every aspect - historical

1. разг. точно не указанные лицо или вещь

2. этажерка

3. пренебр. всякая всячина

1) точно не вказана особа або річ

2) етажерка

3) всяка всячина

1) точно не вказана особа або річ

2) етажерка

3) всяка всячина

   1) There Are Ideas That Have Their Own True and Immutable Nature

   And what I believe to be more important here is that I find in myself an infinity of ideas of certain things which cannot be assumed to be pure nothingness, even though they may have perhaps no existence outside of my thought. These things are not figments of my imagination, even though it is within my power to think of them or not to think of them; on the contrary, they have their own true and immutable natures. Thus, for example, when I imagine a triangle, even though there may perhaps be no such figure anywhere in the world outside of my thought, nor ever have been, nevertheless the figure cannot help having a certain determinate nature... or essence, which is immutable and eternal, which I have not invented and which does not in any way depend upon my mind. (Descartes, 1951, p. 61)

   2) Examine What Is within Our Reach

   Let us console ourselves for not knowing the possible connections between a spider and the rings of Saturn, and continue to examine what is within our reach. (Voltaire, 1961, p. 144)

   3) Modern Philosophy Starts with the Cartesian Catastrophe

   As modern physics started with the Newtonian revolution, so modern philosophy starts with what one might call the Cartesian Catastrophe. The catastrophe consisted in the splitting up of the world into the realms of matter and mind, and the identification of "mind" with conscious thinking. The result of this identification was the shallow rationalism of l'esprit Cartesien, and an impoverishment of psychology which it took three centuries to remedy even in part. (Koestler, 1964, p. 148)

   4) The Rightful Claims of Philosophy

   It has been made of late a reproach against natural philosophy that it has struck out on a path of its own, and has separated itself more and more widely from the other sciences which are united by common philological and historical studies. The opposition has, in fact, been long apparent, and seems to me to have grown up mainly under the influence of the Hegelian philosophy, or, at any rate, to have been brought out into more distinct relief by that philosophy.... The sole object of Kant's "Critical Philosophy" was to test the sources and the authority of our knowledge, and to fix a definite scope and standard for the researches of philosophy, as compared with other sciences.... [But Hegel's] "Philosophy of Identity" was bolder. It started with the hypothesis that not only spiritual phenomena, but even the actual world-nature, that is, and man-were the result of an act of thought on the part of a creative mind, similar, it was supposed, in kind to the human mind.... The philosophers accused the scientific men of narrowness; the scientific men retorted that the philosophers were crazy. And so it came about that men of science began to lay some stress on the banishment of all philosophic influences from their work; while some of them, including men of the greatest acuteness, went so far as to condemn philosophy altogether, not merely as useless, but as mischievous dreaming. Thus, it must be confessed, not only were the illegitimate pretensions of the Hegelian system to subordinate to itself all other studies rejected, but no regard was paid to the rightful claims of philosophy, that is, the criticism of the sources of cognition, and the definition of the functions of the intellect. (Helmholz, quoted in Dampier, 1966, pp. 291-292)

   5) The Philosophy of Philosophy

   Philosophy remains true to its classical tradition by renouncing it. (Habermas, 1972, p. 317)

   6) Philosophy Is a Field Which Has Certain Central Questions

   I have not attempted... to put forward any grand view of the nature of philosophy; nor do I have any such grand view to put forth if I would. It will be obvious that I do not agree with those who see philosophy as the history of "howlers" and progress in philosophy as the debunking of howlers. It will also be obvious that I do not agree with those who see philosophy as the enterprise of putting forward a priori truths about the world.... I see philosophy as a field which has certain central questions, for example, the relation between thought and reality.... It seems obvious that in dealing with these questions philosophers have formulated rival research programs, that they have put forward general hypotheses, and that philosophers within each major research program have modified their hypotheses by trial and error, even if they sometimes refuse to admit that that is what they are doing. To that extent philosophy is a "science." To argue about whether philosophy is a science in any more serious sense seems to me to be hardly a useful occupation.... It does not seem to me important to decide whether science is philosophy or philosophy is science as long as one has a conception of both that makes both essential to a responsible view of the world and of man's place in it. (Putnam, 1975, p. xvii)

   7) The Central Task of Philosophy

   What can philosophy contribute to solving the problem of the relation [of] mind to body? Twenty years ago, many English-speaking philosophers would have answered: "Nothing beyond an analysis of the various mental concepts." If we seek knowledge of things, they thought, it is to science that we must turn. Philosophy can only cast light upon our concepts of those things.

