There seems to exist a relatively common opinion about the apocalyptic circles in Judaism, which Dr Russell in his book on Jewish apocalyptic expresses in these words: ‘In answer to the prophets’ cry ‘How long, O Lord, how long?’, the apocalyptists gave the year, the day and the hour'. And in his classical study, Die Eschatologie der jüdischen Gemeinde, P. Volz stated: ‘Die zahlenmässige Berechnung des Weltendes ist vor allem das characteristische Geschäft des Apokalyptikers.’

Vor fast 100 Jahren setzten B. F. Westcott und F. J. A. Hort in ihrer kritischen Ausgabe des griechischen Neuen Testaments den Text von Luk. xxii. 19b, 20 (τò ὑπ⋯ρ ὑμ⋯ν…⋯κχυννóμενον) in doppelte Klammern, und Hort erklärte im Appendix unmißverständlich und mit guten Gründen, vv. 19b, 20 sei eine Interpolation. Seitdem gibt es die Problematik von Kurztext (vv. 17–19 a) und Langtext (vv. 17–20). Denn diese textkritische Entscheidung für den nur schlecht bezeugten Kurztext und gegen den aus-gezeichnet belegten Langtext war nicht nur die kühne Lösung eines komplizierten Textproblems, sondern zugleich ein tiefer Eingriff in die Überlieferung vom letzten Mahl Jesu..

Because the term θεóς is used so infrequently of Jesus in the New Testament, it is not surprising to find that there are relatively few discussions of it as a christological title. However, it may be of value to investigate the way in which the Fourth Gospel speaks of Jesus as ‘God’ since its usage differs somewhat from that of the rest of the New Testament. First, the extent to which the New Testament describes Jesus as God will be surveyed, and this will be contrasted in general terms with the approach of the Fourth Evangelist. Then the passages in the Fourth Gospel which may call Jesus ‘God’ will be examined in more detail, and an attempt will be made to establish the way in which this designation is used by the evangelist. Next it will be asked how the distinctive usage of the Fourth Gospel came to be adopted. Finally the view that the word θεóς expresses a functional christology will be considered.

In 1972 Ragnar Leivestad published an article under the title ‘Exit the Apocalyptic Son of Man’. Since then we must assume that the Son of Man has been off stage for a while. Leivestad himself evidently hoped that he had been banished from the boards altogether. He has indeed received encouragement in this hope from the work of Geza Vermes, who has reached rather similar conclusions. There has been a growing feeling among scholars that the perennial debate about the Son of Man can never be brought to a convincing conclusion, because it has been conducted all along on false pre-suppositions. It was assumed that ‘the Son of Man’ was current in the Judaism of New Testament times as the title of a distinct figure of apocalyptic expectation, who should be the victor in the coming eschatological struggle and glorified as the head of the messianic kingdom.