Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

§17.4 Crucifixus sub Pontio Pilato
The second prediction (Mark 9.31 pars.) appears to be the least developed
of all the versions: 'The son of man is (about) to be handed over into the hands of
men'. 192 Particularly to be noted are the characteristic play of words ('son of
man', 'men'), which presupposes an original Hebrew/Aramaic formulation, 193
the 'divine passive', and the fact that 'handed over into the hands of is a Semitic
construction. 194 The form of the verb expresses a foreboding of imminent destiny
or fate (whether with the mellei, 'about to be', or not). 195 In other words, we have
an Aramaic masal, expressing in bare, proverbial terms the prospect of Jesus' arrest:
'the man is to be handed over to the men'. 196 The basic structure has been
held firm in subsequent retellings, but tradents and story-tellers evidently could
not resist elaborating both the 'handing over' and the 'men' in the light of what
actually happened. Conversely, precisely the bare, aphoristic character of the
core masal, so evidently untouched by such elaborations, points to the probability
that it was Jesus himself who formulated the masal, most likely in explaining
to his disciples why he must go up to Jerusalem.
Several conclusions follow at once. (1) We have one (or more) further instance(s)
where Jesus was remembered as using the form bar ' e nasa, and precisely
form' (Jesus'Predictions ch. 7, as concluded on 200); but in oral tradition analysis the concept
of 'one primitive form' is inappropriate.
192. Goppelt, Theology 1.189: 'This unmistakable riddle went back in all probability to
Jesus himself. This version was also recalled elsewhere within the Passion narrative (Mark
14.41/Matt. 26.45). Hahn suggests that Mark 14.21 indicates a different type of Passion saying,
motivated by the need to demonstrate scriptural fulfilment ('the son of man goes as it is written
concerning him'), and traces both 9.31/14.41 and 14.21 back to Palestinian community tradition
(Hoheitstitel 46-53; Titles 37-42; cf. Tödt, Son of Man 201). Lindars (Jesus 74-76) and
Casey ('General, Generic and Indefinite' 40-49) also draw particular attention to Mark 14.21,
but Casey argues that 8.31 brings us closer to what Jesus actually said. For the division of opinion
as to whether 8.31 or 9.31 is 'original' see Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom 392-93
n. 84, who favours the view that each passage contains 'independent traditions of instruction
given on more than one occasion' (238-40 and n. 85).
193. See above, §16.4b.
194. See above, chapter 15 n. 86.
195. Jeremias suggests an underlying Aramaic participle to denote the near future (Proclamation
281 and n. 2). Several have pointed out (e.g., Tödt, Son of Man 188) that the simple future
tense of Dan. 2.28 ('what will be in the latter days') is rendered in the LXX with a dei formulation
('what must happen at the end of days') — as in the first Passion prediction (Mark 8.31
pars.). Beasley-Murray adds Lev. 5.17 and Isa. 30.29 (Jesus and the Kingdom 238-39).
196. Jeremias, Proclamation 281-82 (suggesting Aramaic mitmfsar bar "nasa lide b"ne
v nasa); Hampel, Menschensohn 296-302, who notes the parallel form in T. Abr. A 13.3 ('Every
man is judged by man', pas anthröpos ex anthröpou krinetai). Lindars argues for the form 'a man
may be delivered up ...' (Jesus 63, 68-69); criticized by Casey, 'General, Generic and Indefinite'
40, but Casey in turns strives unnecessarily to give the 'son of man' a general reference (43-46).
See also Bayer, Jesus' Predictions 169-71,178-81. Pursuant to his main thesis, Caragounis argues
that the elements of the fuller sayings can be derived directly from Daniel (Son of Man 197-200).
801