   This retreat from things to concepts was not undertaken lightly. Ever since the seventeenth century, the great intellectual fact of our culture has been the incredible expansion of knowledge both in the natural and in the rational sciences (mathematics, logic).

   The success of science created a crisis in philosophy. What was there for philosophy to do? Hume had already perceived the problem in some degree, and so surely did Kant, but it was not until the twentieth century, with the Vienna Circle and with Wittgenstein, that the difficulty began to weigh heavily. Wittgenstein took the view that philosophy could do no more than strive to undo the intellectual knots it itself had tied, so achieving intellectual release, and even a certain illumination, but no knowledge. A little later, and more optimistically, Ryle saw a positive, if reduced role, for philosophy in mapping the "logical geography" of our concepts: how they stood to each other and how they were to be analyzed....

   Since that time, however, philosophers in the "analytic" tradition have swung back from Wittgensteinian and even Rylean pessimism to a more traditional conception of the proper role and tasks of philosophy. Many analytic philosophers now would accept the view that the central task of philosophy is to give an account, or at least play a part in giving an account, of the most general nature of things and of man. (Armstrong, 1990, pp. 37-38)

   8) Philosophy's Evolving Engagement with Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science

   In the beginning, the nature of philosophy's engagement with artificial intelligence and cognitive science was clear enough. The new sciences of the mind were to provide the long-awaited vindication of the most potent dreams of naturalism and materialism. Mind would at last be located firmly within the natural order. We would see in detail how the most perplexing features of the mental realm could be supported by the operations of solely physical laws upon solely physical stuff. Mental causation (the power of, e.g., a belief to cause an action) would emerge as just another species of physical causation. Reasoning would be understood as a kind of automated theorem proving. And the key to both was to be the depiction of the brain as the implementation of multiple higher level programs whose task was to manipulate and transform symbols or representations: inner items with one foot in the physical (they were realized as brain states) and one in the mental (they were bearers of contents, and their physical gymnastics were cleverly designed to respect semantic relationships such as truth preservation). (A. Clark, 1996, p. 1)

   9) The Enduring Value of Philosophy

   Socrates of Athens famously declared that "the unexamined life is not worth living," and his motto aptly explains the impulse to philosophize. Taking nothing for granted, philosophy probes and questions the fundamental presuppositions of every area of human inquiry.... [P]art of the job of the philosopher is to keep at a certain critical distance from current doctrines, whether in the sciences or the arts, and to examine instead how the various elements in our world-view clash, or fit together. Some philosophers have tried to incorporate the results of these inquiries into a grand synoptic view of the nature of reality and our human relationship to it. Others have mistrusted system-building, and seen their primary role as one of clarifications, or the removal of obstacles along the road to truth. But all have shared the Socratic vision of using the human intellect to challenge comfortable preconceptions, insisting that every aspect of human theory and practice be subjected to continuing critical scrutiny....

   Philosophy is, of course, part of a continuing tradition, and there is much to be gained from seeing how that tradition originated and developed. But the principal object of studying the materials in this book is not to pay homage to past genius, but to enrich one's understanding of central problems that are as pressing today as they have always been-problems about knowledge, truth and reality, the nature of the mind, the basis of right action, and the best way to live. These questions help to mark out the territory of philosophy as an academic discipline, but in a wider sense they define the human predicament itself; they will surely continue to be with us for as long as humanity endures. (Cottingham, 1996, pp. xxi-xxii)

    10) The Distinction between Dionysian Man and Apollonian Man, between Art and Creativity and Reason and Self- Control

