDupont, Le Fils d’Homme 1924; APeake, The Messiah and the Son of Man 1924; MWagner, Der Menschensohn: NKZ 36, 1925, 245–78; Guillaume Baldensperger, Le Fils d’Homme: RHPR 5, 1925, 262–73; WBleibtreu, Jesu Selbstbez. als der Menschensohn: StKr 98/99, 1926, 164–211; AvGall, Βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ 1926; OProcksch, D. Menschensohn als Gottessohn: Christentum u. Wissensch. 3, 1927, 425–43; 473–81; CMontefiore, The Synoptic Gospels² 1927 I 64–80; ROtto, Reich Gottes u. Menschensohn ’34, Eng. tr. The Kgdm. of God and the Son of Man, tr. Filson and Woolf² ’43; EWechssler, Hellas im Ev. ’36, 332ff; PParker, The Mng. of ‘Son of Man’: JBL 60, ’41, 151–57; HSharman, Son of Man and Kingdom of God ’43; JCampbell, The Origin and Mng. of the Term Son of Man: JTS 48, ’47, 145–55; HRiesenfeld, Jésus Transfiguré ’47, 307–13 (survey and lit.); TManson, ConNeot 11, ’47, 138–46 (Son of Man=Jesus and his disciples in Mk 2:27f); GDuncan, Jesus, Son of Man ’47, 135–53 (survey); JBowman, ET 59, ’47/48, 283–88 (background); MBlack, ET 60, ’48f, 11–15; 32–36; GKnight, Fr. Moses to Paul ’49, 163–72 (survey); TNicklin, Gospel Gleanings ’50, 237–50; TManson (Da, En and gospels), BJRL 32, ’50, 171–93; TPreiss, Le Fils d’Homme: ÉThR 26/3, ’51, Life in Christ, ’54, 43–60; SMowinckel, He That Cometh, tr. Anderson, ’54, 346–450; GIber, Überlieferungsgesch. Unters. z. Begriff des Menschensohnes im NT, diss. Heidelb. ’53; ESjöberg, D. verborgene Menschensohn in den Ev. ’55; WGrundmann, ZNW 47, ’56, 113–33; HRiesenfeld, The Mythological Backgrd. of NT Christology, CHDodd Festschr. ’56, 81–95; PhVielhauer, Gottesreich u. Menschensohn in d. Verk. Jesu, GDehn Festschr. ’57, 51–79; ESidebottom, The Son of Man in J, ET 68, ’57, 231–35; 280–83; AHiggins, Son of Man- Forschung since (Manson’s) ‘The Teaching of Jesus’: NT Essays (TW Manson memorial vol.) ’59, 119–35; HTödt, D. Menschensohn in d. synopt. Überl. ’59 (tr. Barton ’65); JMuilenburg, JBL 79, ’60, 197–209 (Da, En); ESchweizer, JBL 79, ’60, 119–29 and NTS 9, ’63, 256–61; BvIersel, ‘Der Sohn’ in den synopt. Jesusworten, ’61 (community?); MBlack, BJRL 45, ’63, 305–18; FBorsch, ATR 45, ’63, 174–90; AHiggins, Jesus and the Son of Man, ’64; RFormesyn, NovT 8, ’66, 1–35 (barnasha=‘I’); SSandmel, HSilver Festschr. ’63, 355–67; JJeremias, Die älteste Schicht der Menschensohn-Logien, ZNW 58, ’67, 159–72; GVermes, MBlack, Aram. Approach³, ’67, 310–30; BLindars, The New Look on the Son of Man: BJRL 63, ’81, 437–62; WWalker, The Son of Man, Some Recent Developments CBQ 45, ’83, 584–607; JDonahue, Recent Studies on the Origin of ‘Son of Man’ in the Gospels, CBQ 48, ’86, 584–607; DBurkitt, The Nontitular Son of Man, A History and Critique: NTS 40, ’94 504–21 (lit.); JEllington, BT 40, ’89, 201–8; RGordon, Anthropos: 108–13.—B. 105; DELG. M-M. EDNT. TW. Sv.

