Mk32*«>.
Mt 12SI.
Mt 1233.
Lk 1210.
• All sins and
Even' sin and
And whoso speaketh a word
And every one who shall speak
blasphenues
blasphemy
a word
shall to the sons of mtn
shall unto men
against the son ofman^
against the son o/marif
be forgiven.
be forgiven;
it shall be forgiven him ;
it shall be forgiven him ;
wherewithsoever they
blaspheme :
29 But whoso blasphemeth
but the blasphemy
but whoso speaketh
but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Spirit
against the Holy Spirit
of the Spirit
o^inst the lioiy Spirit,
hath not forgiveness
aball not be forgiven.
It shall not be forgiven him.
it shall not be forgiven.
for ever (f*f tov aei v*«X
neither in this age {ettan)
but is guilty of
nor in that which is to
an eternal sin.
come.
80 Because lliev said. He
hath an unclean spirit
Here Mt 12"- '" certainly wear the appearance of being duplicate versions of one and the same say- ing, V." agreeing with Mk 3'^', and v.^' with Lk 12'" ; and the contrast expressed in Mk 3-*'- Mt 12" between ' men ' in general and the Holy Sjarit becoming in Mt 12'- Lk 12'" on.> between the ' Son of man ' and the H<dy Spirit. It is not diflicult to understand how these du|)licates might have arisen out of dillercnt recensions of the original saying, of which one read koi 'h ('men'), and the other ei t2 ('a man,' — intended in a general sense). t Accordinf; to Wellli. the version in Mk 3^ Mt 12" is the original, the contrast (as Mk 3*' shows) being brtween blasphemy against men and blas-
Shemy against the Holy Spirit [cf. 1 S 2'-^ KV] ; esus, therefore, if this view be correct, never declared blasphemy against Him.self to be pardon- able. Schmiedel, in his acute discussion of these passages, replies that although no doubt Mark, as a rule, has the greater originality than Matthew, that is not the ease universiilly [cf. vol. ii. p. 241'] ; and in the jire.sent instance the words of Jesus in Matthew 12'^ = Lk 12'° (in which He distiyiguishes
' Meyer, p. 63; Lietzm. p. 89 ». ; Wellli. p. MS: cX. Holtnu. p. 25«. t The tabular arranj^einenC la Schmiedel't (p. 808X J LicUm. p. 87-89 ; Wellh. p. 203 1
It is thus applied to Him not only with reference to events in His life on earth as a man, but also with reference to His jire-existence with God.* The uniquene.ss of the ' Son of man ' consists in His having ' come down from heaven ' (3"), whither also He will return again (6^), and in virtue of which those who 'work' that they may apjiro- priate Him, and who further eat His flesh and drink His blood, have eternal life (e"-"", cf. yy w). 61. 6») AVhile on earth. He remains in con- stant spiritual intercourse with His I'^ather in Heaven, as those whose eyes are oiiencd may see by His life and works (1"). He will be ' lifted up' on the cross in order that those who believe in Him may have eternal life (3'"), and that men may perceive who He is (8'^) ; and His ap- proaching death is the hour of His glorilieation (1023 i33i)_ The multitude understood Him to claim to be the Messiah ; and ask (12**) to have it ex- plained to them how, if the Son of man is thus to be ' lifted up,' He can be the Messiah w ho ia to 'abide for ever' (as head, viz., of an earthly kingdom). In 9", according to the reading of {<I!1), the unique position occujiied by the 'Soil of man ' is attested by the impc rtance attached to
* In connexion with our Lord's future Adveol, it ii not uMd at all ia St. John.
SONG OF SONGS
SONG OF SONGS
58S
beli-f in Hira.* Cf., lurther, Holtzra. ii. 426-30; Weiss, § 144c.
24. LlTERATUEB.— Holtzmann, NT Thtot. (1897), i. 240-64, is Indispensable for all further study of the subject : it is, un- fortunately, not very clearly written, the writer's literary method leaving it sometimes uncertain how (ar he identities himself with the alternative views stated :— Reuss, TMoL Chrit. 1860, tr. i. 197-20<i (as realizing the moral ideal of humanity), ii. 410, 412 : Weiss. 1S84 (above, § 17) ; Baldensper^er, 11888, -W.ri (above, { 20. VI); Holsten, 1891 (} 2a 11); .S-amlay. Expos. Jan. 1891, 18-3i (crit. of Carpenter, { 20. 10) ; RirtUt. 1892 (§ 20. 13) ; Charles, If'OJt of Enoch, 1893, 312-17 ; Oort, lSi)3(§ 8 emf) ; WeUh. Itr. u. JM. Gach. 11894, 312, 21895. 340, 31897,381 ; Eerdmans, 1894-6 (S a 2); N. Schmidt, JBL 1896, 36-63, 'Was KPJ 12 a Mess. Title?' [Answer, No, on grounds of Aram, usage]; A. Mever, ISi^B (§ 8. 4); Lietzmann, 1896 ({ 8. 6) Ipp. 1-29, survey and criticism of previous views); Hilitenfcld, 1897 ({ 10 n.); Nestle, Kxpoa. Times, Feb. 1900, p. 2;« (on I's SO"" 18 L.\.\ (where, however, «» ui rau at. does not occur]) ; Schmiedel, Prot. ilonalsht^U, 1S9S,H. 77262-67, H. 8, 291-308 (crit. of .Meyer, Lietzm., and Wellh. Gencli.); Lietzmann, Theul. Arbciten aim dtinHhein. Wins. Pred.-Verein, 1898,11. 2, 1-14 (reply tx) llil^ren- feld and Schmiedel) ; Dalman, 1898 ({ 20. 14) ; Wellh. .^kizzeii u. Vorarbfiten, 1S99, 1S7-21.'), and v, vi ; Klopper, Z. Wise. Tk. 1899,161-86; Gunkel, 1899 (§20. 16); Homnicl, Expos. Timrs, Slay 1900, 341-."^ (develops Gunkel's view, and traces title back to the Bab. Adapa); Fialdensperger, I'htol. Ruiulschau, June 1900, 201-10, July 1900, 243-5.^ (survey of recent discussion); J. Drunmiond, Joum. o.f Thfol. Studies, Apr. and July 1901, lor the loan of which in MS the writer of the preceding article is (fre.itly indel)te<l to the author; Fiel>ig, Der MeiiKclu'mohn, 19 ■! [.ii>pcared since thig art. was in type. Impartial and inde- pendent : very clear and thorough, esp. on the Aramaic side ; thinks the title was a current Mess, one, meaning ' the man,' based on Dn 713, but enlarged and enriched by Jesus and adopted by Ilim because (cf. $ 19) it did not rwcfssarily point to llim- self, and also was not specifically national].