   In his study of ancient Greek culture, The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche drew what would become a famous distinction, between the Dionysian spirit, the untamed spirit of art and creativity, and the Apollonian, that of reason and self-control. The story of Greek civilization, and all civilizations, Nietzsche implied, was the gradual victory of Apollonian man, with his desire for control over nature and himself, over Dionysian man, who survives only in myth, poetry, music, and drama. Socrates and Plato had attacked the illusions of art as unreal, and had overturned the delicate cultural balance by valuing only man's critical, rational, and controlling consciousness while denigrating his vital life instincts as irrational and base. The result of this division is "Alexandrian man," the civilized and accomplished Greek citizen of the later ancient world, who is "equipped with the greatest forces of knowledge" but in whom the wellsprings of creativity have dried up. (Herman, 1997, pp. 95-96)

σάρξ, σαρκός, ἡ (Hom.+; ‘flesh’).

① the material that covers the bones of a human or animal body, flesh lit. 1 Cor 15:39abcd; Hv 3, 10, 4; 3, 12, 1. The pl. (which denotes flesh in the mass [Lucian, Dial. Mort. 10, 5], whereas the sing. rather denotes the substance.—Herodas 4, 61; Gen 40:19; 1 Km 17:44; 4 Km 9:36; PsSol 4:19; TestJob 13:5; Philo; Jos., Ant. 12, 211; Just., A I, 26, 7; Mel., P. 52, 383; Ath. 34, 2) Lk 24:39 v.l.; Rv 19:18, 21 (4 [6] Esdr [POxy 1010, 16] cannibalism out of hunger, sim. Mel., P. 52, 383; Quint. Smyrn. 11, 245: the σάρκες of the slain are food for the birds) B 10:4; metaph. Rv 17:16. It decays 1 Cl 25:3; cp. Ac 2:31 (cp. 2a below). Normally gives forth an evil odor when burned MPol 15:2. W. bones (s. ὀστέον) 1 Cl 6:3 (Gen 2:23); Lk 24:39; Eph 5:30 v.l. (metaph.). Paul speaks of his illness as a σκόλοψ τῇ σαρκί (s. σκόλοψ) 2 Cor 12:7. ἡ ἐν σαρκὶ περιτομή the physical circumcision (cp. Just., D. 10, 1 al.) Ro 2:28; cp. Eph 2:11b; Col 2:13 (ἀκροβυστία 2); Gal 6:13 (ἡ σάρξ=the flesh that is circumcised); B 9:4. Metaph.: the corrosion on the precious metals of the rich φάγεται τὰς σάρκας ὑμῶν ὡς πῦρ Js 5:3.—Ign. describes the elements of the Eucharist as σὰρξ (or αἷμα) Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ IRo 7:3; IPhld 4; ISm 7:1. Also J 6:51–56 urges that one must eat the flesh (and drink the blood) of the Human One or Son of Man (Just., A I, 66, 2; s. TPhilips, Die Verheissung der hl. Eucharistie nach Joh. 1922; Bultmann ad loc.; AWikenhauser ’48, 105f).—His anti-Docetic position also leads Ign. to use the concept ‘flesh (and blood) of Christ’ in other contexts as well ITr 8:1; IPhld 5:1.—For Mt 16:17; Gal 1:16; Eph 6:12; and 1 Cor 15:50 s. 3a.

