roman theology

(систематическое изложение, обоснование и защита учения о Боге, Его свойствах, качествах, признаках; комплекс доказательств истинности догматики, религ. нравственности, правил и норм жизни верующих и духовенства; тж. теология) theology, theologics, divinity, сокр. theol

1) Religion: liberation theology (In late 20th-century Roman Catholicism, a movement centred in Latin America that sought to apply religious faith by aiding the poor and oppressed through involvement in political and civic affairs)

2) Christianity: liberation theology

• Outside the Church [ there is] No Salvation. (A phrase of much disputed significance in Roman Catholic theology)

   The Catholic Church and the Catholic religion together represent the oldest and most enduring of all Portuguese institutions. Because its origins as an institution go back at least to the middle of the third century, if not earlier, the Christian and later the Catholic Church is much older than any other Portuguese institution or major cultural influence, including the monarchy (lasting 770 years) or Islam (540 years). Indeed, it is older than Portugal (869 years) itself. The Church, despite its changing doctrine and form, dates to the period when Roman Lusitania was Christianized.

   In its earlier period, the Church played an important role in the creation of an independent Portuguese monarchy, as well as in the colonization and settlement of various regions of the shifting Christian-Muslim frontier as it moved south. Until the rise of absolutist monarchy and central government, the Church dominated all public and private life and provided the only education available, along with the only hospitals and charity institutions. During the Middle Ages and the early stage of the overseas empire, the Church accumulated a great deal of wealth. One historian suggests that, by 1700, one-third of the land in Portugal was owned by the Church. Besides land, Catholic institutions possessed a large number of chapels, churches and cathedrals, capital, and other property.

   Extensive periods of Portuguese history witnessed either conflict or cooperation between the Church as the monarchy increasingly sought to gain direct control of the realm. The monarchy challenged the great power and wealth of the Church, especially after the acquisition of the first overseas empire (1415-1580). When King João III requested the pope to allow Portugal to establish the Inquisition (Holy Office) in the country and the request was finally granted in 1531, royal power, more than religion was the chief concern. The Inquisition acted as a judicial arm of the Catholic Church in order to root out heresies, primarily Judaism and Islam, and later Protestantism. But the Inquisition became an instrument used by the crown to strengthen its power and jurisdiction.

   The Church's power and prestige in governance came under direct attack for the first time under the Marquis of Pombal (1750-77) when, as the king's prime minister, he placed regalism above the Church's interests. In 1759, the Jesuits were expelled from Portugal, although they were allowed to return after Pombal left office. Pombal also harnessed the Inquisition and put in place other anticlerical measures. With the rise of liberalism and the efforts to secularize Portugal after 1820, considerable Church-state conflict occurred. The new liberal state weakened the power and position of the Church in various ways: in 1834, all religious orders were suppressed and their property confiscated both in Portugal and in the empire and, in the 1830s and 1840s, agrarian reform programs confiscated and sold large portions of Church lands. By the 1850s, Church-state relations had improved, various religious orders were allowed to return, and the Church's influence was largely restored. By the late 19th century, Church and state were closely allied again. Church roles in all levels of education were pervasive, and there was a popular Catholic revival under way.

   With the rise of republicanism and the early years of the First Republic, especially from 1910 to 1917, Church-state relations reached a new low. A major tenet of republicanism was anticlericalism and the belief that the Church was as much to blame as the monarchy for the backwardness of Portuguese society. The provisional republican government's 1911 Law of Separation decreed the secularization of public life on a scale unknown in Portugal. Among the new measures that Catholics and the Church opposed were legalization of divorce, appropriation of all Church property by the state, abolition of religious oaths for various posts, suppression of the theology school at Coimbra University, abolition of saints' days as public holidays, abolition of nunneries and expulsion of the Jesuits, closing of seminaries, secularization of all public education, and banning of religious courses in schools.

   After considerable civil strife over the religious question under the republic, President Sidónio Pais restored normal relations with the Holy See and made concessions to the Portuguese Church. Encouraged by the apparitions at Fátima between May and October 1917, which caused a great sensation among the rural people, a strong Catholic reaction to anticlericalism ensued. Backed by various new Catholic organizations such as the "Catholic Youth" and the Academic Center of Christian Democracy (CADC), the Catholic revival influenced government and politics under the Estado Novo. Prime Minister Antônio de Oliveira Salazar was not only a devout Catholic and member of the CADC, but his formative years included nine years in the Viseu Catholic Seminary preparing to be a priest. Under the Estado Novo, Church-state relations greatly improved, and Catholic interests were protected. On the other hand, Salazar's no-risk statism never went so far as to restore to the Church all that had been lost in the 1911 Law of Separation. Most Church property was never returned from state ownership and, while the Church played an important role in public education to 1974, it never recovered the influence in education it had enjoyed before 1911.

   Today, the majority of Portuguese proclaim themselves Catholic, and the enduring nature of the Church as an institution seems apparent everywhere in the country. But there is no longer a monolithic Catholic faith; there is growing diversity of religious choice in the population, which includes an increasing number of Protestant Portuguese as well as a small but growing number of Muslims from the former Portuguese empire. The Muslim community of greater Lisbon erected a Mosque which, ironically, is located near the Spanish Embassy. In the 1990s, Portugal's Catholic Church as an institution appeared to be experiencing a revival of influence. While Church attendance remained low, several Church institutions retained an importance in society that went beyond the walls of the thousands of churches: a popular, flourishing Catholic University; Radio Re-nascenca, the country's most listened to radio station; and a new private television channel owned by the Church. At an international conference in Lisbon in September 2000, the Cardinal Patriarch of Portugal, Dom José Policarpo, formally apologized to the Jewish community of Portugal for the actions of the Inquisition. At the deliberately selected location, the place where that religious institution once held its hearings and trials, Dom Policarpo read a declaration of Catholic guilt and repentance and symbolically embraced three rabbis, apologizing for acts of violence, pressures to convert, suspicions, and denunciation.

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.