   1) All Human Complex Problem Solving Is Creativity

   Put in this bald way, these aims sound utopian. How utopian they areor rather, how imminent their realization-depends on how broadly or narrowly we interpret the term "creative." If we are willing to regard all human complex problem solving as creative, then-as we will point out-successful programs for problem solving mechanisms that simulate human problem solvers already exist, and a number of their general characteristics are known. If we reserve the term "creative" for activities like discovery of the special theory of relativity or the composition of Beethoven's Seventh Symphony, then no example of a creative mechanism exists at the present time. (Simon, 1979, pp. 144-145)

   2) Artificial Intelligence Models of Creative Association

   Among the questions that can now be given preliminary answers in computational terms are the following: how can ideas from very different sources be spontaneously thought of together? how can two ideas be merged to produce a new structure, which shows the influence of both ancestor ideas without being a mere "cut-and-paste" combination? how can the mind be "primed," so that one will more easily notice serendipitous ideas? why may someone notice-and remember-something fairly uninteresting, if it occurs in an interesting context? how can a brief phrase conjure up an entire melody from memory? and how can we accept two ideas as similar ("love" and "prove" as rhyming, for instance) in respect of a feature not identical in both? The features of connectionist AI models that suggest answers to these questions are their powers of pattern completion, graceful degradation, sensitization, multiple constraint satisfaction, and "best-fit" equilibration.... Here, the important point is that the unconscious, "insightful," associative aspects of creativity can be explained-in outline, at least-by AI methods. (Boden, 1996, p. 273)

   3) Creative Innovation and Social Independence

   There thus appears to be an underlying similarity in the process involved in creative innovation and social independence, with common traits and postures required for expression of both behaviors. The difference is one of product-literary, musical, artistic, theoretical products on the one hand, opinions on the other-rather than one of process. In both instances the individual must believe that his perceptions are meaningful and valid and be willing to rely upon his own interpretations. He must trust himself sufficiently that even when persons express opinions counter to his own he can proceed on the basis of his own perceptions and convictions. (Coopersmith, 1967, p. 58)

   4) Ego Strength and Emotional Stability among Creative Geniuses

   he average level of ego strength and emotional stability is noticeably higher among creative geniuses than among the general population, though it is possibly lower than among men of comparable intelligence and education who go into administrative and similar positions. High anxiety and excitability appear common (e.g. Priestley, Darwin, Kepler) but full-blown neurosis is quite rare. (Cattell & Butcher, 1970, p. 315)

   5) Its Mundane Character

   he insight that is supposed to be required for such work as discovery turns out to be synonymous with the familiar process of recognition; and other terms commonly used in the discussion of creative work-such terms as "judgment," "creativity," or even "genius"-appear to be wholly dispensable or to be definable, as insight is, in terms of mundane and well-understood concepts. (Simon, 1989, p. 376)

   6) Mozart's Musical Ideas Came to Him in Polished Form

   From the sketch material still in existence, from the condition of the fragments, and from the autographs themselves we can draw definite conclusions about Mozart's creative process. To invent musical ideas he did not need any stimulation; they came to his mind "ready-made" and in polished form. In contrast to Beethoven, who made numerous attempts at shaping his musical ideas until he found the definitive formulation of a theme, Mozart's first inspiration has the stamp of finality. Any Mozart theme has completeness and unity; as a phenomenon it is a Gestalt. (Herzmann, 1964, p. 28)

   7) Scientific Theories and Works of Art Alike Originate in Fantasy

   Great artists enlarge the limits of one's perception. Looking at the world through the eyes of Rembrandt or Tolstoy makes one able to perceive aspects of truth about the world which one could not have achieved without their aid. Freud believed that science was adaptive because it facilitated mastery of the external world; but was it not the case that many scientific theories, like works of art, also originated in phantasy? Certainly, reading accounts of scientific discovery by men of the calibre of Einstein compelled me to conclude that phantasy was not merely escapist, but a way of reaching new insights concerning the nature of reality. Scientific hypotheses require proof; works of art do not. Both are concerned with creating order, with making sense out of the world and our experience of it. (Storr, 1993, p. xii)

   8) Self- Esteem and Creative Expression

   The importance of self-esteem for creative expression appears to be almost beyond disproof. Without a high regard for himself the individual who is working in the frontiers of his field cannot trust himself to discriminate between the trivial and the significant. Without trust in his own powers the person seeking improved solutions or alternative theories has no basis for distinguishing the significant and profound innovation from the one that is merely different.... An essential component of the creative process, whether it be analysis, synthesis, or the development of a new perspective or more comprehensive theory, is the conviction that one's judgment in interpreting the events is to be trusted. (Coopersmith, 1967, p. 59)