② the physical body as functioning entity, body, physical body

ⓐ as substance and living entity (Aeschyl., Sept. 622: opp. νοῦς; Ex 30:32; 4 Km 6:30; TestAbr A 20 p. 103, 6 [Stone p. 54] πάντα τὰ μέλη τῆς σαρκός μου; w. καρδία or ψυχή Alex. Aphr., An. p. 98, 7–10 Br.; Ps 37:8; 62:2; Eccl 2:3; Ezk 11:19; 44:7 a1.; Jos., Bell. 6, 47, Ant. 19, 325; Ar.15, 7) οὔτε ἡ σὰρξ αὐτοῦ εἶδεν διαφθοράν Ac 2:31 (but s. 1). W. ψυχή 1 Cl 49:6 (Tat. 13:2 al.). W. καρδία Ac 2:26 (Ps 15:9).—Eph 5:29. ἑόρακαν τὸ πρόσωπόν μου ἐν σαρκί they have seen me face to face Col 2:1. ἕως ἂν τὸν χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἴδῃ before he had seen the Messiah in person GJs 24:4 (cp. Lk 2:26). Opp. πνεῦμα (Ath. 31:3; PGM 5, 460 ἐπικαλοῦμαί σε τὸν κτίσαντα πᾶσαν σάρκα κ. πᾶν πνεῦμα) 1 Cor 5:5; 2 Cor 7:1; Col 2:5; 1 Pt 4:6; Hm 3:1; 10, 2, 6; cp. AcPl Ant 13:17 (=Aa, I 237, 2; s. οἶδα); also in relation to Christ (though this is disputed) J 6:63; Hs 5, 6, 5–7; cp. 1 Ti 3:16.—ἀσθένεια τῆς σαρκός bodily ailment Gal 4:13; s. vs. 14. ἀσθενὴς τῇ σαρκί weak in the body Hs 9, 1, 2. ὁ ἀλγῶν σάρκα the one who is ill in body B 8:6. πάσχειν σαρκί 1 Pt 4:1b. Cp. 2 Cor 7:5. ἡ τῆς σαρκὸς καθαρότης the purity of the body Hb 9:13 (opp. καθαρίζειν τὴν συνείδησιν vs. 14). σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου 1 Pt 3:21 (s. ῥύπος 1). The σάρξ is raised fr. the dead (s. ParJer 6:9; Theoph. Ant. 1, 7 [74, 2]) 1 Cl 26:3; 2 Cl 9:1. ἀνάστασις σαρκός AcPlCor 1:12; 2:24 (σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν Just., D. 80, 5); cp. ἀναστήσεσθε ἔχοντες ὑγιῆ τὴν σάρκα AcPlCor 2:32. Of the body of Christ during his earthly ministry Eph 2:14 (JHart, The Enmity in His Flesh: Exp. 6th ser., 3, 1901, 135–41); Hb 10:20; 1 Pt 3:18; 4:1a; 1J 4:2; 2J 7; B 5:1, 10f; 6:7, 9; 7:5; 12:10; IEph 7:2; Pol 7:1; AcPlCor 2:6b. Married couples form μία σάρξ (Gen 2:24; s. Ath. 33, 2 τὴν σάρκα πρὸς σάρκα … κοινωνίαν.—GAicher, Mann u. Weib ein Fleisch: BZ 5, 1907, 159–65) Mt 19:5f; Mk 10:8ab; 1 Cor 6:16; Eph 5:31 (on these passages, TBurkill, ZNW 62, ’71, 115–20). δικαιώματα σαρκός behind ‘all sorts of ceremonial washings’ there are regulations that concern the physical body Hb 9:10.—On ὑποτάγητε τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ ὡς ὁ Χριστὸς τῷ πατρὶ κατὰ σάρκα IMg 13:2 s. Hdb. ad loc. and MRackl, Die Christologie des hl. Ignatius v. Ant. 1914, 228.—πνεῦμα δυνάμεως … ὁ θεὸς … κατέπεμψεν εἰς σάρκα τουτέστιν εἰς τὴν Μαρίαν God sent a powerful spirit (prob. a ref. to the kind of divine breath that brought the first human being to life [Gen 2:7]) into flesh, that is, into Mary AcPl Ha 8, 26=BMM recto 34; s. AcPlCor 1:14.

