1. Tllli GOSPELS.— {a) Use of the term ' iion of God.' — The use of this term is perhaps more sixiring than we might suppose. And the number of in- stances on which we can really lay stress will be found to shrink .sotnewhat on exannnation.
(i.) Incidental k.vc.s. — Only in the Fourth Gospel (6«» Q" [var. Icct.] 10*« 11') is the title ' Son of God ' used by our Lord expressly of Himself. And although three at least of tne places in which it
572
SOX OF GOD
SON OF GOD
is described as used of Ilim are of salient import- ance, tills is not the case willi others. Instances like Mk 1' (where the readin" is also not quite certain), Jn 3'* 20'" belong to the evangelists, and are therefore evidence lor a later stage of lielief than that of the narrative. And we must allow for the possibility that lo this later .stage are really to be assigned words sueh as those Jiscribed to the Baptist in Jn !*• and to Nathanael in Jn 1<*. Nor can we be too conlident as to the exact wording of the discourses or sayings in Jn 3" 5^ JP [v.l.'] 10-" 11'. St. John, even more than the other evange- lists, was so intensely absorbed in his own belief in the Godhead of Christ that it was natural to him to antedate expressions which really would be ex- ceptional at the time to which they are referred. Even in the First Gospel (Mt 14^ 26"^) the absence of the phrase from the Synoptic parallels must cast some doubt upon its originality.
On the other hand, in the cases of the demoniacs (Mk 3" II 5' il) and of the centurion at the Cross (.Mk 15™ II) the attestation indeed is excellent, but Ave cannot deduce anything very tangible (see below, 3 {n)).
(ii.) St. Peter's Confession. — We cannot be sur- prised if by an application of similar critical methods some scholars {e.c/. Dalman, ]i'orie Jesu, p. 224) should also cancel the phrase in the more important connexion of Mt 16'*. Here, in the version of Matthew, Peter's confession runs: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God ' ; wliere Mark has only, ' Thou art the Christ,' and Luke 'The ChrLst of God.' And no doubt it follows from this that the Marcan document had no more than our present Gospel. Still this passage is not really on all fours with the others that have come before us. For the context clearly proves that Matthew had before him some further tradition, possibly that of the Lonia, but in anj^ case a tradition that has the look of being original. Whether this originality extends to the whole phrase may be more than we could assert posi- tively, but to the present writer it appears to be probable that it does. We should more easily understand the apostolic use of the title 'Son of God ' if there had been precedents for it on im- portant occasions like this, when it is represented as receiving the sanction of Christ Himself. The whole phrase as it stands, including the epithet ' living God,' calls up such a host of OT associa- tions, and at one step sets the confession so conspicuously in its place amid the whole series of biblical revelations, that we may be loth to let it go.
(iii.) The voice from heaven at the Baptism and Transfiguration. — The next two places that we have to deal with are encircled, like the last, with critical considerations. It may be well first to state the textual facts, so that the reader may have the evidence fully before him.
a. The textual question. —
Thi Baptism :—
Mt 3'7 z^'i ;2oy taiti; ix raiw avfietfSi \iytvrx' OZrit im» i tilie
U.6V 0 0tyatTyiT6! i* M liiexr.fx. Mk f lULi ^*>i vt rit tipx*Mf' Su |7 « Mfr. fiau i iyttrttric , i>
Lk 3-'' . . . futi Cftivr* i£ ovfxftu ylyifffjtu' Sv |7 4 viil fi4u i
2w ir, «.T.x. codd. (ircEC. et vera. (inc. Sjt. Bin.)/ere omn. Tit; fjt«ij it cOi.-^' otyctMrtToi, Clem. Alex.), iyii ri,pup9^ yly\fty\tti. n,
Dabcff2» 1 r. Banc lectionem t^iuui evangelicam agnoscunt (nisi pgalmum
aticuiii respiciani). Just. Mart., Clem. Alex., Method.,
Juvenc, TycOD., Aug. Babet etiatn, Ev. Gbioait. ap.
Epiph. 1/2.
The Transfioukation : —
Mt 17^ Juci i'34v $«r*ti f« f^ tlfl'Xqr Xiytvrtt' Ouref irrjr i uiit Mk 0^ JMci iyt*%r* ^tv •« rijt n^iX%t' OZrit ifrif i yiit ftau i
Lk 9^ xvi ^tntj iyivSTO ix r-^; vifiXtiC kiyavr:^' OZrif im* <
vUt fjuu 6 xxklXlyfiiyotf etCrau etxo'Jtrl. We may also compare Ac 133^ . . . itta.ffrr.rat 'ItiVoZt^ ie xttiu
xu ^J'aAUA« yiyfe^TTau VM ilvTipw {v.i. I* Tw vpaiToi ■^ctXu.Z yiyp.)' Tiot /^u ii rC, lyot ffr.u.ifiot ytyiiifiX^ n. Cf. He 1^ 5^.
The main question here is as to the reading of Lk 3— ; iyM ffy.utpor ytyiKfr.xa tri is clearly Wtslern, with strong Latin sup. port, though even here the whole family is not included, e I poin;; the other way ; the absence of Syriac evidence is also unportant. The natural inference would be that the reading, although, no doubt, very ancient, was not really primitive. And when we think how strong the temptation would be to assimi- late the text of the Gospel to that of the psalm, and how readily this latter text would fall in with ideas that are known to have been current in the 2nd cent., the presumption against ita originality is increased. In any case Luke is the only Gospel affected. The agreement of Matthew and Mark is sutticient guarantee that the reading found in them was found also in the common S^Tiop. document. Luke can at most represent only a separate tradition, which hardly in this instance carries with it so much weight as the others.