   9) Stages in Creative Problem- Solving

   In the daily stream of thought these four different stages [preparation; incubation; illumination or inspiration; and verification] constantly overlap each other as we explore different problems. An economist reading a Blue Book, a physiologist watching an experiment, or a business man going through his morning's letters, may at the same time be "incubating" on a problem which he proposed to himself a few days ago, be accumulating knowledge in "preparation" for a second problem, and be "verifying" his conclusions to a third problem. Even in exploring the same problem, the mind may be unconsciously incubating on one aspect of it, while it is consciously employed in preparing for or verifying another aspect. (Wallas, 1926, p. 81)

    10) The Bisociative Pattern of the Creative Synthesis

   he basic, bisociative pattern of the creative synthesis [is] the sudden interlocking of two previously unrelated skills, or matrices of thought. (Koestler, 1964, p. 121)

    11) The Earliest Stages in the Creative Process Involve a Commerce with Disorder

   Even to the creator himself, the earliest effort may seem to involve a commerce with disorder. For the creative order, which is an extension of life, is not an elaboration of the established, but a movement beyond the established, or at least a reorganization of it and often of elements not included in it. The first need is therefore to transcend the old order. Before any new order can be defined, the absolute power of the established, the hold upon us of what we know and are, must be broken. New life comes always from outside our world, as we commonly conceive that world. This is the reason why, in order to invent, one must yield to the indeterminate within him, or, more precisely, to certain illdefined impulses which seem to be of the very texture of the ungoverned fullness which John Livingston Lowes calls "the surging chaos of the unexpressed." (Ghiselin, 1985, p. 4)

    12) The Inner Life of the Creative Process

   New life comes always from outside our world, as we commonly conceive our world. This is the reason why, in order to invent, one must yield to the indeterminate within him, or, more precisely, to certain illdefined impulses which seem to be of the very texture of the ungoverned fullness which John Livingston Lowes calls "the surging chaos of the unexpressed." Chaos and disorder are perhaps the wrong terms for that indeterminate fullness and activity of the inner life. For it is organic, dynamic, full of tension and tendency. What is absent from it, except in the decisive act of creation, is determination, fixity, and commitment to one resolution or another of the whole complex of its tensions. (Ghiselin, 1952, p. 13)

    13) The Problem of What Impels the Creative Person

   [P]sychoanalysts have principally been concerned with the content of creative products, and with explaining content in terms of the artist's infantile past. They have paid less attention to examining why the artist chooses his particular activity to express, abreact or sublimate his emotions. In short, they have not made much distinction between art and neurosis; and, since the former is one of the blessings of mankind, whereas the latter is one of the curses, it seems a pity that they should not be better differentiated....

   Psychoanalysis, being fundamentally concerned with drive and motive, might have been expected to throw more light upon what impels the creative person that in fact it has. (Storr, 1993, pp. xvii, 3)

    14) Theories of Creative Thinking

   A number of theoretical approaches were considered. Associative theory, as developed by Mednick (1962), gained some empirical support from the apparent validity of the Remote Associates Test, which was constructed on the basis of the theory.... Koestler's (1964) bisociative theory allows more complexity to mental organization than Mednick's associative theory, and postulates "associative contexts" or "frames of reference." He proposed that normal, non-creative, thought proceeds within particular contexts or frames and that the creative act involves linking together previously unconnected frames.... Simonton (1988) has developed associative notions further and explored the mathematical consequences of chance permutation of ideas....

   Like Koestler, Gruber (1980; Gruber and Davis, 1988) has based his analysis on case studies. He has focused especially on Darwin's development of the theory of evolution. Using piagetian notions, such as assimilation and accommodation, Gruber shows how Darwin's system of ideas changed very slowly over a period of many years. "Moments of insight," in Gruber's analysis, were the culminations of slow long-term processes.... Finally, the information-processing approach, as represented by Simon (1966) and Langley et al. (1987), was considered.... [Simon] points out the importance of good problem representations, both to ensure search is in an appropriate problem space and to aid in developing heuristic evaluations of possible research directions.... The work of Langley et al. (1987) demonstrates how such search processes, realized in computer programs, can indeed discover many basic laws of science from tables of raw data.... Boden (1990a, 1994) has stressed the importance of restructuring the problem space in creative work to develop new genres and paradigms in the arts and sciences. (Gilhooly, 1996, pp. 243-244; emphasis in original)