ⓑ as someth. with physical limitations, life here on earth (ApcEsdr 4:4 p. 28, 3 Tdf. σάρκα ἀνθρωπίνην φορῶ) θλῖψιν τῇ σαρκὶ ἕξουσιν 1 Cor 7:28. Cp. 2 Cor 4:11; Col 1:24. Of Christ τὸ σῶμα τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ his body with its physical limitations Col 1:22; cp. 2:11 and s. cα below (cp. En 102:5 τὸ σῶμα τῆς σαρκὸς ὑμῶν; 1QpHab 9:2; Orig., C. Cels. 6, 29, 25).—Of human life: ἀποδημεῖν τῆς σαρκός MPol 2:2 (s. ἀποδημέω). ἐπιμένειν ἐν τῇ σαρκί Phil 1:24. ζῆν ἐν σαρκί vs. 22; Gal 2:20. ἐν ς. περιπατεῖν 2 Cor 10:3a. ἐν ς. τυγχάνειν Dg 5:8a. ὄντος ἔτι ἐν ς. σου AcPlCor 1:6. τὸν ἐπίλοιπον ἐν ς. χρόνον 1 Pt 4:2. ἡ ἐπιδημία τῆς σαρκὸς ταύτης our sojourn in life 2 Cl 5:5. ἐν τῇ σαρκί in our earthly life 8:2.

ⓒ as instrument of various actions or expressions.

α. In Paul’s thought esp., all parts of the body constitute a totality known as ς. or flesh, which is dominated by sin to such a degree that wherever flesh is, all forms of sin are likew. present, and no good thing can live in the σάρξ Ro 7:18 (cp. Philo, Gig. 29 αἴτιον δὲ τῆς ἀνεπιστημοσύνης μέγιστον ἡ σὰρξ καὶ ἡ πρὸς σάρκα οἰκείωσις; Sextus 317 ἀγαθὸν ἐν σαρκὶ μὴ ἐπιζήτει. The OT lays no stress on a necessary relationship betw. flesh as a substance, and sin. But for Epicurus the σάρξ is the bearer of sinful feelings and desires as well as the means of sensual enjoyment: Ep. in Plut., Mor. 135c; 1087bf; 1089e; 1096c αἱ τῆς σαρκὸς ἐπιθυμίαι. Also Diog. L. 10, 145. Likew. Plut. himself: Mor. 101b ταῖς τῆς σαρκὸς ἡδοναῖς; 672e; 688d; 734a; Ps.-Plut., Mor. 107f σαρκὶ καὶ τοῖς πάθεσι ταύτης; Maximus Tyr. 33, 7a. Cp. 4 Macc 7:18 τὰ τῆς σαρκὸς πάθη; Philo, Deus Imm. 143 σαρκὸς ἡδονή, Gig. 29; TestJud 19:4; TestZeb 9:7; ApcMos 25 [p. 14, 2 Tdf.] εἰς τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τῆς σαρκός); Ro 6:19; 7:25 (opp. νοῦς); 8:3a, 4–9 (cp. Persius 2, 63 scelerata pulpa, which contaminates devotion to deity), 12f; Gal 5:13, 24; Col 2:23; Jd 23; AcPlCor 2:11, 15; Dg 6:5 (opp. ψυχή, as Plut., Mor. 101b). Opp. τὸ πνεῦμα Ro 8:4, 5, 6, 9, 13; Gal 3:3; 5:16, 17ab; 6:8ab; J 3:6; B 10:9. τὸ μὲν πνεῦμα πρόθυμον, ἡ δὲ σὰρξ ἀσθενής (cp. Orig., C. Cels. 2, 25, 8) Mt 26:41; Mk 14:38; Pol 7:2. σὰρξ ἁμαρτίας sinful flesh Ro 8:3b. ἐπιθυμία (τῆς) σαρκός (cp. Maximus Tyr. 20, 9f σαρκῶν … ἐπιθυμίας) Gal 5:16; 1J 2:16; B 10:9. Pl. Eph 2:3a, cp. b; 2 Pt 2:18; cp. Ro 13:14. τὰ ἔργα τῆς σαρκός Gal 5:19 (s. Vögtle at πλεονεξία). τὰ θελήματα τῆς σαρκός Eph 2:3b. ὁ νοῦς τῆς σαρκός Col 2:18. τὸ σῶμα τῆς σαρκός the body of (sinful) flesh 2:11; cp. 1:22 and s. b above (cp. Sir 23:17 σῶμα σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ; En 102:5 τῷ σώματι τῆς σαρκὸς ὑμῶν). τὰ τῆς σαρκός what pertains to (sinful) flesh Ro 8:5b. ἐν (τῇ) σαρκὶ εἶναι be in an unregenerate (and sinful) state Ro 7:5; 8:8f. τὰ ἔθνη ἐν σαρκί Eph 2:11a. κατὰ σάρκα εἶναι Ro 8:5a; ζῆν vs. 12b; 13; Dg 5:8b; περιπατεῖν Ro 8:4; 2 Cor 10:2; βουλεύεσθαι 1:17; στρατεύεσθαι 10:3b; cp. IRo 8:3 (opp. κατὰ γνώμην θεοῦ).

β. source of the sexual urge. The σάρξ is the source of the sexual urge, without any suggestion of sinfulness connected w. it ἐκ θελήματος σαρκὸς ἐγεννήθησαν J 1:13.

ⓓ as someth. attractive 2 Pt 2:10 (a Hebraism, cp. Judg 2:12; 3 Km 11:10; Sir 46:10). S. also 3b.

③ one who is or becomes a physical being, living being with flesh

ⓐ of humans person, human being: πᾶσα σάρξ every person, everyone (LXX; TestAbr B 7 p. 112, 3 [Stone p. 72]; GrBar 4:10; ApcEsdr 7:7; ApcMos 13 [p. 7, 1 Tdf.]; Mel., P. 55, 400: for כָּל-בָּשָׂר; s. πᾶς 1aα) Lk 3:6 (Is 40:5); J 17:2; Ac 2:17 (Jo 3:1); 1 Pt 1:24 (Is 40:6); 1 Cl 59:3; 64; 2 Cl 7:6; 17:5 (the last two Is 66:24); AcPlCor 2:6a. οὐ πᾶσα σάρξ no person, nobody (En 14:21 end.—W-S. §26, 10a; B-D-F §275, 4; 302, 1; Rob. 752) Mt 24:22; Mk 13:20; Ro 3:20 (cp. Ps 142:2 πᾶς ζῶν); 1 Cor 1:29 (μή); Gal 2:16.—Though ς. in the foll. passages refers to body in its physical aspect, it cannot be divorced from its conjunction with αἷμα, and the unit σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα (cp. Sir 17:31; TestAbr B 13 p. 117, 26 [Stone p. 82]; Philo, Quis Div. Rer. Her. 57; Just., D. 135, 6) refers to a human being in contrast to God and other transcendent beings Mt 16:17; Gal 1:16; Eph 6:12 (here vice versa, αἷ. καὶ ς.). τὰ παιδία κεκοινώνηκεν αἵματος καὶ σαρκός the children share mortal nature Hb 2:14, but with suggestion of its frailty, as indicated by the context with its ref. to death. Because they are the opposites of the divine nature σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονομῆσαι οὐ δύναται 1 Cor 15:50 (JJeremias, NTS 2, ’56, 151–59). For Jd 7 s. b next. Cp. AcPl Ant 13, 17 (=Aa I 237, 2) σαρκί personally (s. οἶδα 2).

ⓑ of transcendent entities ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο J 1:14 (RSeeberg, Festgabe AvHarnack dargebracht 1921, 263–81.—Artem. 2, 35 p. 132, 27 ἐὰν σάρκινοι οἱ θεοὶ φαίνωνται; Synes., Dio 6 p. 45b).—Of flesh other than human: ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας after another kind of flesh (cp. Judg 2:12 ὀπίσω θεῶν ἑτέρων) i.e. of divine messengers who take on ς. when they appear to humans (so Windisch et al.; difft. Frame et al. of same-sex activity) Jd 7.

④ human/ancestral connection, human/mortal nature, earthly descent (Did., Gen. 144, 25) Ἀβραὰμ τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν κατὰ σάρκα Ro 4:1 (Just., D. 43, 7 al.). οἱ συγγενεῖς μου κατὰ σάρκα 9:3. τοὺς τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν πατέρας Hb 12:9. τὸν Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα the earthly Israel 1 Cor 10:18 (opp. τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ Gal 6:16). Of natural descent τὰ τέκνα τῆς σαρκός children by natural descent Ro 9:8 (opp. τὰ τέκνα τῆς ἐπαγγελίας). ὁ μὲν ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης κατὰ σάρκα γεγέννηται Gal 4:23; cp. vs. 29. μου τὴν σάρκα my compatriots Ro 11:14 (s. Gen 37:27).—Of Christ’s physical nature Ro 8:3c; Hb 5:7. Christ is descended fr. the patriarchs and fr. David (τὸ) κατὰ σάρκα according to the human side of his nature, as far as his physical descent is concerned Ro 1:3 (JDunn, Jesus: Flesh and Spirit [Ro 1:3f], JTS 24, ’73, 40–68); 9:5; 1 Cl 32:2; IEph 20:2. The context of 2 Cor 11:18 includes ancestry as a reason for boasting, but ς. in this pass. applies as well to other aspects of Paul’s career and therefore belongs more properly in 5.

⑤ the outward side of life as determined by normal perspectives or standards, a transf. sense of 1 and 2. Usually w. κατά indicating norm or standard σοφοὶ κατὰ σάρκα wise (people) according to human standards 1 Cor 1:26. καυχᾶσθαι κατὰ (τὴν) σάρκα boast of one’s outward circumstances, i.e. descent, manner of life, etc. (cp. 11:22) 2 Cor 11:18. κατὰ σάρκα Χριστόν Christ (the Messiah) from a human point of view or as far as externals are concerned 5:16b, cp. a (κατά B5bβ and 7a; also VWeber, BZ 2, 1904, 178–88; HWindisch, exc. ad loc.; Rtzst., Mysterienrel.³, 374–76; FPorter, Does Paul Claim to Have Known the Historical Jesus [2 Cor 5:16]?: JBL 47, 1928, 257–75; RMoxon, CQR 108, 1929, 320–28). οἱ κατὰ σάρκα κύριοι those who, according to human standards, are masters Eph 6:5; Col 3:22. ὑμεῖς κατὰ τὴν ς. κρίνετε you judge by outward things, by externals J 8:15. Of the route taken in one’s earthly life ἡ ὁδὸς ἡ κατὰ σάρκα IRo 9:3.—ἐν σαρκὶ πεποιθέναι place one’s trust in earthly things or physical advantages Phil 3:3f. εὐπροσωπῆσαι ἐν σαρκί Gal 6:12. Onesimus is a beloved brother to Philemon καὶ ἐν σαρκὶ καὶ ἐν κυρίῳ both as a human being (=personally, in the external relationship betw. master and slave) and as a Christian Phlm 16. ὑμῶν δὲ ἐν σαρκὶ ἐπισκόπῳ IEph 1:3 (cp. IMg 3:2).—HWindisch, Taufe u. Sünde 1908; EBurton, ICC Gal. 1920, 492–95; WSchauf, Sarx 1924; WBieder, Auferstehung des Fleisches od. des Leibes?: TZ 1, ’45, 105–20. W. special ref. to Paul: Ltzm., Hdb. exc. on Ro 7:14 and 8:11; Lohmeyer (ἁμαρτία 3a); EKäsemann, Leib u. Leib Christi ’33; RGrant, ATR 22, ’40, 199–203; RBultmann, Theologie des NTs ’48, 228–49 (Engl. tr. by KGrobel, ’51 I, 227–59); LMarshall, Challenge of NT Ethics ’47, 267–70; E Schweizer, Die hellenist. Komponente im NT sarx-Begriff: ZNW 48, ’57, 237–53; two in KStendahl, The Scrolls and the NT, ’57: KKuhn, 94–113 and WDavies, 157–82; JPryke, ‘Spirit’ and ‘Flesh’ in Qumran and NT: RevQ 5, ’65, 346–60; DLys, La chair dans l’AT ’67; ASand, D. Begriff ‘Fleisch’ ’67 (Paul); RJewett, Paul’s Anthropological Terms ’71, 49–166. On Ign.: CRichardson, The Christianity of Ign. of Ant. ’35, esp. 49 and 61. S. also the lit. s.v. πνεῦμα, end.—B. 202. DELG. M-M. EDNT. TW. Spicq. Sv.

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.